Tourney Big Blind Ante can't post his blind and the entire ante (1 Viewer)

[sicilian_joe]

Hey everyone,
My crew is going to a big blind ante for our tournaments and I was wondering what happens if he/she cannot post both the big blind AND the big blind ante because of their short stack?
Thanks so much for your help!!

 

[Psypher1000]

The way the WPT plays it, the player can only win the ante back.

Link here: https://www.worldpokertour.com/live...-las-vegas-season-2018-2019-1c-200-bb100-200/

 

[DaneWoj]

We play it as you pay your BB first then the ante. If your ante is short then that hand the players play w less of an ante.

it’s not player friendly to only let the player win back their 1 big blind. BB first allows the player to maybe win 2-3 more big blinds. This player who’s short is already at such a disadvantage why should we punish them even more?!

 

[sicilian_joe]

We play it as you pay your BB first then the ante. If your ante is short then that hand the players play w less of an ante.

it’s not player friendly to only let the player win back their 1 big blind. BB first allows the player to maybe win 2-3 more big blinds. This player who’s short is already at such a disadvantage why should we punish them even more?!

Yeah, i think that sounds like the right way to go, @DaneWoj ...i just wasn't sure if there was some standard way that i was missing.
Thanks for your help, dude!

 

[sicilian_joe]

The way the WPT plays it, the player can only win the ante back.

Link here: https://www.worldpokertour.com/live...-las-vegas-season-2018-2019-1c-200-bb100-200/

Thanks for posting this link! I couldn't find any links on google but this is helpful. Appreciate it, @Psypher1000

 

[smsguy927]

The TDA recommends ante first. They discussed this at the 2019 summit and ante first was unanimously recommended. My cardroom was BB first but we switched to Ante First in October. Some players complained about this but most are ok with it now. If a short stack has an opportunity to win everyone else's ante, other players should be able to win the short stack's ante when they do not have enough chips for both.

 

[DLManiac]

Apparently WSOP says BB first then Ante

https://www.wsop.com/m/news/?newsID...-ANTE-COMING-TO-2018-WSOP&Year=2018&Month=Apr

 

[Legend5555]

Ante first. While it is less friendly to the player posting the ante, it is more fair to the rest of the table as a whole. If it's BB first, then then the player posting the BB and no ante essentially gets to skip posting an ante at all. Yet, this person is eligible to win the ante from everyone else on the previous/future hands. Thus, BB first creates a situation where more people get "robbed."

It's def a feel bad for the person posting to only be able to win their ante back. But imagine a situation in a normal ante game where a person loses a hand in the SB and is left with about a single round of antes. Once it gets to the point where he is all in for just a single ante, the amount he can win is a round of antes. Which is the same in the BB Ante format posting Ante first; he wins back his ante, which is a round of antes.

Don't forget that this is somewhat balanced by the fact that if they win their ante back, they now have a full round where they can win everyone else's antes+ their current stack if they get all in.

 

[BGinGA]

Just post individual antes, or don't use antes at all. Problem solved.

 

[Marius L]

Just post individual antes, or don't use antes at all. Problem solved.

Having individual antes in a home game setting with drunk/unobservant/fishy players is not the way to go. Can confirm its a nightmare. IMO it's annoying enough in a setting with professional dealers. There's always some donks at the table who never remember to put it out. It's just a huge time sink.

If you want antes I think BB antes is the way to go, but in a home game I much prefer to just do a structure without antes entirely.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Ante first. While it is less friendly to the player posting the ante, it is more fair to the rest of the table as a whole. If it's BB first, then then the player posting the BB and no ante essentially gets to skip posting an ante at all. Yet, this person is eligible to win the ante from everyone else on the previous/future hands. Thus, BB first creates a situation where more people get "robbed."

It's def a feel bad for the person posting to only be able to win their ante back. But imagine a situation in a normal ante game where a person loses a hand in the SB and is left with about a single round of antes. Once it gets to the point where he is all in for just a single ante, the amount he can win is a round of antes. Which is the same in the BB Ante format posting Ante first; he wins back his ante, which is a round of antes.

Don't forget that this is somewhat balanced by the fact that if they win their ante back, they now have a full round where they can win everyone else's antes+ their current stack if they get all in.

This ^ is exactly how I look at it. BB first is just wrong. The shorty owes the table an ante, so pay up! If you then have anything left you may invest.

This is my favorite part:

But imagine a situation in a normal ante game where a person loses a hand in the SB and is left with about a single round of antes. Once it gets to the point where he is all in for just a single ante, the amount he can win is a round of antes. Which is the same in the BB Ante format posting Ante first; he wins back his ante, which is a round of antes.

Since you always have to look at BBA from a "per round" perspective, ante first means you are replicating individual antes better.

Look at it from the opposite perspective: If you want to replicate BB first with individual antes, it would mean that if you are down to 1 BB or less, then you are exempt from paying antes, which I think everyone agrees would be wrong.

However, since this situation very rarely shows up, BB first is not really a dealbreaker for me. Even though it's wrong

 

[JTBass]

I like ante first, I mean if your dumb enough not to get it all in when your stack is between 4-8 BB, then suffer the consequences.

 

[BGinGA]

It's not that BB first is wrong, it's that BBA is wrong in the first damn place. Worst decision in poker ever.

 

[Marius L]

It's not that BB first is wrong, it's that BBA is wrong in the first damn place. Worst decision in poker ever.

Seems poker as a whole is doing pretty damn good then, if this is the worst decision made.

Getting in another five hands an hour in tournaments is more like the best decision in poker if you ask me.

 

[BGinGA]

Getting in another five hands an hour in tournaments is more like the best decision in poker if you ask me.

If it takes you you an extra 10 minutes per hour to collect a round of antes (< 3 seconds per hand, if that), then you have bigger issues to deal with.

BBA creates new problems where there were none, without actually dealing with the 'problem' it supposedly tries to fix (inattentive players and inadequate dealers).

 

[AnteAndy]

Seems poker as a whole is doing pretty damn good then, if this is the worst decision made.

Getting in another five hands an hour in tournaments is more like the best decision in poker if you ask me.

If it takes you you an extra 10 minutes per hour to collect a round of antes (< 3 seconds per hand, if that), then you have bigger issues to deal with.

BBA creates new problems where there were none, without actually dealing with the 'problem' it supposedly tries to fix (inattentive players and inadequate dealers).

I see BBA being created for more convenience in order to play more hands, saving time from collecting chips, and preventing the psychology of seeing your chips slowly bleed away. The event of either Ante or BB first is a rare occurrence where it shouldn't impact of the overall structure of BBA. Everyone I pleayed with agree that Ante first is the most fair choice, as per reasons above.

I threw a league for a season just to get blood into the mix and did the BBA structure just so the tourneys wouldn't go on forever. Plus it was to end the tourney faster and get people into the cash game during/after, which was my ulterior motive to convert them to. And it worked, I might add.

But we all agreed that for the occasional tourneys we'd prefer no Ante, unless we can get a very large tourney crowd, then they agreed to having BBA.

Tried doing regular antes for a bit and they hated it. BBA was more convenient for them, but they still didn't like the idea of Antes altogether.

 

[Marius L]

If it takes you you an extra 10 minutes per hour to collect a round of antes (< 3 seconds per hand, if that), then you have bigger issues to deal with.

BBA creates new problems where there were none, without actually dealing with the 'problem' it supposedly tries to fix (inattentive players and inadequate dealers).

Saying there were no problems with traditional antes in tournaments makes me seriously wonder how many tournaments you have played outside of your home game.

Don't get me wrong, if all the players are used to it/sober/awake/etc it can run pretty smoothly, but this is rarely the case. I believe most poker players are very happy with this change.

Traditional antes are still preferred online obviously, since there the time and management of them is a non-issue.

 

[Legend5555]

I will say though. That for home tournaments with people that generally are not going to be looking at the nitty gritty "fairness" of the situation, it really doesn't matter what you do. I personally think regular antes are annoying as hell to deal with. So I use BBA when I use antes. And the issue of which to post first has never come up.

 

[Frogzilla]

WSOP does big blind first. I personally think ante first is superior but it’s not that different. Either way should be really fine as long as it’s mentioned before the tournament starts. Good on you for planning ahead.

 

[BGinGA]

Saying there were no problems with traditional antes in tournaments makes me seriously wonder how many tournaments you have played outside of your home game.

Plenty, and I've never considered it an issue big enough to require a fucked-up rule change that creates new issues. Maybe it's just a problem in Norway (never played there).

 

[Legend5555]

For those that have not had this discussion with @BGinGA before, let me save you some time. Just don't have the discussion of BBA with him. It's best for everyone.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

In my mind, the first BBA to be posted is "lending" chips to the rest of the table (paying their ante for them). From that person's perspective, ante first is not very fair. For that reason, I'd say BB first is the right way to go (or just no antes at all, as holdem doesn't really need them imho)

 

[BGinGA]

For those that have not had this discussion with @BGinGA before, let me save you some time. Just don't have the discussion of BBA with him. It's best for everyone.

Actually, I don't necessarily disagree with the table ante concept itself (it works great for cash games, especially Stud variants), but I have yet to see a real-world application for tournament play that doesn't also introduce some type of inequity or is otherwise flawed.

Of all those tried so far (including my own version, see below*), none are superior to individual antes (or no antes whatsoever).


* I've found this to be the least offensive table ante approach for tournament play:

• Table ante equal to Big Blind for 7-10 players
• Table ante equal to Small Blind for 3-6 players
• Individual antes (equal to Small blind) for heads-up play
• Table ante posted by Small Blind position
• Small blind posted first before table ante amount

 

[BGinGA]

In my mind, the first BBA to be posted is "lending" chips to the rest of the table (paying their ante for them). From that person's perspective, ante first is not very fair. For that reason, I'd say BB first is the right way to go (or just no antes at all, as holdem doesn't really need them imho)

Exactly. Most proponents seem to forget that the first person posting the BBA is actually fronting the chips to the rest of the table..... and not 'getting a free ride' until it's his turn to post, as most seem to want to portray.

 

[Mr Winberg]

In my mind, the first BBA to be posted is "lending" chips to the rest of the table (paying their ante for them). From that person's perspective, ante first is not very fair. For that reason, I'd say BB first is the right way to go (or just no antes at all, as holdem doesn't really need them imho)

Exactly. Most proponents seem to forget that the first person posting the BBA is actually fronting the chips to the rest of the table..... and not 'getting a free ride' until it's his turn to post, as most seem to want to portray.

But if that same person gets down to one BB when in the BB, and post the BB first (and therefore no ante) and survives, then that person gets a free round at the expense of the rest of the table.

Lets look at the extreme scenario: You manage to be down to one BB each and every time you're in the BB (not very different from when I play, I might add). BB first means you never post an ante! How fair is that?

 

[Mr Winberg]

For those that have not had this discussion with @BGinGA before, let me save you some time. Just don't have the discussion of BBA with him. It's best for everyone.

 

[BGinGA]

But if that same person gets down to one BB when in the BB, and post the BB first (and therefore no ante) and survives, then that person gets a free round at the expense of the rest of the table.

Lets look at the extreme scenario: You manage to be down to one BB each and every time you're in the BB (not very different from when I play, I might add). BB first means you never post an ante! How fair is that?

It's not fair. Neither is the alternative. And exactly why it's a fucked-up rule, no matter how implemented.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Well, I think it's fairer that everyone pays what they owe. After exactly 20 rounds, how is it fairer that Billy only needed to pay 19 antes, then that everyone paid 20?

 

[Frogzilla]

Plenty, and I've never considered it an issue big enough to require a fucked-up rule change that creates new issues. Maybe it's just a problem in Norway (never played there).

the fucked-up rule change is quite popular over here. Literally every tournament I play at Choctaw (uses individual antes for now) I overhear someone ask “when are y’all going to switch to Big Blind ante like WSOP or winstar”

I’m curious where you’ve played with BBA and had a poor experience.

 

[Legend5555]

View attachment 389397