Tourney Big Blind Antes - impact on tourney length (1 Viewer)

[Wils]

So we all know tourneys shouldn't last past the point where there are 20 big blinds left on the table - but if you're playing with BB antes, does that 20 BB guideline change?

 

[ArielVer18]

I’ve read theories that it’s 30bb with a BBA, but I’m curious what hosts with real life experience think. Endgame HU play with a BBA is dramatically different

 

[Mandos]

I don't have a good read on when it ends, but my anecdotal experience is that it prevents the nits from milking a 7BB stack for an extra 2 levels, so it certainly helps you get to the final 2 a little earlier while both players still have a little room to play.

 

[Coyotesetter]

I’ve read theories that it’s 30bb with a BBA, but I’m curious what hosts with real life experience think. Endgame HU play with a BBA is dramatically different

It's 24bbs .

 

[Poker Zombie]

I have run just 3 BBA tournaments, so my data pool is pretty shallow, but this is what I have so far:

Event #1
18 players. 9 rebuys (players are limited to 1 rebuy). Game ended at exactly the 24BB mark.

Event #2
19 players. 7 rebuys. 3 players were felted during the rebuy period and chose not to rebuy. Not unheard of, but rare. Game ended at 32.2 BB

Event #3
21 players. 4 rebuys (1 player chose to sit out rather than rebuy, even though her husband was still in the game). Game ended with 53.75 BB on the table.

I can make assumptions, but with only 3 data points I'd rather just post the facts that I have and leave the hypotheses to those with more BBA events under their belt - @BGinGA .

 

[Wils]

Thanks folks. So second question would be, big blind ante first, or big blind?

 

[Mandos]

Here are all of our BBA tournament results in the last year

Month	Event Type	Players	Rebuys	Final Blind Level	Final BB Amount	Total Chips in Play	# of BB at end
Feb	NLHE	16	6	15	16000	454000	28.4
March	Bounty NLHE Freezeout	15	0	16	30000	626000	20.9
April	NLHE	9	1	11	6000	414000	69.0
May	NLHE	10	3	15	20000	536000	26.8
July	NLHE	17	6	13	8000	476000	59.5
August	PLO	11	6	13	12000	692000	57.7
September	NLHE	11	3	13	12000	572000	47.7
November	Bounty NLHE	11	3	13	12000	576000	48.0
December	Deepstack Freezeout	9	0	14	80000	3635000	45.4

I should note that we often get to heads-up with 1 huge stack and 1 much smaller one so it normally doesn't really last more than half a level at that point (either that or the guys are tired and just get it in first decent chance they get).

 

[Mandos]

Thanks folks. So second question would be, big blind ante first, or big blind?

Ante first. Blind first isn't fair to everyone else at the table who's been paying your antes for you on the other hands. Also if you let yourself get so low that it comes to that then you deserve to ante out.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Thanks folks. So second question would be, big blind ante first, or big blind?

I have also done Ante first. Yes, you stand to win nothing (except your ante), so make it known before the tournament - write it down.

Also decide if you are keeping the BBA equal to the big blind all night, or shifting it to the amount of the small blind when you get to fewer players (usually 4). Our tournament software doesn't handle that change (unless I manually do it) so we have been keeping it equal to the BB all night, but I like the shift to SB better.

Not that I'm very bias. I never make it to the final 4 in a BBA tourney.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I've done a lot of BBA tournaments, and before that a handful of regular ante tournaments, before that a lot of no-ante tournaments. I don't save any statistics like @Poker Zombie does, but IME the tournament ends a little earlier, about a level. Which you can compensate for by having either longer levels or less aggressive increases. Which shows a reason to have antes: For the same tourney length you can have less aggressive blinds than you would without them.

Regarding ante or BB first, it should definitely be ante first.

Not convinced? How about this: You're having a night out with the guys/gals, there are 8 of you. Each round the one who's up buys 8 shots for the group (instead of everyone lining up the buy there own shot, like with traditional antes, one person buys everyone's shots, like BBA). This costs $40 ($5 per shot). In addition, the buyer always buys a fancy cocktail for $40 for his/her own pleasure. Like a big blind, which is a bet only for the poster. After enjoying 7 free shots it's now your turn to buy, but you only have $40 bucks! What do you do?

Well, the BB first crowd would probably return from the bar with a fancy cocktail for themselves and say "screw you guys!". And then of course they will enjoy 7 more free shots...

Us ante first folk will instead pay our dept and buy a round of shots. But we won't get to enjoy a cocktail, much like the player who posts only a BBA but no BB will not be placing a bet, and can therefore not win anything but the antes.

Regarding lowering the antes, I like to keep is the size of a BB until the bubble has burst, because the large ante helps burst the bubble. Once ITM, I lower it to a SB. This is just my preference, while ante first is pure fact!

 

[Mandos]

Our group reduces the ante to the small blind when we get to the final 5.
My reasoning was based on this post from negreanu on sizing of traditional antes, the most relevant passage being the following:
"The standard ante should represent 25% of the small blind. If the chips don’t divide like that, you should veer between 20% and 33%, but no less than 20%."
At 5 handed, a small blind ante is 20% of the small blind, whereas a big blind ante is 40%. That's tolerable but not ideal. We do keep it at full size when there are 10 players at 2 tables (we combine at 9 due to space limitations) just to keep things moving towards the final table. I don't hate waiting until final 4 though.
Not a fan of keeping it full size to the bitter end as WSOP does i believe.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Our group reduces the ante to the small blind when we get to the final 5.
My reasoning was based on this post from negreanu on sizing of traditional antes, the most relevant passage being the following:
"The standard ante should represent 25% of the small blind. If the chips don’t divide like that, you should veer between 20% and 33%, but no less than 20%."
At 5 handed, a small blind ante is 20% of the small blind, whereas a big blind ante is 40%. That's tolerable but not ideal. We do keep it at full size when there are 10 players at 2 tables (we combine at 9 due to space limitations) just to keep things moving towards the final table. I don't hate waiting until final 4 though.
Not a fan of keeping it full size to the bitter end as WSOP does i believe.

My first BBA I reduced to SB whenever a table was down to 5 based on that exact article. It's a good read, highly recommended! Lots of good info on antes.

I use a table size of 8, which meant I needed to lower it at a single table when down to 5+6+6, then up again on 8+8, then lowered again at 5+6 at one and 5+5 at the other, then up again at 8, and then lowered again at 5 on the final table. A real hassle! So on my second tourney I lowered it only on the final table at 5.

Then I had a tourney paying just 4 and the bubble play got extremely nitty, and I though "just when we needed the ante the most, that's when I lowered it!", so after that my rule became to lower it when ITM.

 

[BGinGA]

So we all know tourneys shouldn't last past the point where there are 20 big blinds left on the table - but if you're playing with BB antes, does that 20 BB guideline change?

It works out to between 30-35 big blinds on average for NLHE events.

So second question would be, big blind ante first, or big blind?

Neither. I recommend using either traditional individually-posted antes, or no antes at all.

If insistent upon using a table bounty, go with one posted by the SB player (and posted after the SB is posted).

It is also theoretically correct to have the table bounty size appropriately change as the table size changes. I use the following to determine the table ante amount:

6-9 players: size of BB
3-5 players: size of SB
2 players: no ante

Those rules minimize the known disadvantages of using a table ante, and keep the table bounty implementation closest to how a standard antes event would play.

 

[Mandos]

My first BBA I reduced to SB whenever a table was down to 5 based on that exact article. It's a good read, highly recommended! Lots of good info on antes.

I use a table size of 8, which meant I needed to lower it at a single table when down to 5+6+6, then up again on 8+8, then lowered again at 5+6 at one and 5+5 at the other, then up again at 8, and then lowered again at 5 on the final table. A real hassle! So on my second tourney I lowered it only on the final table at 5.

Then I had a tourney paying just 4 and the bubble play got extremely nitty, and I though "just when we needed the ante the most, that's when I lowered it!", so after that my rule became to lower it when ITM.

Makes perfect sense. It's funny how close our logical sequences ran, except I haven't gotten to the last stage yet. If I run into that I might adjust our rules too.

 

[ArielVer18]

Sounds like it's all over the place. The WSOP main event, a famously slow blind structure, offers some extremely high data points to OP's original question. Since 2018, the main event has ended with approximately: 98bb, 129bb, 63bb, 165bb, and 130bb.

Heads up with a BBA incentivize post-flop play. When you're on the button getting 5:1 to limp in, you have very little reason to open fold. Therefore, it appears to me BBA tournaments generally end before the last two players both feel they are in the danger zone of open shoving.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Sounds like it's all over the place. The WSOP main event, a famously slow blind structure, offers some extremely high data points to OP's original question. Since 2018, the main event has ended with approximately: 98bb, 129bb, 63bb, 165bb, and 130bb.

Heads up with a BBA incentivize post-flop play. When you're on the button getting 5:1 to limp in, you have very little reason to open fold. Therefore, it appears to me BBA tournaments generally end before the last two players both feel they are in the danger zone of open shoving.

Combine this with the "excitement" of live-streamed poker where players routinely fold pre-flop vs being priced into a pot. I enjoy watching WSOP action, but 10 hours of Heads-up? Yawn fest.

Not everything a casino does is for the betterment of the game. I'm hard-pressed to think of many things that come from the casino that are for the betterment of the game.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I'm hard-pressed to think of many things that come from the casino that are for the betterment of the game.

Higher rake is one

 

[MeridianFC]

Neither. I recommend using either traditional individually-posted antes, or no antes at all.

I’ve been going back and forth with this in my head. I completely agree with you, philosophically and spiritually. That said, I understand why many prefer the BBA operationally for larger tournament. That said I’m small fries (with one big MTT game a year that I do for a charity event) and Stud is a regular game in my cash rotation, so players are familiar and expected to understand putting up their own ante. The only thing I’ve noticed if I rejigger the structure to include individual antes it keeps lower denom chips in play longer and changes the color up points. That’s not the worst thing in the world I suppose?

 

[Nerxa]

So we all know tourneys shouldn't last past the point where there are 20 big blinds left on the table - but if you're playing with BB antes, does that 20 BB guideline change?

I consider it as regular ante for stack sizes. 8 people it's a 12.5% ante. Basically, it's unfair for shorter tables in the field. It also changes my strategy if I see the blinds coming to me with the clock ticking and I think the big will be on me, I might shove 20bb a bit lighter right now to absorb the blind increase on my stack.

Ex: 100k eff at 2.5k/5k/5kante, if it's gonna clock on me next hand I might just open shove hands like TT JJ and ATs utg as I consider myself almost at the next level, which would mean I have roughly 16.6bb instead of 20. I'd rather get the 12.5 right now in the middle to pay the next bb/ante and maintain 100k, rather than finding myself at 88k and after having put them the next hand.

These are all before the money consideration with decent players that will shove my blinds on my right. I don't play to min cash anyway

 

[JustinInMN]

Maybe I am over-simplying it, but I would assume since the BBA increases the initial pot by 2/3, it's reasonable to also increase the ending estimate by 2/3 or when there is roughly 33BB in play instead of 20BB.

(SB + BB pot is 1.5BB, SB + BB + BBA = 2.5BB. 2.5 is 67% greater than 1.5)

Or if at the the end of the tournament the BBA is the amount of a small blind then I would only increase the expected end by 33% or 26BB in play

(SB + BB + BBA = 2, which is 33% greater than 1.5)

 

[JustinInMN]

Sounds like it's all over the place. The WSOP main event, a famously slow blind structure, offers some extremely high data points to OP's original question. Since 2018, the main event has ended with approximately: 98bb, 129bb, 63bb, 165bb, and 130bb.

Heads up with a BBA incentivize post-flop play. When you're on the button getting 5:1 to limp in, you have very little reason to open fold. Therefore, it appears to me BBA tournaments generally end before the last two players both feel they are in the danger zone of open shoving.

And again, I have always interpreted the 20BB rule to be an overestimate on duration, and that matches my experience. Most of my tournaments end 2-3 levels before reaching the 20BB level. We even had a double-knockout playing 3-handed earlier this year that ended the event nearly 2 hours before I had planned .

 

[Mr Winberg]

I have always interpreted the 20BB rule to be an overestimate on duration

I agree. I interpret it as "will most likely end no later than" and not "will always end at" as some seem to think.

IME it depends on the length of the tourney as well. The 20 BB works pretty well for 2-3 hour STT without antes. Turbo STT of 1-2 hours may very well go beyond (i.e., below) 20 BBs. Conversely, tournaments that are longer, like 5-6 hours, most often end before that level. Especially with antes.

 

[Mr Winberg]

But there are no guarantees...

I'm glad I wrote that disclaimer. I hosted a T20k freezout tournament on Saturday for 18 degens. With on-time-bonus and rounding up on color-ups there was around 400k in play towards the end. I had planned on it ending at the 8k/16k level at the latest, but the final three lasted long and it wasn't down to heads up until the last minute of that level.

The next level had a steep increase to 12k/24k and was only 16 minutes long (I call this the "time to leave" level). With around 8 BBs each they managed to survive the whole level!

The next level (the "Still here? GTFO!" level) is 20k/40k and only lasts 12 minutes. I have no idea how, cause I was busy destroying the cash game (which may or may not be true), but somehow 5 BBs each was enough for them to stay afloat! WTF???

The next level, 30k/60 (or the "how is this even possible!?" level) finally ended things. I'm not sure why, but it seems that having just 3.3 BBs per player causes them to make rash decisions...

I have barely had a tournament survive past 30 BBs left in years, and never ever had one survive 20 (except turbo STTs). I didn't think I'd ever experience one surviving to 6.7!

 

[B0mbp0t]

Have been using BB ante since 2018 or so. Used to reduce it to size of SB at 5 players, but got rid of that after it was obvious that it just slowed the game down (both in terms of confusion, and smaller pots).

And I've run a deep stack (T30k, 40min levels) WSOP satellite series for nearly 4 seasons, all with BB ante. Just finished our 39th tourney on Sun night, and we were at 65 BB/avg stack. They almost never end below 40BB/avg stack level. And most end after around 9 hours.

 

[Mandos]

But there are no guarantees...

I'm really curious, if you happen to remember: were they just happening to get hands that traded blinds back and forth over and over? Were they passive players who were scared to get the money in? Or each all-in happened to be won by the shorter stack (we had this happen 5-handed for almost 2 hours at one of my games). It's just so hard to survive any significant number of hands with a few blinds each unless you're both giving walks each hand.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I was playing in the cash game and didn't pay attention to them, but when I asked them afterwards they said this:

each all-in happened to be won by the shorter stack

 

[Nerxa]

Turbo structures using BBA will see a mid stage tournament with a lot of 10-20bb stacks, often not even close to the money yet. Depending of the player pool, some players tend to nit up here, making shoves even more profitable. If the structure is slow with over 1h levels, sure, adjustments need to be made. Having the blinds increase 3-4 times faster is a crucial factor when deciding to put it in with certain holdings. Since most 1 day mtts are considered turbos to me, I play them accordingly.

 

[JustinInMN]

I know we spread the 20BB rule around for simple SB-BB structures (without antes), but I don't know if anyone has written as to why. I have a theory.

Assume that every time a player taking an aggressive action multiplies the number of cumulative chips put in the pot for the hand by 3. (A reasonable NL assumption). This enables us to count the number of "aggressive actions" (opening bets or raises) it takes to get a player all in.

Lets assume each aggressive action makes the cumuluative total of chips per player commit to the pot by 3x. (In practice, I get some actions will be more, such as larger preflop sizing, some actions will be smaller, such as betting less than half-pot on postflop streets. I am just trying to get a generic average, here.) You then get a progression like this...

2-bets - 3BB each player
3-bets - 9BB each player
4-bets - 27BB each player
5-bets - 81BB each player

So using this as a guide, in a situation where heads up with 20BB on the table between the players, almost all situations with 3 aggressive actions, and often 2 aggressive actions will force one player all in. The point is to illustrate the possibilities of how a hand progresses are very limited at this stage and usually during this level, you will find a hand that ends it.

That said, hands with 4 or 5 aggressive actions aren't that unusual either. Say a player opens a pot for 3BB and then bets 1/2 pot for value on every street. That's 3BB pre (6BB in pot), + 3BB on the flop (now 12BB in pot) + 6BB on the turn (now 24BB in pot) + 12BB on the river (final pot 48BB, well above the estimate 27BB in my chart above). This player put 24BB in 4 aggressive actions that will often cover a player heads up in a situation with 60BB on the table. Encountering one of these hands at such a stage wouldn't be that unusual.

Back to the main top, as I said above, if the BBA increases the starting pot by 66%, if players are adjusting their sizing accordingly that would also increase the number of blinds we would expect to get to the shallow 2-3 aggressive action space ending it.

So I just wanted to illustrate the why and also tie it back to how larger starting pot sizes would proportionally accelerate the end of the tournament. I think I am content to assume 20BB is this late estimate for simple no-ante structure (but don't be surprised if you get plenty of endings around the 40-60BB space), versus 33BB in the situation where the BBA is used until the very end of the tournament. And by the same token, it's not that surprising to see endings in the 50-80BB space or even higher.

Sounds like it's all over the place. The WSOP main event, a famously slow blind structure, offers some extremely high data points to OP's original question. Since 2018, the main event has ended with approximately: 98bb, 129bb, 63bb, 165bb, and 130bb.

Considering this, in the final hand, someone would have at most stacked-off half of the chips in play. But I am assuming in most cases (and I haven't watched a ton of WSOP coverage in the past few years), the losing player was probably out-chipped 3-1 or worse, meaning they stacked-off a quarter of these totals. It's not that hard to see how that can happen. There also is probably something to be said for playing 2 hour levels as in the WSOP main event, there is more likely to be hand that could break a deeper 50-60BB stack or more. Most of our home tournaments use 20 minute levels meaning probably somewhere around 20-40% of the hands. (I do get that play at the WSOP is considerably slower.)

 

[ArielVer18]

I know we spread the 20BB rule around for simple SB-BB structures (without antes), but I don't know if anyone has written as to why.

When there's only 20bb between two players, at least one player has less than 10bb. At 10bb or less, limp or min-raise isn't as effective since the "correct" poker strategy is to push or fold. At 10bb, BN should be shoving about 60% of the time and BB should be calling an all-in about 40% of the time. Wider range if one player is even shorter. A game with this kind of urgency is unlikely to last another 10 minutes.

 

[Poker Zombie]

When there's only 20bb between two players, at least one player has less than 10bb. At 10bb or less, limp or min-raise isn't as effective since the "correct" poker strategy is to push or fold. At 10bb, BN should be shoving about 60% of the time and BB should be calling an all-in about 40% of the time. Wider range if one player is even shorter. A game with this kind of urgency is unlikely to last another 10 minutes.

^ This.

Even if the final 2 are nits, <10 Bb will shove postflop or (if playing poorly) make a pot-committing raise when they connect. After that, it's all about how many hands does it take for both nits to hit the same flop.