Tourney Button ante (1 Viewer)

[Poker Zombie]

I think @fieldsy nailed it.

Antes aren't designed to induce action, antes are designed to eliminate players. Since tournaments are raked up-front, it is in the casino's best interest to send players packing, since the casino only loses money as the game goes on. Conversely, the cash game benefits from players sitting longer, and the table never breaking.

 

[Gobbs]

All this speculation over antes encouraging more action stands on one premise that is simply not true ... it assumes more action is good. More action is neither good or bad. It’s neutral in tournaments.

Why do you need more action with antes if you have progressive blinds? That’s their whole purpose. The blinds force action and jump to allow a tournament to finish. If you need antes to encourage action, does that mean your blind structure stinks?

 

[JustinInMN]

Why do you need more action with antes if you have progressive blinds? That’s their whole purpose. The blinds force action and jump to allow a tournament to finish. If you need antes to encourage action, does that mean your blind structure stinks?

If the sole purpose of antes were to eliminate players then yes, you could essentially accomplish the same thing by shrinking starting stacks or escalating blinds faster. But I think that is only part of the story.

All this speculation over antes encouraging more action stands on one premise that is simply not true ... it assumes more action is good. More action is neither good or bad. It’s neutral in tournaments.

I think there's something to be said for the idea that antes encourage wider ranges to attack and defend. (As in the Upswing piece @fieldsy linked in #27.). I think there's something to be said for having the skill to play a wider range, but I admit that's a matter of opinion.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Sure, when there is one whole entire extra BB, people are going to shove well out of their usual range. Stealing 1.5 BBs is "meh", but when the pot is all the way up to 2.5 BB, even becomes an open shove! :

 

[PocketQuads]

Even though this thread probably wasn't meant to start a discussion on antes in general, I guess it kind of derailed to that a little. I am a big fan of antes. Like you guys discussed, Antes induce action, and I find that to be a great thing. Ranges get wider and you get to play more hands, and after all playing hands is what everyone's here for, isn't it.

Regarding the original topic, button antes, my (semi) local casino switched from normal antes to button antes a couple of months ago, and I absolutely love it. Not only does it significantly (I'd guess at least by 10-15%) speed up the game by not having to wait for everyone to post their ante, but it also allows for earlier color-ups. This means that you don't get people betting weird sizes that take forever to count out and exchange (which speeds the game up even more), but it also makes it easier to keep track of the exact pot size.

I have never played with a BB ante, and I don't really have an opinion on whether the BB ante or the BTN ante is better, all I know is that, in my opinion, any antes are better than no antes, and BB/ BTN antes are better than regular antes.

 

[JustinInMN]

Regarding the original topic, button antes, my (semi) local casino switched from normal antes to button antes a couple of months ago, and I absolutely love it.

Out of curiosity, what is the rule at your club in the event of a dead button? I assume just no ante?

 

[Gobbs]

Even though this thread probably wasn't meant to start a discussion on antes in general, I guess it kind of derailed to that a little. I am a big fan of antes. Like you guys discussed, Antes induce action, and I find that to be a great thing. Ranges get wider and you get to play more hands, and after all playing hands is what everyone's here for, isn't it.

I’m still not convinced antes induce significantly more action among good players, and I’m definitely not convinced more action is a good thing.

Regardless, I’m pretty sure most people are not playing poker to play more hands, but to win more money. Playing more hands is often not the way to do that (with notable exceptions, of course).

 

[BGinGA]

For every ante-induced strategy, there is an optimal counter-strategy. Just sayin'.

 

[PocketQuads]

Out of curiosity, what is the rule at your club in the event of a dead button? I assume just no ante?

Yep. I mean, I guess this is not ideal, but this only happens in very specific situations.

I’m still not convinced antes induce significantly more action among good players, and I’m definitely not convinced more action is a good thing.

Regardless, I’m pretty sure most people are not playing poker to play more hands, but to win more money. Playing more hands is often not the way to do that (with notable exceptions, of course).

That's the great thing about antes, antes allow you to play more hands profitably. Of course, my primary objective is to play profitably, but with antes your opening ranges (especially from late position) can widen significantly. Stealing 2.5 BB instead of 1.5 BB is a big difference.

 

[BGinGA]

That's the great thing about antes, antes allow you to play more hands profitably. Of course, my primary objective is to play profitably, but with antes your opening ranges (especially from late position) can widen significantly. Stealing 2.5 BB instead of 1.5 BB is a big difference.

Okay, I'll bite. How big of a difference? Widen your opening range exactly HOW significantly?

Examples, please. Hands you would fold vs 1.5bb but will steal-attempt with 2.5bb up for grabs. If position-dependent, include those parameters, too.

 

[JustinInMN]

Yep. I mean, I guess this is not ideal, but this only happens in very specific situations.

Personally I find this a very reasonable solution as I stated above. Glad you could report first hand on casino button ante use when it seems most are going big blind ante.

Okay, I'll bite. How big of a difference? Widen your opening range exactly HOW significantly?

You could read the upswing post @DoubleEagle linked in #27. Granted it's one guy's opinion, but it's at least an idea on how to approach these questions.

 

[Gobbs]

You could read the upswing post @DoubleEagle linked in #27. Granted it's one guy's opinion, but it's at least an idea on how to approach these questions.

I read it and it is severely flawed. It is comparing 250/500 blinds vs. 250/500 blinds with a 50 ante. That's making an assumption that whomever is making the blind structure simply does away with antes. That is a horrible assumption.

Compare the two structures:

Ante Structure vs. Non-Ante Structure
1. 50/100 vs. 100/200
2. 100/200 vs. 150/300
3. 150/300 vs. 200/400
4. 200/400/50 vs. 300/600
5. 250/500/50 vs. 400/800
6. 300/600/100 vs. 600/1200

Dependent on the amount of players, the amount of the pots to start the hand at each level are probably going to be somewhat similar. For example, in level 5, he's comparing 1200 chips (ante structure with nine players) vs only 750 in the pot without them. However, I seriously doubt the tournament would actually have the same blind levels for Level 5 if there were no antes. The tournament would be structured completely different. For example, I would expect Level 5 in the non-ante structure to be 400/800 or so, leaving the amount in the pot at the exact same 1200 chips. In fact, if there were fewer than nine players at the table, there would be fewer chips in the pot with the ante structure.

So, I really do not agree that antes increase the amount of action in a well-structured tournament. In fact, one could argue they have the exact opposite effect. Personally, I think they have no effect unless the tournament structure is poor. I certainly do not believe antes are necessary to increase action. A well-designed blind structure serves the same purpose.

 

[JustinInMN]

It is comparing 250/500 blinds vs. 250/500 blinds with a 50 ante. That's making an assumption that whomever is making the blind structure simply does away with antes. That is a horrible assumption.

I don't think the point of the piece was to look at whole structures but just compare how the math changes in an ante pot versus a non ante pot that use the same bb.

I think I get your point about trying to line up blinds of similar size, but that isn't really what the piece is about. The interesting stuff to me comes after they set the example.

 

[Gobbs]

I don't think the point of the piece was to look at whole structures but just compare how the math changes in an ante pot versus a non ante pot that use the same bb.

I think I get your point about trying to line up blinds of similar size, but that isn't really what the piece is about. The interesting stuff to me comes after they set the example.

You are probably right about the point of the article, but the point people are making here is that antes increase action. My point is, that they do not. I guess it would have been better for me to say the article is really not applicable.

 

[fieldsy]

I read it and it is severely flawed. It is comparing 250/500 blinds vs. 250/500 blinds with a 50 ante. That's making an assumption that whomever is making the blind structure simply does away with antes. That is a horrible assumption.

Compare the two structures:

Ante Structure vs. Non-Ante Structure
1. 50/100 vs. 100/200
2. 100/200 vs. 150/300
3. 150/300 vs. 200/400
4. 200/400/50 vs. 300/600
5. 250/500/50 vs. 400/800
6. 300/600/100 vs. 600/1200

Okay, I'll bite, math below. But while you are correct that comparing a 250/500/50 level to a 250/500 level is not an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of orbit cost (250/500/50 has the same per-orbit cost as 400/800 when playing 9-handed), that doesn't make a difference in terms of the basic math of opening ranges. Assuming reasonable stack depth, the math for determining your opening range is the same at 250/500 with no ante as it is at 400/800 with no ante. But I'll treat them as different for the sake of comparison.

Let's assume effective stacks of 20,000 chips, which would be the identical "m" based on per-orbit cost but would be 40 BBs in the ante structure and 25 BBs in the no-ante structure. Assume that it folds to the player in the cutoff.

First, min-raise math with no antes. The cutoff player must raise to 1600 in the no-ante structure to win the 1200 chips in the pot. If the steal works, it gets paid 3:4 (0.75:1). If the BB calls and the cutoff wins at showdown (ignoring postflop action), player wins an additional 800 so would get paid 5:4 (1.25:1). If the button and SB fold, the player in the BB must call 800 to win 2800 (pays 3.5:1, again setting aside postflop play). If the button does call, there is 3600 in the pot, with effective stack of 18,400, a stack-to-pot ratio of about 5.1.

Second, min-raise math with antes. The cutoff player must raise to 1000 in the ante structure to win the 1200 chips in the pot. If the steal works, it gets paid 6:5 (1.2:1). If the BB calls and the cutoff wins at showdown (ignoring postflop action), player wins an additional 500 so would get paid 1.7:1. If the button and SB fold, the player in the BB must call 500 to win 2200 (pays 4.4:1). If the button does call, there is 3200 in the pot, with effective stacks of 19,000, a stack-to-pot ratio of 5.9.

So, in the ante structure at comparable blind levels, the cutoff player gets substantially better odds (60% better, the difference between 1.2:1 and 0.75:1) to try to steal, while the BB also gets better odds (25% better, the difference between 3.5:1 and 4.4:1) to call the raise. Which means there is more incentive to get involved with pots with wider ranges. (I only mentioned the SPR in passing because one could argue that the no-ante structure creates lower stack-to-pot ratio postflop situations and perhaps higher-variance setups.)

I'm not sure you should trust any nonprofessional (and I am very much nonprofessional) to tell you exactly how to construct your ranges differently at those odds. Certainly, these are differences at the margins, not earth-shattering. I might guess that if you would normally open 20% of your hands from the cutoff, an argument could be made that you should open 32% instead (a 60% larger range). Of course, there are spillover effects from that, like if the Button knows the cutoff is opening 32% of hands the button should 3-bet a wider range. That's poker, you can't do the math in a vacuum.

 

[JustinInMN]

In short I think saying "antes are better for action" isn't as accurate as saying "antes reward aggression."

It's subjective whether or not aggression is desirable in any game, but it certainly makes for better TV, and I find aggressive games more entertaining than nit fests.

 

[PocketQuads]

I read it and it is severely flawed. It is comparing 250/500 blinds vs. 250/500 blinds with a 50 ante. That's making an assumption that whomever is making the blind structure simply does away with antes. That is a horrible assumption.

Compare the two structures:

Ante Structure vs. Non-Ante Structure
1. 50/100 vs. 100/200
2. 100/200 vs. 150/300
3. 150/300 vs. 200/400
4. 200/400/50 vs. 300/600
5. 250/500/50 vs. 400/800
6. 300/600/100 vs. 600/1200

Dependent on the amount of players, the amount of the pots to start the hand at each level are probably going to be somewhat similar. For example, in level 5, he's comparing 1200 chips (ante structure with nine players) vs only 750 in the pot without them. However, I seriously doubt the tournament would actually have the same blind levels for Level 5 if there were no antes. The tournament would be structured completely different. For example, I would expect Level 5 in the non-ante structure to be 400/800 or so, leaving the amount in the pot at the exact same 1200 chips. In fact, if there were fewer than nine players at the table, there would be fewer chips in the pot with the ante structure.

So, I really do not agree that antes increase the amount of action in a well-structured tournament. In fact, one could argue they have the exact opposite effect. Personally, I think they have no effect unless the tournament structure is poor. I certainly do not believe antes are necessary to increase action. A well-designed blind structure serves the same purpose.

I disagree with that. What you are comparing is the average size of the pot, which does not correlate with the amount of hands you're playing or action in general.
Does your strategy change when everyone has 1000 chips with 5/10 blinds compared to when everyone has 100k chips with 500/1k blinds? No, of course not, your strategy depends solely on BBs. The value assigned to one Big Blind is irrelevant.

Continuing with your example: Yes, the pot would be 1200 for both the ante and the non-ante structure. But in the ante structure, a standard open raise of 2.5BB only risks 1250 chips to win 1200, whereas in the non-ante structure you would have to risk 1800 chips to win 1200. That is a huge difference.

I think the link to the upswing article posted earlier really explains this well.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If you want more action, then maybe Hold'em shouldn't be your game.

Try Double Board Omaha, SOHE, or Drawmaha. Never need to fold preflop again.

 

[Gobbs]

...but how often are you really getting the opportunity to open at a nine-player table? Using his own charts, without antes, you are opening once every 8.62 hands at a nine-player table (this takes into account players opening in front of you). That does not include the two times you will be in the small or big blind. So, basically, you are opening once every 11 total hands (give or take, depending on how the blinds fall). Therefore, you are raising, depending on the speed of your players and dealers, once every 33 minutes. That's only allowing three minutes per hand. Rounding that off, at a nine-player table, using his own charts, a person should open, on average, only two times per hour.

Using his own charts again, with antes, a player opens the betting once every 4.73 hands at a nine-player table. So, basically, you are opening (out of the blinds) once every 6.5 total hands (give or take, depending on how the blinds fall). Therefore, you are raising once every 19.5 minutes. Rounding that off, at a nine-player table, using his own charts, a person should open, on average, only three times per hour.

So, is opening up one additional hand per hour really increasing a person's action significantly?

Of course, the continuation of this is that players' calling range should open up a little, too, but how much? Surely, you aren't going to open up your calling range as much as your opening range...so, maybe you add one more hand per hour, maybe.....

 

[JustinInMN]

Using his own charts again, with antes, a player opens the betting once every 4.73 hands at a nine-player table. So, basically, you are opening (out of the blinds) once every 6.5 total hands (give or take, depending on how the blinds fall). Therefore, you are raising once every 19.5 minutes. Rounding that off, at a nine-player table, using his own charts, a person should open, on average, only three times per hour.

So, is opening up one additional hand per hour really increasing a person's action significantly?

By your math, that's about a 35% increase, that seems pretty significant to me. (50% if you are comparing the rounded figures 3 to 2.)

 

[fieldsy]

...but how often are you really getting the opportunity to open at a nine-player table? Using his own charts, without antes, you are opening once every 8.62 hands at a nine-player table (this takes into account players opening in front of you). That does not include the two times you will be in the small or big blind. So, basically, you are opening once every 11 total hands (give or take, depending on how the blinds fall). Therefore, you are raising, depending on the speed of your players and dealers, once every 33 minutes. That's only allowing three minutes per hand. Rounding that off, at a nine-player table, using his own charts, a person should open, on average, only two times per hour.

Using his own charts again, with antes, a player opens the betting once every 4.73 hands at a nine-player table. So, basically, you are opening (out of the blinds) once every 6.5 total hands (give or take, depending on how the blinds fall). Therefore, you are raising once every 19.5 minutes. Rounding that off, at a nine-player table, using his own charts, a person should open, on average, only three times per hour.

So, is opening up one additional hand per hour really increasing a person's action significantly?

I think about this from the tournament director's perspective (since I host small tournaments, and the discussion is kind of about whether to include antes in a home tournament structure). Assuming for the sake of argument that players are responding rationally, you are increasing the player's incentives to play hands by some non-trivial factor (as much as 100% in Upswing's range charts). That may increase the involvement of any individual player only a hand or two per hour, but it affects every single hand at the table. Which means more players seeing flops, making hands, bluffs, coolers, all the stuff that busts people out of tournaments. And (my opinion only) it increases the fun of the game by facilitating all of those things.

I keep going back to this, and many people may not be persuaded by it, but it's significant to me that every major (and less-than-major, AFAIK) tournament series uses antes in its tournament structures. WSOP, WSOPC, HPT, EPT/PokerStarsLive, MSPT, WPT, etc. I don't think that's accidental. It seems to me that those tournament directors would only include them if (1) the market wants them (i.e., players like antes), and/or (2) antes serve administrators' interests like tournament efficiency.

 

[BGinGA]

One of the fallacies of comparing a min-raise non-antes vs with-antes is that a min-raise with antes in play is rarely correct, precisely ~because~ of the extra money already in the pot. The opening raise with antes in play is generally larger to compensate for the changed pot odds caused by their presence, making direct comparisons between exact raise amounts in each scenario pretty meaningless.... because nobody is actually going to play that way.

Better to compare 'typical' raise amounts (vs min-raises) based on pot size (with and without antes), in which most cases the resulting odds will be similar if not exactly the same.

Which means that it all really boils down to this: the single biggest difference (when using antes) is that all pots cost a larger percentage of your stack to play -- partly because of the added ante money from your stack, and partly because competing for the larger pot will require larger portions of your stack in terms of raises and calls.

That is exactly what causes ante tournaments to finish sooner than comparable events without antes, and exactly why they are favored for large tournament fields by most professional venues. The illusion of slowly-increasing levels while still maintaining a larger cost-per-orbit creating a higher cost to compete for pots is beneficial for revenue-motivated organizers, not the players.

In short I think saying "antes are better for action" isn't as accurate as saying "antes reward aggression."

The best descriptor is "antes reward organizers". There are no benefits for players.

 

[JustinInMN]

The best descriptor is "antes reward organizers". There are no benefits for players.

It can't be that unpopular with players if players are still signing up.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It can't be that unpopular with players if players are still signing up.

That's what they say about rakes too.

 

[PocketQuads]

One of the fallacies of comparing a min-raise non-antes vs with-antes is that a min-raise with antes in play is rarely correct, precisely ~because~ of the extra money already in the pot. The opening raise with antes in play is generally larger to compensate for the changed pot odds caused by their presence, making direct comparisons between exact raise amounts in each scenario pretty meaningless.... because nobody is actually going to play that way.

Better to compare 'typical' raise amounts (vs min-raises) based on pot size (with and without antes), in which most cases the resulting odds will be similar if not exactly the same.

That is true to some extent, but not to the level that you are implying. A standard open size without antes would probably be around 2.2BB, whereas with antes it is around 2.4-2.5 BB. That is only a ~10% increase in standard open sizes, whereas the money that you can potentially pick up increases by more than 60%, This is a very significant difference, and allows us to play a lot more hands profitably, both as the open raiser as well as any other position behind the open raiser.

I won't claim that I fully understand why these exact openraise sizes are the optimal ones, but that is what all of the GTO wizards are playing, and I'm pretty happy to just accept that. I don't think there is any arguing that your (optimal) ranges widen a lot when antes are introduced. But I'm not the right person to explain this in depth, in my opinion the Upswing Poker blog post does a pretty good job.

The best descriptor is "antes reward organizers". There are no benefits for players.

I think this is a little ignorant to say. Yes, antes (at least button and BB antes) are good for the organizers, since people will bust slightly faster.
But saying that there are no benefits for players, when there clearly are multiple players in this very thread (including me) that very much do like antes, how can you say that there is no benefit for the players.

In my mind, there is no doubt that antes allow everyone to both open and call lighter preflop, since that just makes sense from a game theory standpoint. Now, you could of course argue that you don't want to play more hands (for whatever reason), and then it makes sense not to like antes. But I think the majority of players are happy when they can get involved in more hands profitably.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I keep hearing how antes allow players to play more hands profitably. This is pure fiction. Tournaments are a zero sum game. Antes do not allow players to play more hands profitably, unless there are more players losing more hands.

One player wins a profitable hand. Multiple players, who now open their range, stand to lose more that they would have lost without the "ante incentive". Even more players, who are dealt junk lose as well.

9 out of 10 players are losing more because of antes.

 

[BGinGA]

I think this is a little ignorant to say. Yes, antes (at least button and BB antes) are good for the organizers, since people will bust slightly faster.
But saying that there are no benefits for players, when there clearly are multiple players in this very thread (including me) that very much do like antes, how can you say that there is no benefit for the players.

Well, I guess you can choose to call me ignorant if you like, but that really only demonstrates your own ignorance of my specific knowledge and experience.

So, I am now looking forward to hearing your list of specific benefits to players that using antes in tourmaments provides. And I mean real tangible and measurable benefits, not merely personal preferences. They aren't the same thing.

Just because somebody likes dangerous things or engaging in dangerous behaviors doesn't equate to those things being beneficial. The two are not synonymous.

 

[BGinGA]

It can't be that unpopular with players if players are still signing up.

That's what they say about rakes too.

Exactly. No way to quantify what sign-up numbers would be without either one. Only way to prove the popularity of antes (or rake) is to offer events both with and without simultaneously.

Just because players choose to accept a single offered option doesn't mean they wouldn't rather play a different way.

 

[JustinInMN]

*redacted, admin address concern in this post.*

 

[BGinGA]

Idgaf what your rank is on this board, muted and reported.

Reported for what? Making a point that merely liking something isn't the same thing as it being beneficial? No insults, no foul language, no ill intent. Grow up already.

And wtf is a rank?