Tourney Help me design a tourney structure and figure out my chip set requirements (1 Viewer)

[Poker Zombie]

How much faster does a tournament reach it's conclusion because of antes? Maybe one level? That's what, a 15-20 minute difference over 4 hours for short tournaments, and 30 minutes over a 8-10 hour tournament?

The same thing could be achieved with more aggressive blind levels.

 

[DerekNoakes]

Antes incentivizes stealing, and re-stealing = more aggression = moving tournaments along.

Ex : At 1000/2000, with 2000 ante, I could raise to 5000 to steal, and win 5000. If you eliminate antes, and try more aggressive blind levels instead, the same level could be 1500/3000. Only 4500 in the pot, but I would have to raise to at least 6000 to win it, and likely more.

why not just eliminate the forced blind bets and use bigger ante amounts instead?

Blinds are live bets, antes are not. There are ante-only tournies on PokerStars. To steal in an ante-only tournament, with 6000 in the pot (700-ish antes), I could probably accomplish that with a raise to 4000, to win 6000. With blinds, which would be 2000/4000, I'd have to raise minimum 8000, and likely not be able to steal since the BB is priced in.

 

[fieldsy]

I think the use of antes in tournament games with forced blind bets is absolutely a carry-over from the pre-NLHE games when antes were prevalent in all forms of poker. The reason that antes are not used in early tournament rounds is merely a function of not having the proper denominations to do so at the 'correct' amounts. Switching to a BBA eliminates that issue, and will result in seeing antes enforced from the very beginnings of tournaments (and already in place in some events).

Many tournaments have the same blinds in consecutive levels as they introduce antes (e.g., WSOP Main has 75-150 with no antes and then 75-150 with 25 ante), so it's not purely a matter of available denominations. But I think you're right, the trend is toward introducing antes earlier and earlier. That hasn't been the historical norm, which is why I'm saying I don't see this as a carry-over from old games. I think players have pushed for it. I'm not sure how I've become the spokesman for the use of antes here, but I'm not exactly a radical.

If antes (and the BBA) are so effective in promoting aggression and moving tournaments along, why not just eliminate the forced blind bets and use bigger ante amounts instead?

The WSOP ran ante-only NLH tournaments for several years, but I think they disappeared from the schedule. I never played one, but I remember seeing Negreanu tweet something like all NLH should be played that way. I wouldn't go that far. I also saw recently that some of the high-roller Short Deck (6+) NLH tournaments over in Asia are played ante-only. So it's not insane to suggest playing that way, even in a game that has introduced blind bets. If you want my literal answer to your question, I would keep blinds because I also like the dynamic that they create (specifically, the expanded range of hands that can justifiably played in defending a blind).

How much faster does a tournament reach it's conclusion because of antes? Maybe one level? That's what, a 15-20 minute difference over 4 hours for short tournaments, and 30 minutes over a 8-10 hour tournament?

The same thing could be achieved with more aggressive blind levels.

It is, of course, possible to accelerate the conclusion of a tournament by just increasing the blinds and not including antes. It's also possible to accelerate the conclusion of the tournament by reducing starting stacks. Or by shortening levels. Or by playing an "all in or fold" event. There are many ways to skin a cat. Each of these alternatives affects gameplay in various (sometimes subtle) ways. Personally, I enjoy running an event with the same basic dynamic (dead ante money and live blind bets) that is used in every major professionally-run poker tournament. If someone prefers something else, I completely respect their opinion.

To look at an example of how play is affected, the 7th level of the standard T10k tournament structure I use is 400/800, and in the past I've used a 100 ante (now use a 600 BBA). In my game we're often 6-7 handed there. That means the cost of each orbit for a player is 1800 with antes, so if you were designing a parallel no-ante structure you would be at 600-1200 in this level to have the same per-orbit cost and presumably be on track to end the tournament on a similar pace. Let's say the average stack at this point in the tournament is 14k chips. An average stack is 17.5 BB deep in my ante structure, but only 11.7 BB deep in a blind-only structure. In this level, a player in the ante structure can min-raise to 1600 to try to take down the 1800 in the pot, and if everyone else folds the BB can call that min-raise for only 800 more with 3400 now in the pot (4.25:1). In the blind-only structure, the min-raise would be to 2400 for the same 1800, and the BB would get 3.5:1 to call the extra 1200. Because the range of open-raises includes bets from 1600-2300, the ante structure also opens up the possibility of 3-bets for less than an all-in that are less likely if the open-raise has to be to 2400 or more.

I prefer the flexibility and gameplay dynamic in the ante structure at the same cost per orbit. It encourages raises, and it encourages calls, so I think it helps teh game. That's me. But it's also well-established tournament structure, so I don't feel like I'm really going out on a limb here.

 

[DerekNoakes]

I may have contradicted myself a bit, @fieldsy explains it better

 

[upNdown]

I played a no antes tournament recently, for the first time in a long time: it definitely felt different and I didn’t adapt very well. I got ahead early and figured I could tighten right up and just wait for premiums, since 8 out of 10 hands were “free.” I think I waited too long to open my range back up, and when I did, I think my bet sizing was off, because I was getting 3-bet a lot more than I should have.

 

[BGinGA]

Stealing blinds does not 'move a tournament along' -- eliminating players does. Forcing players to play bigger pots (starting with larger pre-flop betting) accomplishes this. Antes -- or stealing them -- does not accomplish either.

Comparing relative stack sizes in terms of #bb is meaningless when one structure has antes and the other doesn't. One must compare per-orbit risk or outlay for each in order to have a meaningful number for comparison.

Many tournaments have the same blinds in consecutive levels as they introduce antes (e.g., WSOP Main has 75-150 with no antes and then 75-150 with 25 ante), so it's not purely a matter of available denominations.

You're missing the point -- antes are first introduced at that level, only because it is the first level where antes can be supported by the current denominations in play (they duplicate the level when adding antes so that the outlay-per-orbit percentage increase is not excessive compared to other level increases, before and after). In order to have similar antes in previous levels, T5 chips would need to be used. It's totally about the available denominations -- and they choose to not introduce another denomination in the early levels that would only be used for antes. The advent of BBA changes that, since a table ante can be constructed using the chips already in play.


I regularly run tournaments with antes, tournaments with no antes, and ante-only tournaments (no forced small or big blind bets). I have ran identical structures, both with and without any antes. I've even ran ante-only tournaments that used a single table ante vs individually-posted antes, long before it was implemented in any major tournament.

Bottom line is that none of the variations make a significant difference in how the events actually play out. Ante events don't last longer, nor do they take less time. Some very minor strategy changes, perhaps, but nothing drastically different -- I've found most of it to just be in player's heads, not reflected in actual play. The supposed benefits of using antes is a great mirage.

The single biggest difference across the board is the amount of wasted time spent dealing with antes, when used in ~any~ form.... which is best dealt with by simply eliminating them altogether.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Does anybody other than me find it interesting that in the effort to defend the Big Blind Ante, the support behind ante only tournament (where everyone pays every hand) has come up by 2 different posters?

Let's use a BBA. It's much better. As proof, I show you that people love to play in tournaments where everyone antes every hand, and there are no blinds. The BBA would be the same way except only one person had to pay, speeding up the game.

In my game we just call that the blinds.

Also, my question hasn't been answered. I hear "antes move it along", but I see no proof that antes actually end a tournament any sooner. At best, antes discourage tight players. I guess fewer poker players are good for the game, because fewer players end tournaments sooner?

 

[DerekNoakes]

Impossible to prove or disprove this. To do that, you'd have to gather the same 100 players (at the least), and have them play at least 100 tournies with no antes, and at least 100 tournies with antes. And the sample-size would probably have to be way higher than 100 to make any conclusion.

And re: the discussion wether or not they move a tournament along/incentivize aggressive play : Antes are dead money in the pot. Players are going to fight harder for the pot when there's dead money in it. Weaker hand ranges, higher aggression, resulting in bigger pots.

The reason I argue for antes is firstly : I like'em. And secondly : I trust the opinion of all the professional TDs out there who have decided to run antes in their huge tournaments, and I'd bet one of the biggest reasons why they do that is because they need to end their tournaments reasonably fast, and they have experienced that antes accomplish that. They might be wrong of course, because its impossible to prove, but I'm still sticking with my first reason. I just like'em

 

[fieldsy]

Comparing relative stack sizes in terms of #bb is meaningless when one structure has antes and the other doesn't. One must compare per-orbit risk or outlay for each in order to have a meaningful number for comparison.

This is correct, which is why I explained how the dynamic of betting and calling is different for an ante and no-ante structure with equal per-orbit cost. And while I generally agree that a player should be considering their m, based on stack size and cost per orbit as opposed to number of BB, the BB isn't irrelevant because it affects the size of an opening raise and therefore the possible size of 3-bets.

Bottom line is that none of the variations make a significant difference in how the events actually play out. Ante events don't last longer, nor do they take less time. Some very minor strategy changes, perhaps, but nothing drastically different -- I've found most of it to just be in player's heads, not reflected in actual play. The supposed benefits of using antes is a great mirage.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and one well-informed by your considerable experience. Based on my experience, it does make an actual difference. I'm merely weighing in with my advice. I don't blame any reader of this exchange who decides that your recommendation is entitled to more credence than mine, either. But I'm also not just making this up. I mentioned Negreanu above, not that his opinion is the only one that matters, but he is certainly more prominent in the community and much more credible than I am. And he has written at length about the value of antes in tournaments.

Does anybody other than me find it interesting that in the effort to defend the Big Blind Ante, the support behind ante only tournament (where everyone pays every hand) has come up by 2 different posters?

I'm not recommending ante-only. I don't know if you are referring to me there.

Let's use a BBA. It's much better. As proof, I show you that people love to play in tournaments where everyone antes every hand, and there are no blinds. The BBA would be the same way except only one person had to pay, speeding up the game.

In my game we just call that the blinds.

Blinds and big blind ante are certainly not the same thing in terms of poker theory (live bet versus dead chips). BGinGA maintains that in practical application the use of antes makes no difference. In my opinion and experience it does.

Also, my question hasn't been answered. I hear "antes move it along", but I see no proof that antes actually end a tournament any sooner. At best, antes discourage tight players. I guess fewer poker players are good for the game, because fewer players end tournaments sooner?

I'm sorry to have let you down, but what would constitute "proof" in this situation? It seems intuitive that a tournament with antes will eliminate players more quickly than the exact same blind escalation with no antes. I can't imagine anyone would contest that. But the effect could certainly be marginal, and I think the more difficult question is does a tournament with antes eliminate players more quickly than the exact same per-orbit cost escalation (e.g., the blinds+antes in one tournament equal the blinds alone in the alternative). If it were possible to run a scientific study I'm not sure the effect would be significant.

I don't have the ability to run a scientific study, so I'm telling you my anecdotal view and a theoretical explanation. Mathematically, controlling for per-orbit cost, the existence of antes makes both raises and calls more profitable. That means more people playing hands. And playing hands is how players build stacks, lose chips, bust, etc. I just think it's good for the game. Plus, I'm really struggling to figure out why folks think every professionally-run poker tournament uses antes, if they don't serve any purpose? I think there's too much innovation and thought by the tournament directors of WSOP and WPT for them to just use antes out of sheer inertia.

Again, I come back to this: play your home game however you like to play your home game. Please. But don't imply that someone who does use the BBA or antes in general must not have thought it through.

 

[BGinGA]

I have as much respect for Negreanu as the next guy (probably more), but not everything he writes is gospel. He's also in favor of more rake, yo.

 

[fieldsy]

I have as much respect for Negreanu as the next guy (probably more), but not everything he writes is gospel. He's also in favor of more rake, yo.

Completely agree. I do not take his opinion as gospel and don’t think anyone should. I appreciate the no-ante arguments and like to hear competing perspectives on this. My reference to his article is intended to mean “here’s an opinion from a prominent source with whom I agree,” not “here’s an opinion that ends the discussion once and for all.” He’s just one guy.

 

[glom]

Using the BBA with the high roller structure allows the cost per orbit to increase at a slower rate than using blinds only. This seems like the biggest argument in favor of it to me.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Plus, I'm really struggling to figure out why folks think every professionally-run poker tournament uses antes, if they don't serve any purpose?

Every professionally run tournament does not use antes. The Mirage dailys do not use antes. A number of tournaments at Planet Hollywood (LV) do not use antes. Red Rock and Green Valley Ranch did not use antes the last time I checked. Nor did Ballys, Binions $65 buy in, Caesars, Eastside Cannery, or Mandalay Bay.

I agree antes are more common than not, but "every professionally run tournament" - no.

 

[DerekNoakes]

He probably didnt mean those daily casino tournies, but was talking about the WSOP, WPT, etc. I'm all for not having antes in daily casino tournies, where there could be lots of newbies playing. And home games as well, when you have a few players who arent that experienced. I wouldnt dream of having antes in my homegame, for that reason. But in big professional tournaments I think they are absolutely needed. Both for game dynamics and speed.

 

[fieldsy]

Every professionally run tournament does not use antes. The Mirage dailys do not use antes. A number of tournaments at Planet Hollywood (LV) do not use antes. Red Rock and Green Valley Ranch did not use antes the last time I checked. Nor did Ballys, Binions $65 buy in, Caesars, Eastside Cannery, or Mandalay Bay.

I agree antes are more common than not, but "every professionally run tournament" - no.

Fair enough. I apologize for the hyperbole. And those casino dailies are very good proof of your point that it is possible to accelerate a tournament even in a blinds-only structure. Those tourneys also have an interest in limiting/eliminating color-ups. I would not emulate the particular tournament structures of those dailies, and I think the Aria and Wynn have better daily structures that use antes. But the dailies you mention will also get the job done.

My underlying point is that the better-designed tournaments use antes, and I think that is a deliberate choice based on substantial experience and player feedback. That’s really all.