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

[Poker Zombie]

That is the problem with a button ante. That is also why button antes are not being used much.

If player can’t cover, it is opposite of regular antes. If you are short, it’s big blind first.

Well run tournaments will not have issues with players trying to dodge their blinds.

BB first, then the ante gets shorted. Bonus benefit for the short stack. If you were playing in a regular ante tournament, would you say "It's ok, you're short stacked, you don't need to pay an ante this round?" If the answer is "Yes, I always let a short stack skip his ante," then BB ante works fine. Otherwise, there is an inherent flaw that you choose to ignore for the sake of convieneince.

Again, not opposed to the BB ante, as I haven't used it yet.

 

[BGinGA]

Like I said, both approaches create new -- and undeniable -- problems that simply don't exist when using regular player antes...... or when using no antes at all. It's just a fad, and one that will never gain mainstream acceptance.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Like I said, both approaches create new -- and undeniable -- problems that simply don't exist when using regular player antes...... or when using no antes at all. It's just a fad, and one that will never gain mainstream acceptance.

Not a fad. And I suspect you have never played a tourney that used them. They are taking over, and mostly due to players requesting them.

 

[BGinGA]

I suspect you have never played a tourney that used them. They are taking over

I have -- both versions, in fact. And it can hardly be considered "taking over", given it's relative scarcity in terms of overall events. Talk to me in three years.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I have -- both versions, in fact. And it can hardly be considered "taking over", given it's relative scarcity in terms of overall events. Talk to me in three years.

This may come as a surprise to you, but you are not always right.

 

[BGinGA]

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

Seriously though -- way too early to deem this fad the "future of poker'. Too many issues for it to last.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If the TDA drafts a rule on it, I can see it taking off. Currently, it's a bit "Wild West-y" with rules varying from room to room. However, The TDA doesn't reconvene until 2019. It could simply pass into the the dust of time between now and then.

The last "future of poker" was Multi-Action Poker, where players basically played 2 different games at the same time. Players requested it. Players "loved" it. It came on the heels of online poker where players became accustomed to playing multiple cash game tables at the same time. Less downtime, more hands per hour. Aria rolled it out first.

Now it's nowhere.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Since Matt Savage has implemented it for the World Poker Tour and the tourneys at the Commerce, it is here to stay, IMO.

Heartland Poker Tour is also using it in their main events.

 

[DoubleEagle]

From Poker News Daily today:

The latest innovation that is sweeping the tournament poker world will also be implemented in the WPT Choctaw Main Event. The “big blind ante” will be in effect, meaning that the big blind will pay the entirety of the table’s ante instead of each player at the table paying a piece of the ante. For example, when the blinds are 100/200 and there’s a 200 ante (Level 3 of the tournament), the big blind will put out 400 chips instead of just 200 and a smaller ante. The big blind ante innovation has been credited with taking some of the issues out of players putting up the ante each hand (only having one player put it up) and speeding up the game process.

 

[WhiteMamba1646]

i love the BBA structure. Specially if you have dealers it makes the process smooth. Before the hand is dealt the dealer will go around the table and collect the BBA to the pot then the hand starts. Its ran pretty smooth for some of my 2 table tourneys i've done. I love it. Makes the action fatter and people are more active. i personally love em!

 

[fieldsy]

I'm sure there will be strongholds that hold out on adopting big blind ante for a while, but also agree with DoubleEagle that it is increasingly the present and clearly the future. They've been doing it in the high rollers for a couple of years, and now in all series tournaments at the Wynn, Venetian, and Aria, plus WPT events, and I saw on Twitter yesterday that they're using it in all tourneys at Foxwoods now. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence is the fact that WSOP went back (after announcing their schedule) and changed a number of events to BBA (including two of the Daily Deepstacks). All of the dealers I spoke to at WSOP this year said it was extremely popular and much better for the game. It wouldn't surprise me if all the NLH events next year were BBA.

As for applying it in home tournaments, I'm in the camp that likes antes. Having an ante (dead money) affects play and rewards aggression in a way that simply larger blinds (live bets) do not. Not only that, but I kind of like playing my home tournaments as "practice" for the "real world" tournaments, and antes are part of the game. I've adopted the BBA in my home tournaments, and guys adjusted to it very quickly. I took my old structure and basically set the BBA to equal 6x our old antes. So when we're playing 8-handed, the ante amount is a bit less than the old structure, when it gets short-handed it's a bit more, so there is some marginal difference to the game. But once you're accustomed to it, it's so efficient.

And incidentally, returning to the issue of chips, playing with the BBA reduces the number of small denomination chips you reasonably have to have in play. For example, where our old ante was 50, the new BBA is 300. Fewer greens to worry about and color up.

 

[SixSpeedFury]

How do BBA get covered if it's a short table?

 

[upNdown]

Almost all venues that are using the BB ante do not change it short handed. The rule has been address by Matt Savage, founder of the TDA. All his tournaments keep the big blind ante the same when short handed. To quote him, “why would you you make a rule that favors the short stacks?”

That’s really an asshole response. It’s glib, so it immediately feels sensible, but it really isn’t sensible at all. Nobody’s looking to make a rule to favor the short stack, they’re just trying to keep the short stack from getting screwed by this new, imperfect rule.

 

[DoubleEagle]

That’s really an asshole response. It’s glib, so it immediately feels sensible, but it really isn’t sensible at all. Nobody’s looking to make a rule to favor the short stack, they’re just trying to keep the short stack from getting screwed by this new, imperfect rule.

Here’s his Twitter handle. You can tell him.

@SavagePoker

 

[fieldsy]

That’s really an asshole response. It’s glib, so it immediately feels sensible, but it really isn’t sensible at all. Nobody’s looking to make a rule to favor the short stack, they’re just trying to keep the short stack from getting screwed by this new, imperfect rule.

I don't really see how short stacks get screwed exactly. The game plays somewhat differently, that's true, but I don't thnk it is inequitable. If a short stack shoves and gets through, they actually gain more chips than they would with traditional antes at a short-handed table. And a very short stack can actually benefit from BBA by seeing a few hands for free, without posting any ante, until the BB comes around.

 

[DoubleEagle]

How do BBA get covered if it's a short table?

In most venues, the BBA is equal to the BB regardless of the number of players remaining at the table.

 

[fieldsy]

In most venues, the BBA is equal to the BB regardless of the number of players remaining at the table.

This is definitely true, but it's also something think can make sense to modify in a home game. A smaller tournament is more likely to spend more time short-handed. At a big live MTT, play is often 9- or even 10-handed for nearly the whole tournament, until you get down to about 3 tables. At a home tournament, you might play through all of the early deepstacked levels with 6-7 players. I set my BBA to an amount that's generally between the SB and BB amount, because that's how it worked out when I multiplied my old antes by 6. So where we used to play 200-400 (50), now it's 200-400 (300). I also have the benefit of running a monitor with Tournament Director so it's always on screen. It might be easier to keep BBA the same as the BB if you don't have it on display.

 

[upNdown]

I don't really see how short stacks get screwed exactly. The game plays somewhat differently, that's true, but I don't thnk it is inequitable. If a short stack shoves and gets through, they actually gain more chips than they would with traditional antes at a short-handed table. And a very short stack can actually benefit from BBA by seeing a few hands for free, without posting any ante, until the BB comes around.

Those are vaild points which I hadn't considered, because I still haven't played the BBA format yet. But I still wouldn't want to be the dwindling short stack on the 5-player table of a tournament with 11 players left, paying a hefty BBA every 5th hand. I don't want to argue about the format until I play it, but that "who wants to make a rule to benefit the short stack" statement just seems very disingenuous to me. And FWIW, if I was a TD, I'd be very concerned about protecting the short stack, becuase the vast majority of my customers will experience being the short stack, often.

 

[glom]

Keep in mind as a short stack, you have a whole orbit to try and find a spot to double up before your stack is hit, rather than dwindling every hand.

 

[haslettworm]

Yeah, I'd totally agree at first glance. But in reality, a T500-base 300K set and format has a whole lot going for it.

Set breakdown per 10-players is super-easy: one rack of each denomination (T500 through T25000) per 10 players. Stacks are 10/10/7/10, with every.single.chip seeing time on the felt (the unused 30x T5000 chips color up the T500/T1000 chips exactly). It is easily the most efficient set breakdown ever created, almost regardless of field size. Single table = four racks or 400 chips. Two tables, 800 chips. Three tables, 1200 chips.

 

[upNdown]

Okay, consider me a convert!
I still haven’t played a BBA tournament, but I played two tournaments this weekend and saw FOUR ante issues of varying degrees, one that resulted in a minor argument - the others just created delay and general annoyance. Two or three of them were probably the dealers’ fault - don’t start pulling them in until they’re all out there, dummy. But the BBA would prevent all of those issues. So I’m on board.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I would still reserve judgement. There are intrinsic problems lurking in the BBA concept, as BGinGA has pointed out.

Only a fool makes a decision without all the facts.

 

[upNdown]

I would still reserve judgement. There are intrinsic problems lurking in the BBA concept, as BGinGA has pointed out.

Only a fool makes a decision without all the facts.

Ease up on the “fool” comments. I’m not ready to embrace the idea just because it sounds neato. I’ve spoken with players and dealers and TD’s who have been involved in BBA tournaments, and I haven’t heard any negatives. I’ve shared BG’s concerns, but with few exceptions (BG being one of them) the concerns and complaints about BBA come from people who haven’t actually experienced it. I’m sure I’ll get to play some soon and judge for myself, but until then, I’m no longer opposed to the idea.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Ease up on the “fool” comments. I’m not ready to embrace the idea just because it sounds neato. I’ve spoken with players and dealers and TD’s who have been involved in BBA tournaments, and I haven’t heard any negatives. I’ve shared BG’s concerns, but with few exceptions (BG being one of them) the concerns and complaints about BBA come from people who haven’t actually experienced it. I’m sure I’ll get to play some soon and judge for myself, but until then, I’m no longer opposed to the idea.

Sorry for the offence. "Only a fool makes a decision without all the facts" is just a solid philosophy IMO. Not meant to implicate you.

...although, as poker players we frequently make decisions without all the facts, so it says something about poker players...

 

[fieldsy]

I really don’t understand the resistance to BBA. It creates some change to the game dynamic, mostly short-handed with short stacks, but I hesistate to say it’s better or worse. It’s just slightly different. But there is an advantage to game efficiency, and there is overwhelming momentum toward BBA in the major poker series.

I think one could argue that the value of the BBA is less in smaller-field tournaments than in large fields, because more play takes place short handed. But at the same time, worth noting that BBA really gained traction at the Aria high rollers, which are typically smallish fields of 20-30 players. I think if the best tournament players in the world are cool with BBA with $25k-$100k buyins, it can’t be too bad for competitive equity. It might be bad for nits, but then again so are antes. So are escalating blinds.

 

[BGinGA]

I really don’t understand the resistance to BBA.

Because it is totally unnecessary, as are antes. Eliminate both, and all problems are solved. Antes are an antiquated idea, superseded by the introduction of forced blind bets to get dead money in the pot for board-card games.

The best solution tends to be the one that is most simple, said a wise man long ago. Just say no to antes, of any type.

 

[fieldsy]

Because it is totally unnecessary, as are antes. Eliminate both, and all problems are solved. Antes are an antiquated idea, superseded by the introduction of forced blind bets to get dead money in the pot for board-card games.

That is a very different argument. I think a basic premise of using a BBA is that the tournament director sees advantages to using antes in the structure. BBA achieves those advantages while essentially eliminating the inefficiency added by traditional antes.

Respectfully disagree with you that blinds accomplish the same purpose, largely because blinds do not put “dead money in the pot.” Blinds are live bets. Blinds-only rounds do not incentivize aggression to the extent that true dead-money antes do.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I would question the need to "incentivise aggression". Poker play has evolved quite a bit in the past 20 years. It is far more aggressive than it used to be. Also, NLHE cash games rarely (never?) have antes. It there no need for aggression in cash games?

 

[fieldsy]

I would question the need to "incentivise aggression". Poker play has evolved quite a bit in the past 20 years. It is far more aggressive than it used to be. Also, NLHE cash games rarely (never?) have antes. It there no need for aggression in cash games?

It's a fair question, and I certainly wouldn't use the word "need" in reference to any of this. These are preferences. We're mostly talking about home games, and I absolutely think you should run your game however you want to. If you don't like antes, don't use antes. I won't begrudge anyone that choice. I personally think they do encourage aggression, and I think when running a tournament the host/director has an interest in encouraging players to knock each other out and move the tournament along.
I'm not aware of any major tournament or tournament series, live or online, that does not use antes in NLH events, and I don't think that's some historical accident or vestige of bygone days. The fact that most tournaments do not use antes in the first few levels seems to make clear that adding antes is a deliberate choice based on some perceived value in advancing the tournament. Also, while most cash games at reasonable stakes do not play with antes, the highest stakes games often do play with them. But as to the question whether there is a need for aggression in cash games, my point is that the game host does not have the same need to encourage aggression and knockouts as in a tournament. In a raked cash game, the house makes its money simply by operation of the game, and actually doesn't really want to bust players out. In a tournament, there is a need to move the event along and knock people out to reach a winner.
Personally, I play some "real" tournaments every year along with my home games. I'd rather be playing a similar format in my home tournament than show up at a casino or series and have to adjust to playing with antes. Lots of people probably feel differently, and that's cool. Play what you like.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm not aware of any major tournament or tournament series, live or online, that does not use antes in NLH events, and I don't think that's some historical accident or vestige of bygone days. The fact that most tournaments do not use antes in the first few levels seems to make clear that adding antes is a deliberate choice based on some perceived value in advancing the tournament.

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).

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?