Tourney Matt Savage’s recent blog post on big blind antes (3 Viewers)

So the guy in nearly the worst position (only small blind being worse) has to risk the most before he even sees his cards.

And why? Simplicity? It's too much work to post an ante every hand and collect them before the deal?!

If you are trying to teach a kid multiplication and he doesn't get it, you scrap it and go back to addition?

I'm not a fan. It has a big impact on the short stack, IMO. Plus, in situations where the BBA can't post the full amount, and/or the BBA is all in and so is another player, there are resolutions that need to be identified. Things that have already been dealt with and universally accepted by poker players.

I see this as a solution in search of a problem. It's not a big enough deal to raise a stink over, but it definitely affects the game play.
 
So the guy in nearly the worst position (only small blind being worse) has to risk the most before he even sees his cards.

And why? Simplicity? It's too much work to post an ante every hand and collect them before the deal?!

If you are trying to teach a kid multiplication and he doesn't get it, you scrap it and go back to addition?

I'm not a fan. It has a big impact on the short stack, IMO. Plus, in situations where the BBA can't post the full amount, and/or the BBA is all in and so is another player, there are resolutions that need to be identified. Things that have already been dealt with and universally accepted by poker players.

I see this as a solution in search of a problem. It's not a big enough deal to raise a stink over, but it definitely affects the game play.

Why ?

More hands = more play
Self dealt games often skip ante to keep it simple this adds a lot to those games
 
Does posting an ante and collecting it really mean less hands?! When you deal, you check for an ante and call out if someone hasn't posted it. Dealer collects them after the deal while players are making their decisions? How is there less hands per hour? Because people aren't paying attention? Why institute a rule that promotes an environment where people don't have to pay attention?

I'd vote for no BBA, but I wouldn't care that much either way.
 
And why? Simplicity? It's too much work to post an ante every hand and collect them before the deal?

Yes, it is.

Not for me as a player, but its just too much unneccessary work for the dealer. AND, it saves us from the potential hassle when someone doesnt post their ante. When that happens, we gotta figure out who didnt post it, arguments might ensue, and during the time it takes to sort out that mess we could've gotten another hand or 2 in.
 
Well floors agree that ante tournaments have fewer hand per hour than non ante tournament. Also if there is not clear who did not pay the ante floor has to be called and so on. You would not believe how many people have trouble with keeping up posting ante....
 
Issues with the BBA, like what happens if it puts a player allin, could be somewhat solved by going with the button-ante instead. Only issue then would be if we have a dead button, which would just result in 1 hand with no antes.
 
This is the most underrated benefit:
5. There are less chips in play, less need to make change, and fewer annoying bets of 1,675.
I used to think such bets were fun and charming - it's because I mostly played short-handed chip heavy home games. As I've become a casino tournament player, I have zero use for such bets and the cutsey people who make them.
I still say this Savage guy is a misguided twat for his bias against short stacks. The majority of players will be a short stack at some point in every tournament. A tournament director doesn't have to go out of his way to cater to short stacks, but making it his expressed goal to eliminate them as soon as possible isn't very customer-friendly.
Everybody loves to encourage the guy with "a chip and a chair." Mr. Savage would just grab the chip and kick the guy's chair out from under him.
 
Maybe the solution is to make someone who is not paying attention and doesn't have their ante ready post a double ante, taking the second ante out of play.

People will learn real quick to post an ante when the dealer calls for it at the start of the deal. Seems the BBA takes personal responsibility away from the player and makes it easier on them.

Want easier? Go play black jack or slots.
 
Maybe the solution is to make someone who is not paying attention and doesn't have their ante ready post a double ante, taking the second ante out of play.

People will learn real quick to post an ante when the dealer calls for it at the start of the deal. Seems the BBA takes personal responsibility away from the player and makes it easier on them.

Want easier? Go play black jack or slots.
You surely can’t believe this is a more player friendly rule
 
Requiring that the ante be posted before the big blind is the most idiotic part of the rule. Forces a player to be all-in for a pot that contains nothing except the chips he contributed. Ludicrous.

I have a lot of respect for Matt Savage (admittedly less, given his views on this issue), but he's dead wrong on that aspect.
 
I'm not worried about being player-friendly. I agree with Savage that friendly to one player is harsh to another.

I'm more concerned about being fair and even-handed. Teaching players to play within the rules, including paying attention and posting antes, is not a bad thing. If a player can't pay attention, the problem is the player, not the rule.

I'm not a dealer, but our games are self-dealt. Start the deal and announce what ante is due. When you're dealing the first card, announce who is short an ante (or blind). Remind them in the second card out. That should be enough to get everything posted. Collect the antes after the deal is out. How does this cause you to lose a hand per orbit?

I'm not saying the BBA is dysfunctional, but it does change the game. And there is already a procedure for the quick and efficient posting of antes. Why re-write the rule for players that can't follow it? Isn't it better to teach those offending players proper play procedures?

What's next? BB posts that BB+SB+table antes because it easier than requiring two players to pay attention? Why not have the floor post everything from the players stacks, that way players don't have to pay attention at all?

It's a slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
I'm not worried about being player-friendly. I agree that what Savage that friendly to one player is harsh to another.

I'm more concerned about being fair and even-handed. Teaching players to play within the rules, including paying attention and posting antes, is not a bad thing. If a player can't pay attention, the problem is the player, not the rule.

I'm not a dealer, but our games are self-dealt. Start the deal and announce what ante is due. When you're dealing the first card, announce who is short an ante (or blind). Remind them in the second card out. That should be enough to get everything posted. Collect the antes after the deal is out. How does this cause you to lose a hand per orbit?

I'm not saying the BBA is dysfunctional, but it does change the game. And there is already a procedure for the quick and efficient posting of antes. Why re-write the rule for players that can't follow it? Isn't it better to teach those offending players proper play procedures?

What's next? BB posts that BB+SB+table antes because it easier than requiring two players to pay attention? Why not have the floor post everything from the players stacks, that way players don't have to pay attention at all?

It's a slippery slope.
It’s not a slippery slope. And if you think antes are not a problem in games than you have been blessed to play with better players than a typical public game. I want the inattentive poo flinging dead money monkeys in my game. It’s where profit comes from.
 
Antes aren't needed at all for tournaments that have forced blind bets, but if you want the dynamic that they create by having all players vested in every pot, then use them -- as intended. But the BBA just creates more issues than it theoretically 'solves'. Good for dealers and promoters, bad for players. Matt Savage isn't a player.
 
So the guy in nearly the worst position (only small blind being worse) has to risk the most before he even sees his cards.

I think the impact on stacks is actually negilgible.

Think about it, the stack is one chip bigger than it otherwise would be using individual antes for every hand between the small blind and next big blind. The stack is never shorter than it would otherwise be except for the initial draw for the button.

So the strategy adjustment is to push in from utg more frequently in short stack situations, but you have almost an extra round of antes in your stack to collect from other players if you win the all in.
 
I'm not worried about being player-friendly. I agree that what Savage that friendly to one player is harsh to another.

I'm more concerned about being fair and even-handed. Teaching players to play within the rules, including paying attention and posting antes, is not a bad thing. If a player can't pay attention, the problem is the player, not the rule.

I'm not a dealer, but our games are self-dealt. Start the deal and announce what ante is due. When you're dealing the first card, announce who is short an ante (or blind). Remind them in the second card out. That should be enough to get everything posted. Collect the antes after the deal is out. How does this cause you to lose a hand per orbit?

I'm not saying the BBA is dysfunctional, but it does change the game. And there is already a procedure for the quick and efficient posting of antes. Why re-write the rule for players that can't follow it? Isn't it better to teach those offending players proper play procedures?

What's next? BB posts that BB+SB+table antes because it easier than requiring two players to pay attention? Why not have the floor post everything from the players stacks, that way players don't have to pay attention at all?

It's a slippery slope.
Every tournament I've ever played, the antes are collected before the deal, so I'm not sure you guys are doing it right.
 
This one is extremely rare and up for debate, but it is a situation to be aware of. The player in the big blind antes first, but only has one chip and is all in by posting the ante. Action folds to the player in the small blind, who calls. The board runs out to force a chopped pot, so who wins the one-chip ante?

Anybody that knows anything about gaming rules knows that one hole makes for a very bad game. Matt Savage proposes that you can lose a $1,000,000, winner-take-all tournament when you won the hand.

Take it to the TDA asshole. It will get shot down if there are enough brain-cells active in the room. If Matt Savage cost me 11 million dollars because I chopped a winning hand, he'd be found ass-raped and dead in a fucking gutter holding his Big-blind ante.

If you want to treat your players this way, follow suit. But losing everything when you have the nuts is the stupidest rule I have ever heard. Hands-down, ab-so-lute-fucking-lutely retarded.
 
I haven’t played with the B.B. ante but local casinos use the dealer ante. Anyone have any comparisons on the two? From what I gather, I feel the dealer ante would be better at least giving the B.B. an extra hand or two? Before their demise? I’m sure this isn’t true though because Vegas would likely be adopting it as well if it were better. Will be interesting to see what happens over the next year or two with ante styles everywhere though
 
Requiring that the ante be posted before the big blind is the most idiotic part of the rule. Forces a player to be all-in for a pot that contains nothing except the chips he contributed. Ludicrous.

I have a lot of respect for Matt Savage (admittedly less, given his views on this issue), but he's dead wrong on that aspect.
But I don’t believe that’s necessarily part of the rule. I’m sure I heard of a tournament this summer, maybe it was the WSOP, with BBA where the rule was that the blind gets paid first.
Which, as you point out, is absolutely how it should be. You should never win a hand of poker and not actually win chips. (I suppose if you’re BB and there’s a dead small, and it folds to you, then you’re not winning anything. But that’s not quite the same thing, because there was never anybody in that hand with you, so if you didn’t beat anybody, did you actually win?)
But my point is that his attempt at applying logic to that particular debate is flawed. You can’t compare how it works with a traditional ante to how it works with the BBA, logically, because the BBA is logically flawed. It is arguably a fair compromise that a lot of people favor for a variety of reasons. But it’s also an illogical construction - a sort of a fabrication - that should be dealt with exclusively, in a way that makes sense poker-wise. By hiding behind logic, he’s exposing himself as either biased or ignorant.
 
You simply can't argue that the BBA isn't more simple and streamlined, allowing for more hands per hour. Even with a dedicated dealer, collecting and confirming the ante still takes time, especially if players are up and down from the table or not paying close attention. So there's that benefit.

Seems most of the argument against the BBA is concern about being on the big blind with a stack that isn't capable of paying both the ante and the blinds?

Just thinking through this...imagine a situation where you are on the button, 9 handed with exactly enough in your stack to post the ante until you are in the big blind. If you did nothing but fold until your big blind, you would have exactly enough to post the ante, and then you would be all in for your BB.

Let's say 100/200/25 is the SB/BB/ANTE.

We are OTB and have 7 hands to post the ante until our big blind comes around (25 x 7 = 175) plus just enough to post our ante/BB (25 + 200 = 225), so a total of 175 + 225 = 400. Pretty short stack. I would argue that you should never be in this situation (you were most likely dealt a hand that is mathematically correct to shove prior to being this short)...but we can put that aside for the sake of this situation since it *could* happen...although very rarely I would imagine.

Let's think about how much money we stand to make if we were to shove at any given position, with a standard ante structure (after we post our ANTE)....

How much we can win if if folds to us, we shove, and everyone folds:
BTN (375 after ante): 525 (225 (ante) + 300 (sb/bb) = 525)
CO (350): 525
HJ (325): 525
LJ (300): 525
+2 (275): 525
+1 (250): 525
UTG (225): 525
BB (200): 525

Compared to a BBA structure of 100/200/200:
BTN (400): 500
CO (350): 500
HJ (325): 500
LJ (300): 500
+2 (275): 500
+1 (250): 500
UTG (225): 500
BB (200): 500

Notice that we win the same amount if the table was 8 handed, and we can actually win more (with BBA vs ante) if the table is short handed (7 or less) although this probably rare since a good tournament will balance the tables and we shouldn't see any less than 7 handed until the very late stages of the tournament.

Let's look at the situation that everyone seems to be up in arms about...if you actually have less in your stack than is required to post both the BBA and the BB. In our case the minimum would be a stack of 200. Again we should never be in this situation, but whatever.

100/200/25...we shove and everyone folds to the BB and we win the hand:
BTN (175 after ANTE): 500 (225 ante + 100 sb + 175 bb = 500, note that we can only win as many chips from the BB as match our stack)
CO (150): 475
HJ (125): 450
LJ (100): 425
+2 (75): 400
+1 (50): 375
UTG (25): 350
BB (0): we can't post a big blind, so I think we are out?

BBA 100/200/200:
BTN (200): 500
CO (200): 500
HJ (200): 500
LJ (200): 500
+2 (200): 500
+1 (200): 500
UTG (200): 500
BB (200): we can't post a big blind, so I think we are out?

Seems to me that the BBA actually allows us to win more chips before we "ante out" of the tournament. Is that not true? If I'm thinking incorrectly, can someone help explain? What is this shorty short "ante out" of the tournament situation that everyone is up in arms about? I'm not seeing it.

Is this shorty short stack situation even worth considering? I don't think so...I don't think I'm ever going to be in a position with less than 2bb unless I get nearly stacked by someone with a slightly shorter stack, in which case I'm pretty much shoving ATC with 2BBs. I think this situation is so rare it's hardly even worth discussing. If that's the case, the BBA has the clear advantage of being more simple and most likely allowing more hands per hour (granted, we are only talking about a few hands MAYBE...but that could add up over the length of a long tournament).
 
All three currently-used versions of tournament table antes have flaws. Some are more flawed than others, with BBA/ante-first being the worst by far.

And until somebody comes up with a flawless solution, it shouldn't be crammed down players' throats, to fix a nonexistent problem.
 
All three currently-used versions of tournament table antes have flaws. Some are more flawed than others, with BBA/ante-first being the worst by far.

And until somebody comes up with a flawless solution, it shouldn't be crammed down players' throats, to fix a nonexistent problem.

The problem they are trying to fix (I think) is the slow-down caused by ANTEs (which is real if players aren't at the table and/or if the dealer is inexperienced)...you could pretty easily argue that the BBA at least makes positive progress toward that issue. No?
 
I engaged in this debate last week in another thread, and don't want to retread too much. Reasonable minds may differ. I think if you don't like antes, you won't like the BBA. If you're okay with antes but think they can be cumbersome and slow in live play, BBA is a nice alternative. And I don't think that BBA is a solution in search of a problem (although one could argue that collecting antes is inefficient and therefore a problem), but really just trying to improve the game by increasing its efficiency. Not that antes are all that complicated, but over the years I'm sure I've seen a hundred "was that my ante or yours?" situations, plus someone having to pull chips from the stack of an absent player, making change in the multiple players' antes, etc. These are individually small issues but collectively they're not trivial. And despite theoretical objections, most players in live tournament play have liked it. Do you think that if the regs in the Aria $25k High Rollers had not liked the BBA that the tournament directors would have forced the issue? And on the other end of the players' spectrum, at this summer's WSOP even the recreational players in the $200 Daily Deepstack weren't complaining.

All that said, I prefer the big-blind-first variation over Savage's suggestion. In a non-ante tournament, a player all-in for less than the BB can at least double his or her chips if he wins the hand against a call from the SB. In a traditional ante tournament, a player all-in for less than the BB can potentially do even more than double up, by winning the antes and the portion of the BB from a caller. So I don't like the variant that would post the ante first and have the player only keep his or her own chips.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom