Tourney Matt Savage’s recent blog post on big blind antes (4 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

Uuum, I was clearly not saying everyone enjoys BBA, I have read the thread The context there was the issue where the BB cant cover BB + BBA. @ohikthxbye mentioned in this thread that it happened to him, and he still liked BBA. So no, not false

Yes, and even in that context (the BB can't cover both the BB and BBA, and gets screwed), not everybody in this thread who has experienced it thinks it was a positive -- because @ohikthxbye isn't the only player with that experience.

And the only player in this thread who has actually experienced it still thinks the BBA was a positive experience.

So, not true.

I started experimenting with table antes in tournaments years before this recent fad came along. My conclusions and opinions are based on real-world applications, not just how it works in theory.

 

[timinater]

I hate myself for wading into this discussion...

Look at this from the perspective of the casino. They think about poker in one term only: hands per hour. I repeat, HANDS PER HOUR. That has a heavy bias towards cash games obviously, but nevertheless, this is the mindset.

I see why a casino likes it and would want to implement it, especially in large fields. Using the assumption of 2 hands per hour tossed out in this thread:

• 2 hands per hour is a 6.6 - 10% improvement @ 20-30 hands/hr. That alone, pretty good.
  • Taking the WSOP Event #7, the $565 Colossus event as an example. 13,000 entrants split over 6 flights.
    • 2,166 players/flight on 240 tables = 480 extra hands in the first hour alone. (432 ten-handed, though iirc WSOP plays x9)
    • That number reduces as the field gets smaller, certainly, but I'm too lazy to break out excel and estimate it.
    • 480 more chances for a cold-deck, cooler or someone to go busto, while increasing the amount of play (value) for your customers. Win-win.
• More simplicity for dealers could reduce mistakes, floor calls etc.
• More simplicity for players
• From what I can tell players that have an opinion seem fairly split on it, and a good chunk really doesn't care one way or the other.

If I'm a TD looking to run a large tournament with antes more efficiently, I know what I'd do.

Spoiler: Another Thought:

Just get rid of antes completely.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If casinos thought only in terms of hands per hour, every table would have an auto-shuffler. I played recently in Evansville, and one dealer was so slow on her wash-riffle shuffle, we only played 7 hands in an hour. No tanks, no big hands, no disputes. Regular play at a dreadfully slow pace. There is no way Trop Evansville cares at all about hands per hour.

Sure hands per hour does speed up rake, but in a tournament, the rake was collected before you found your seat. The tournament ends when the Big Blind says it will end. Antes may speed it up by a level, but it won't matter if it takes them 15 seconds or 45 seconds to collect the antes.

I still haven't played a BBA tournament, so I'm still open to it being the best thing since the hole cam. Will be interested to see if it spreads, or sticks with the "Savage" niche.

 

[fieldsy]

I still haven't played a BBA tournament, so I'm still open to it being the best thing since the hole cam. Will be interested to see if it spreads, or sticks with the "Savage" niche.

I will save you the suspense. It isn't the best thing since the hole cam.

As established above, I like the BBA. But it's a minor change to the game with (in my mind) a marginal benefit and even less detriment. I think reactions on both sides are wildly exaggerated.

 

[DerekNoakes]

Yes, and even in that context (the BB can't cover both the BB and BBA, and gets screwed), not everybody in this thread who has experienced it thinks it was a positive -- because @ohikthxbye isn't the only player with that experience.

So, not true.

Lol, come on, surely you know what I meant, no need to be a pedant about it. How am I supposed to know how many of you guys have experienced it. One person mentioned it. Surely that was obvious.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

Uuum, I was clearly not saying everyone enjoys BBA, I have read the thread The context there was the issue where the BB cant cover BB + BBA. @ohikthxbye mentioned in this thread that it happened to him, and he still liked BBA. So no, not false



It's getting alot of press, mainly BECAUSE it's popular. The players in your game really go against the grain here apparently, since the feedback from players elsewhere have been very positive.

At this point I have played in literally dozens of big blind ante tournaments and I always make a point of asking what people think of it, almost everyone loves it and a handful are lukewarm.

As for those who don't like antes in tournaments to begin with, let's just say I love playing with those folks.

 

[timinater]

If casinos thought only in terms of hands per hour, every table would have an auto-shuffler. I played recently in Evansville, and one dealer was so slow on her wash-riffle shuffle, we only played 7 hands in an hour. No tanks, no big hands, no disputes. Regular play at a dreadfully slow pace. There is no way Trop Evansville cares at all about hands per hour.

Yikes. Was that tourney or cash? Certainly, they don't care about hands per hour. You caught me speaking in absolutes. I'd suggest most profitable poker rooms/casinos think about poker that way, though.

 

[upNdown]

Hey Dave @BGinGA !
I’ve seen a few posts from you that suggest at least an ambivalence toward antes in general.

Do you host any tournaments with antes, presently?
Would you agree than hands play differently with the dead ante money in the middle, as opposed to just blind bets?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Yikes. Was that tourney or cash? Certainly, they don't care about hands per hour. You caught me speaking in absolutes. I'd suggest most profitable poker rooms/casinos think about poker that way, though.

It was cash.

That wasn't the worst of it though. The worst happened the day before (may have been more than 1 day, I didn't catch the exact date, but it was still a hot topic)...

The Bad Beat Jackpot was hit. $30,000+ in the pool. When the casino reviewed the tape, the hand was nullified because of a dealer error... she forgot to advance the button.

I don't know how someone doesn't speak up when paying the BB twice, but night shift bring out interesting characters. The truly baffling part, was the dealer pitching 7 hands an hour WAS THE SAME DEALER. Even the other dealers hate her, because they are required to pool tips, and she obviously brings very little to the pool.

 

[BGinGA]

Hey Dave @BGinGA !
I’ve seen a few posts from you that suggest at least an ambivalence toward antes in general.

Do you host any tournaments with antes, presently?
Would you agree than hands play differently with the dead ante money in the middle, as opposed to just blind bets?

I do currently run both. And no, I see no significant differences in play with extra dead money in the pot, other than bet sizing.

Players who open pots for 3xbb will typically change that to 4x when antes are present, for example. I think the 'wider opening range' argument is flawed, simply because the larger investment (stack percentage-wise) required to play tends to tighten the opening range, making it a wash overall.

In the latter stages of an ante tournament there may be a slightly higher shove-pre rate, but I'm far from convinced that it's better for the game. It magnifies the luck factor, and thus minimizes skill. Sounds bad to me, ymmv.

There is also no significant difference in the overall amount of time that ante events take vs non-ante events, at least in a three-tables-or-less setting.

 

[SixSpeedFury]

I used Dave's words to reply to Matt Savage, and here's what he said:

So basically, fuck the short stacked players

 

[v1pe]

I tend to have the thought that ante's increase the skill factor because players won't correctly adjust to the extra dead money in the pot. There should be more defending to small opens and also more profitable stealing spots for skilled players.

 

[DoubleEagle]

As for those who don't like antes in tournaments to begin with, let's just say I love playing with those folks.

Amen.

 

[DerekNoakes]

I dont agree with Savage on ante-first, but will reiterate that this is a situation that will happen so rarely, its barely worth talking about. And in most cases it will be the shortstacks own damn fault, since their stack should've been in the middle a long time before they end up there. Yes, there are situations where someone loses a big pot and are left with crumbs right before their BB, but that will definitely happen very very rarely.

And yes, antes definitely increase the skill factor. You need to be more active to fight for all that dead money, and skilled players are much much better at being active.

 

[v1pe]

I dont agree with Savage on ante-first, but will reiterate that this is a situation that will happen so rarely, its barely worth talking about. And in most cases it will be the shortstacks own damn fault, since their stack should've been in the middle a long time before they end up there. Yes, there are situations where someone loses a big pot and are left with crumbs right before their BB, but that will definitely happen very very rarely

This is the crux of the issue, IMO. This situation seems so rare that it's not even really worth arguing over. Not to mention that it's usually a result of poor play, or extremely bad luck (welcome to Poker).

If you are going to play with an ante it seems obvious to me that the BBA or BTN ante has clear advantages. Ante vs no ante is a completely different discussion and I think both sides have their pros and cons.

 

[fieldsy]

Matt Savage has been a poor spokesperson for this change, and his statements about short stacks are an example. I wish we would hear more about this from the players in the High Rollers, who almost certainly favored the rule or it never would have gained traction. Those are small-field tournaments, with the most influential players in the world, and if those players didn't like the BBA it would have stopped real fast. Negreanu has been outspoken in favor because he's outspoken about everything. But it would be nice to hear from some of the other players who helped get the trend going instead of a tournament director who plays a few tourneys per year.

A much better response from Savage, in my opinion, would be that if a player is all in for less than the BBA+BB, either they just ran into a bad spot for nearly all their chips while UTG and lost, or they just got away with some number of free hands that would not have been free using traditional antes. Getting those free hands is actually a benefit to the short stacks, so having to survive your ante hand is the price you pay. I'm not saying I agree with that, I still prefer the "big blind gets paid first" variant, but there's a better argument for his position than what he's actually saying. Again, people make a way bigger deal about this specific <2BB scenario than they should.

 

[BGinGA]

I used Dave's words to reply to Matt Savage, and here's what he said:View attachment 194904

So basically, fuck the short stacked players

Yeah, he's not exhibiting much valuable leadership if he's unwilling to even consider options, and openly laughing at opinions that differ from his instead of actually discussing the issue.

Far more players will ultimately become short-stacked than will become big stacks. You'd think an experienced tournament director would know and understand this, and not express disdain towards the overwhelming majority of the tournament participants he supposedly serves to protect. Maybe he's just in it for the money, and those who directly pay his salary (even though without the players -- shortstacked and deepstacked alike - he doesn't have a job).

Antes are posted by individual players first, prior to posting blinds. Even a player who lacks enough chips to even post ~part~ of the big blind can still show a profit from a won all-in hand. But having a single player post antes for everybody totally changes that dynamic, to the degree that it no longer makes sense to apply chips to antes first when done by a single player for the entire table.

It's also worth mentioning that this exact same situation arises when a button ante is used. If the antes-posting button only has enough chips to post the antes, then he can only win those chips that he put in the pot, and absolutely no others. Position doesn't change that, and it's the single biggest flaw in the entire table ante concept, because it flies in the face of basic poker fundamentals. Win a pot, win zero chips is anti-poker.

And for this reason, the button ante is no better than the big blind ante when the bb player posts antes first.

Nothing wrong with experimentation, but this idea is simply not yet ready for prime time -- there are still bugs to work out, which may or may not be adequately resolved. To plan to shove it down the throats of players while simultaneously mocking their concerns says quite a bit about his character, imo.

And for those naysayers who cite the supposed infrequency of such events, do you have any real statistics to back that up, or are you just going on the word of a guy who has a corporate-backed agenda? In my admittedly small sample size, one would expect that it never should have happened at all. But it has happened at least once in every single event I have played, and more than once on one occasion. Your definition may vary from mine, but I don't call that rare.

 

[upNdown]

And this smug "that should never happen" attitude about what to do with a guy who doesn't have enough chips to pay the BB and the BBA really annoys me. As if push fold charts are some sort of gospel we're all supposed to follow blindly.
I'd point out that Phil Helmuth ignores push fold charts, but 1) people won't believe it or 2) they'll get smug about his poker abilities too.

 

[upNdown]

But here's an interesting argument against the BBA that I just read. Consider a single table bounty tournament. On the first hand, everybody is equal, and anybody can eliminate anybody else, if they go all in. Except in a BBA scenario, the whoever is in the big blind for the first hand can't eliminate anybody. That doesn't seem right.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Translation of Matt Savage's explanation...

LOL I do not take criticism seriously. I am the Director of a well established tournament, so I don't care about the little people anymore.
It's correct to be posted first I made up the rule, therefore whatever I say is correct. You are one of the little people I don't care about. Do as I tell you, or you are wrong.
who wants to help the short stacks My next rule: anybody reduced to 20 BB will automatically be eliminated. Only poor players have short stacks! Poor players should not play poker. Min-cashes are for newbies! We don't want new players in the game, I just want the same 30 high-rollers that I have been pals with for years. F-everybody else!
unless of course, you are one Wait, your a short stack? Loser! LOSER! LOOOOOOOSERRRRRRR. Here's a big "L" for your forehead. Definitely rolling out the 20BB elimination rule tomorrow. I can't imagine anyone ever losing a tournament. LOOSERRRRRR!

 

[Poker Zombie]

Side note, Savage has never won a major tournament.

#loser

 

[v1pe]

I don't like Savage's attitude either, especially as a person of influence he should be more positive and better explain his side rather than the "LOL SHORT STACKS" response.

I wouldn't claim that anyone should follow push/fold charts religiously...but you should almost always be able to find a +EV shove spot between 5-15 BBs (unless in a very specific situation like a satellite or something).

 

[WedgeRock]

I used Dave's words to reply to Matt Savage, and here's what he said:View attachment 194904

So basically, fuck the short stacked players

But, but, but... I thought Matt Savage said the BBA benefitted the short stacks?!

 

[Frogzilla]

This <1 big blind situation is so trivial. Every criticism of it seems to only consider the one hand where the player is the big blind. Consider a very related case where a player has 12k stack in the small blind. 8 handed with 4K/8k blinds and either a 1k shitty ante vs 8k BBA. Our player folds the small blind to be at 7k/8k and will be button next. As button, he has opportunity to win 6k per caller (shit ante) vs 8k per caller (BBA) plus the ante. He folds. Next hand 5k vs 8k plus the ante. So on and so forth until the big blind where he has 1k or 8k. He’s all in for the ante, and can only win 8k. What’s more, if he wins, he can fold an additional 3 hands and still be live.

In this specific, but plausible scenario (seems just as plausible to get nearly stacked from the small blind vs UTG) the short stack came out objectively ahead in the BBA format. That’s why this situation is so trivial

 

[Anthony Martino]

Personally I think we should do away with antes altogether and do away with rebuy tournaments and just have freezeouts. But as long as people keep playing them, the poker rooms will continue finding ways to benefit themselves over the players.

 

[TheBigTater]

Personally I think we should do away with antes altogether and do away with rebuy tournaments and just have freezeouts. But as long as people keep playing them, the poker rooms will continue finding ways to benefit themselves over the players.

Can I like this post 10x times? (y) :thumbsupy) :thumbsupy) :thumbsup:

If antes cause that big a problem just do away with antes. Making rules to fix other rules just changes the problems.

This thread hurts my head. Since I prefer cash to tournaments, and prefer tournament structures without antes I'm in the "who cares" camp.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Anyone that thinks the <2 BB situation is "trivial" is forever banned from using the phrase "a chip and a chair".

 

[detroitdad]

Personally I think we should do away with antes altogether and do away with rebuy tournaments and just have freezeouts. But as long as people keep playing them, the poker rooms will continue finding ways to benefit themselves over the players.

I'm not a big tourney player. If there is going to be rebuys. I prefer there to be unlimited rebuys lol.......makes it more like a cash game early on

 

[Anthony Martino]

I'm not a big tourney player. If there is going to be rebuys. I prefer there to be unlimited rebuys lol.......makes it more like a cash game early on

My problem with rebuys is that it favors the deep-pocked pros. The whole appeal to tournaments was that the amateurs had a shot at besting "the greats". But now "the greats" not only have their skill edge, but also the deep pocketed edge to fire 5 bullets when the amateur can only afford 1.

I had a maniac in the Hard Rock Little Slick 100K guaranteed on my left rebuy four freaking times (and they kept sitting him back in the exact same seat on my left) and he min-raised UTG from 300 to 600, the button cold-called and I shoved the SB with for 8K and then this kid RESHOVES over the top and I'm thinking "oh, maybe he has a legit hand this time" and he flips over

And you know the flop was so I had to sweat the bust. Wound up doubling up. But the point is that the deep pocketed players can afford to take more risks in tournaments to stack up and win than the amateurs who are only firing one bullet, who won their seat via satellite, etc.

It's more rake for the poker room and another edge for players who already have an edge.

 

[BGinGA]

My problem with rebuys is that it favors the deep-pocked pros. The whole appeal to tournaments was that the amateurs had a shot at besting "the greats". But now "the greats" not only have their skill edge, but also the deep pocketed edge to fire 5 bullets when the amateur can only afford 1.

I had a maniac in the Hard Rock Little Slick 100K guaranteed on my left rebuy four freaking times (and they kept sitting him back in the exact same seat on my left) and he min-raised UTG from 300 to 600, the button cold-called and I shoved the SB with for 8K and then this kid RESHOVES over the top and I'm thinking "oh, maybe he has a legit hand this time" and he flips over

And you know the flop was so I had to sweat the bust. Wound up doubling up. But the point is that the deep pocketed players can afford to take more risks in tournaments to stack up and win than the amateurs who are only firing one bullet, who won their seat via satellite, etc.

It's more rake for the poker room and another edge for players who already have an edge.

Only an issue for unlimited re-buys. One-per-player is more of an insurance policy for players, although it doesn't line the organizer's pockets nearly as well.