Tourney Matt Savage’s recent blog post on big blind antes (9 Viewers)

[Poker Zombie]

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.

I'm with you 100%

I don't have a card room I can just go to. They're all a long drive (3-4 hours, one way). This, combined with my work schedule means that if I want to play poker, I need to use one of my vacation days.

I don't roll out to vacation with an endless bankroll. I go to have fun. Tournaments are nice and slow, and extremely predictable in cost and time. But when you are sitting down with Shovey McShoverson, you have to dodge an endless barrage of bullets, or be eliminated in the first level. Sure, I can duck and cover until I pull , but that's not poker, is it?

I too prefer no ante tournaments, but I can play either one. For me the ante is just below the 50/100 100/200 200/400 400/800 blind structure tournament - which I also do not "like" but I will play in it, because I like versatility. What I don't like is constant making of change. It makes me feel like the casino (or home game host) is just cheap as shit. If you know a player needs to use certain chips a lot, GIVE THEM A LOT OF THOSE CHIPS. It's like giving a marathon runner a shot glass of water.

So yeah, cut out the antes, and limit or prohibit rebuys. They are bad for bringing new players into the game.

 

[upNdown]

But when you are sitting down with Shovey McShoverson, you have to dodge an endless barrage of bullets, or be eliminated in the first level.

Yup. And it’s not just the pros. I recently played a $90 MTT, and this reg was sitting two seats to my left. He’s crazy agressive pre and post - he’ll raise pre with 74 and continue any flop. It’s a strategy that costs him more in the long run than it succeeds, but he creates a lot of carnage along the way. And when it’s a re-entry tournament, it only encourages his recklessness further.
So I had to play like a nit for a few hours and as a result, I overplayed Queens - should have cost me, but I got lucky. Long story short, he busted twice and I mincashed for a $10 profit. Wee. Rebuy/re-entries are poop.
Also, I like antes.

 

[Frogzilla]

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

I meant that it’s trivial in regards to the BBA discussion. Half the time you’re that short you’d actually prefer a BBA, depending on where you were relative to the big blind when you got so short.

 

[moose]

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.

In most cases antes don't start in the first level.

 

[upNdown]

In most cases antes don't start in the first level.

Yeah, but I think that's mostly because with a traditional ante, you need a smaller chip for the antes. Not so with the BBA. I've never taken a close look at the structures, but if BBA tournaments don't all start with ante's from the beginning, now, I bet they soon will. There's no reason not to.

 

[CraigT78]

He’s crazy agressive pre and post - he’ll raise pre with 74 and continue any flop.

I don’t recall playing at your table. You should have said Hi!

 

[DerekNoakes]

Yeah, but I think that's mostly because with a traditional ante, you need a smaller chip for the antes. Not so with the BBA. I've never taken a close look at the structures, but if BBA tournaments don't all start with ante's from the beginning, now, I bet they soon will. There's no reason not to.

....except the scenario you mentioned Easy for bounty tournies to just not have BBA first level (or even just the first hand ), if they think your scenario is really a problem.

 

[Anthony Martino]

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.

The vast majority of the tournaments I see are unlimited rebuys for the first 5-6 hours of the tournament, very rarely do I see one that offers only a single rebuy.

What's getting even worse now is poker rooms will hold a million dollar guarantee tournament and players start with 25K chips and the buyin on Day 1 is $150. But then they allow people to pay $1500 to buy into Day 2 and get a 250,000 chip starting stack, further making the event favor the pros over the joes. That shit just really pisses me off.

 

[upNdown]

The vast majority of the tournaments I see are unlimited rebuys for the first 5-6 hours of the tournament, very rarely do I see one that offers only a single rebuy.

What's getting even worse now is poker rooms will hold a million dollar guarantee tournament and players start with 25K chips and the buyin on Day 1 is $150. But then they allow people to pay $1500 to buy into Day 2 and get a 250,000 chip starting stack, further making the event favor the pros over the joes. That shit just really pisses me off.

If every day two buy-in represents 10 people I DIDNT have to get through in day one - and these people have put ten times as much as me into the pot, I might be okay with it.
I guess for me to be cool with it, the day two but-in stacks should be no more than the average stack of the surviving day one folks. If it works out like that, I think I’m good with it.

 

[glom]

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

Fine by me. It happened once. It’s not like a thing that happens.

 

[Mojo1312]

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.

First, hogwash. Name a "great" poker player who has fired five bullets in a single tournament. You can't. Then you proceed to complain about having a player to your left who loved burning money. How horrible! What a cruel fate! Sounds like the "kid" pushed his edge to the limit by RESHOVING against you with his suited 3, 6! . Glad to hear you defied the odds and came out okay.

Second, casinos don't rake re-buys.

Third, you brilliantly sum up how all of the above gives an "edge to players who already have an edge." A claim devoid of any cogent reasoning.

 

[Anthony Martino]

First, hogwash. Name a "great" poker player who has fired five bullets in a single tournament. You can't.

Daniel Negraneu

https://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=146779

Then you proceed to complain about having a player to your left who loved burning money. How horrible! What a cruel fate! Sounds like the "kid" pushed his edge to the limit by RESHOVING against you with his suited 3, 6! . Glad to hear you defied the odds and came out okay.

You realize someone willing to throw unlimited money is going to have an advantage because they can take risks the guy with 1 bullet cannot

Eventually they will win the hand where they were 30% equity. And they'll push you off a number of hands along the way and stack up because you can't take the risks they do

Second, casinos don't rake re-buys.

Not sure where you are playing, but everywhere I have played rebuys are most certainly raked. Thats why poker rooms love them

Third, you brilliantly sum up how all of the above gives an "edge to players who already have an edge." A claim devoid of any cogent reasoning.

Sigh, mojo being mojo again. Trying to insult someone elses intelligence and makes himself the fool in the process

 

[Anthony Martino]

First, hogwash. Name a "great" poker player who has fired five bullets in a single tournament. You can't.

https://www.pokerlistings.com/rebuys-bad-hellmuth-worse-negreanu-talks-wsop-35998

Daniel rebought FORTY-EIGHT times in a 1K buyin event. Guys with deep pockets have a significant edge in taking ridiculous risks that other players cannot afford, allowing them opportunities to win more events and bracelets because of it.

 

[fieldsy]

This discussion went from big blind antes with ante-paid-first are bad, to all big blind antes are bad, to then any antes are bad, now to rebuys are bad. If I log back in and someone is talking about how we should go back to deciding the WSOP Main by a vote, I am legit unsubscribing.

 

[BGinGA]

I dunno, giving Doyle one last ME bracelet via vote wouldn't be a terrible move.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

The easiest solution, if you oppose BBA in your local cardroom, is to vote with your wallet. Don't play in those tourneys, and let the room manager know why.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm mainly a cash game guy so what do I know? I will say that the drama in this thread seems disproportionate to what I see as a very minor difference in the way antes are collected. Sure, there's an edge case where an extreme short stack can get screwed, but so what? The whole point of a tournament is to eliminate the short stacks.

If you often find yourself affected because your stack is <2bb, you need to play better, run better, or both.

 

[JustinInMN]

The whole point of a tournament is to eliminate the short stacks.

If you often find yourself affected because your stack is <2bb, you need to play better, run better, or both.

+1 to all of this.

I really don't understand all this short stack sympathy. Tournaments eliminate people by their design. This is why players usually check down side pots to eliminate a short all in player, and no one feels too bad about this common practice.

If BBA is the rule, it's just a change in strategy in certain situations. Namely avoid the BB a little sooner than you otherwise would. If the ante is paid first it further benefits players to make the strategy change.

Assume 100-200 with a 200 BBA, and a player with 150 chips on the button. That player can win the entire 200 ante plus 150 from every player in a pot when he's all in on any pot between the button and utg. Why should a player have this advantage for these 5-6 hands and get to skip the ante on the BB?

When Savage says "you can't have it both ways," this is what he means.

I would suspect the alternate rule would have to be the ante would always go in a side pot in situations where players are all in short of the BB.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't know if it's sympathy for the short stack. If everybody is a big stack the BBA just averages in all the ante costs. Everyone pays the same amount over time, provided everyone plays the same number of hands.

Short stacks are where the cracks in Savage's logic form. The questions are

• Does it break the game? No. Poker will still play with these rules.
• Does it hamper the game? Yes. Posts against the BBA are not refuted. To what degree varies depending on your opinion, but there are indisputable flaws.
• Does it improve the game? Also Yes. It makes ante collection faster. It takes small "ante only" chips off the table (effectively making all-ins a little speedier).

Of course, all the things a BBA fixes, no ante tournaments also fixes.

So while this would appear to be a discussion about the BBA, it boils down to anties. If you like them, you want the BBA. If you don't like them, you don't like the BBA. The sympathy isn't toward the small stack. Pro-ante players are getting the sympathy, at the expense of the short stack.

 

[Mojo1312]

Daniel Negraneu

https://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=146779

You realize someone willing to throw unlimited money is going to have an advantage because they can take risks the guy with 1 bullet cannot

Eventually they will win the hand where they were 30% equity. And they'll push you off a number of hands along the way and stack up because you can't take the risks they do

Not sure where you are playing, but everywhere I have played rebuys are most certainly raked. Thats why poker rooms love them

Negreanu re-bought 48 times in pursuit of a bracelet. The game has changed significantly since 2009. I don't believe you will easily find any great players employing that kind of strategy today.

I call players who re-shove with 20% to 30% equity fish.

Re-entries are different from re-buys. Based upon my experience, casinos rake the former and not the latter.

Players who take high risks inflate the prize pool, which makes some of these tournaments worth playing.

 

[upNdown]

So while this would appear to be a discussion about the BBA, it boils down to anties. If you like them, you want the BBA.

Meh. I'm open to it. But in my perfect world, at table with a competent dealer and players who pay attention, a traditional ante game moves smooth as snot.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

• Does it break the game? No. Poker will still play with these rules.
• Does it hamper the game? Yes. Posts against the BBA are not refuted. To what degree varies depending on your opinion, but there are indisputable flaws.
• Does it improve the game? Also Yes. It makes ante collection faster. It takes small "ante only" chips off the table (effectively making all-ins a little speedier).

Of course, all the things a BBA fixes, no ante tournaments also fixes.

I think this is the best way to look at it. BBA and traditional antes both have their pros and cons, and ultimately they're both just a means to get dead money in the middle and speed the tournament along. If BBA gets small chips off the table faster and allows a couple extra hands per hour, I can get behind it.

But as someone who plays tourneys almost exclusively in home games, my primary preference is no antes. A casual self-dealt game that tries to use traditional antes is a oop: show. My group tried it once for a few weeks, and it was more torturous than bamboo under the fingernails.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

at table with a competent dealer and players who pay attention

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah, that's an oxymoron -- competent dealers tend to result in players who pay less attention.

 

[glom]

Meh. I'm open to it. But in my perfect world, at table with a competent dealer and players who pay attention, a traditional ante game moves smooth as snot.

What world do you live in where this is the norm?

 

[glom]

• Does it hamper the game? Yes. Posts against the BBA are not refuted. To what degree varies depending on your opinion, but there are indisputable flaws..

Can you re-articulate these flaws. I have not seen an undisputed flaw in this thread.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Can you re-articulate these flaws. I have not seen an undisputed flaw in this thread.

A short-stack can win a hand and be eliminated from the tournament.

 

[nitzilla]

I final tabled my first BBA tourney in May (9th out of 647), so I like them.

I too was in the camp that it should be the button paying the ante, but was quickly told that will never happen as there can be up to 2 "dead buttons" in a row, but the BB is ALWAYS in play.

 

[BGinGA]

There can be up to two dead buttons in a row in ANY tournament. Nothing about a table ante changes that. Don't want the possibility of no antes getting posted in a hand? Use individually-posted antes (hey, what a concept!).

 

[nitzilla]

There can be up to two dead buttons in a row in ANY tournament. Nothing about a table ante changes that.

Yes there is, if the blinds are 500/1000/1000 (in a BBA structure) and the Button posts the ante, then there can be up to 2 hands with no ante paid (-T2000), in a normal tourney, you'd still have antes from the 7-8 other players.....(+T700 - T800)

 

[DoubleEagle]

There can be up to two dead buttons in a row in ANY tournament.

What?