Tourney Matt Savage’s recent blog post on big blind antes (1 Viewer)

nitzilla said:
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)
Click to expand...

The button never posts an ante in a BBA structure.
 
Poker Zombie said:
  • 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.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's really accurate. We've been having a robust discussion here. Plenty of refutation on both sides.
Poker Zombie said:
A short-stack can win a hand and be eliminated from the tournament.
Click to expand...
I would dispute this. I don't think this is true. You can't win a hand and be eliminated. I assume you are referring to the scenario you reposted from Savage's post:
Poker Zombie said:
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?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, Savage doesn't take a position on this situation. So it would be easy enough to just adopt a rule that the BB gets the chip back. It's worth pointing out that this question is eliminated entirely by having BB take priority over the ante in BBA. But assuming we're in Savageworld, the question assumes that the BB player is so short he or she has 1/2 a BB or less (I can't imagine a scenario where the amount of the full BB is one chip). This is a point where I do start to lose some sympathy for the short stack, since this player is all-in in the dark for a half blind and runs into a chop. It's not like there was any decisionmaking that went into the all-in. So I'm not going to lose any sleep regardless of the rule. But if that's the concern, just have the rule be that the odd chip goes to the ante-poster.
Poker Zombie said:
Of course, all the things a BBA fixes, no ante tournaments also fixes.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But not in the same way. Live bets versus dead money, different pot odds creating different incentives for action. But this has been covered.
Poker Zombie said:
So while this would appear to be a discussion about the BBA, it boils down to antes. If you like them, you want the BBA. If you don't like them, you don't like the BBA.
Click to expand...
This I agree with whole-heartedly.
 
fieldsy said:
Interestingly, Savage doesn't take a position on this situation. So it would be easy enough to just adopt a rule that the BB gets the chip back. It's worth pointing out that this question is eliminated entirely by having BB take priority over the ante in BBA.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
OK, I accept that the thing that makes the rule work is a rule that nobody has discussed yet. :rolleyes:

I bet that'd fly really well in the casino.
 
Poker Zombie said:
OK, I accept that the thing that makes the rule work is a rule that nobody has discussed yet. :rolleyes:

I bet that'd fly really well in the casino.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying it's a rule fix if the fate of a blind-all-in for 1/2 BB really gives you a heartburn, because rules for BBA structures aren't exactly set in stone yet. Savage doesn't say it outright, but the existing TDA rule is that an odd chip goes in order from the button, so it would go to the SB. Because in this scenario the all-in player can't win back 1/4 of a BB. It seems that you find that result to be outrageous; to many others it's a "whatever."

So I guess the moral of this story is that if you are playing in a BBA ante tournament in which the ante is paid first, and you are all-in in the dark for half a big blind, you'd better win that pot outright. If you chop it, I suggest storming off in righteous indignance and think about what might have been, if only you would have had the opportunity to immediately go all-in in the dark for the small blind the following hand.
 
fieldsy said:
I'm just saying it's a rule fix if the fate of a blind-all-in for 1/2 BB really gives you a heartburn, because rules for BBA structures aren't exactly set in stone yet. Savage doesn't say it outright, but the existing TDA rule is that an odd chip goes in order from the button, so it would go to the SB. Because in this scenario the all-in player can't win back 1/4 of a BB. It seems that you find that result to be outrageous; to many others it's a "whatever."
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that there are problems with the BBA. I'm interested to try it out, but so far there hasn't been a single tournament that I have entered that has used them (Harrah's New Orleans, a couple tournaments in Tunica, and the tournament structure in Evansville). So my vote on the BBA is "undecided".

What I can say, is I have been tapped as a resource for multiple game designers. I am valued in my ability to see possible loopholes in the rules, so they can be fixed before the are printed. If they fix the "ante gets eliminated scenario", then cool, but it hasn't been fixed yet.

fieldsy said:
So I guess the moral of this story is that if you are playing in a BBA ante tournament in which the ante is paid first, and you are all-in in the dark for half a big blind, you'd better win that pot outright. If you chop it, I suggest storming off in righteous indignance and think about what might have been, if only you would have had the opportunity to immediately go all-in in the dark for the small blind the following hand.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of being on the button at the WSOP. Hand-for-hand play, and you win a hand and are eliminated. I get eliminated the very next hand. I'll take my $15,000. You are down $10,000. I'll try not to laugh too hard, because you won the hand for a $25,000 swing. But I'll buy you a drink. I'd bet you would need it.
 
Poker Zombie said:
I was thinking more of being on the button at the WSOP. Hand-for-hand play, and you win a hand and are eliminated. I get eliminated the very next hand. I'll take my $15,000. You are down $10,000. I'll try not to laugh too hard, because you won the hand for a $25,000 swing. But I'll buy you a drink. I'd bet you would need it.
Click to expand...
You mean chop a hand, not win outright. But regardless, in this year's WSOP events with BBA, the big blind took priority. Which eliminates the scenario.
 
So it boils down to the game having a small blind and a super big blind, and no antes.

Or is this an over simplification?

And opposing players (non-big blind) only have to call the blind minus the ante amount??
 
Kensco said:
So it boils down to the game having a small blind and a super big blind, and no antes.

Or is this an over simplification?

And opposing players (non-big blind) only have to call the blind minus the ante amount??
Click to expand...
The player in the small blind posts the small blind. The player in the BB posts two bets. He or she posts the BB, which is a live bet, and that is the amount that subsequent players can elect to call or raise. But the player in the BB also separately posts an ante, which is pulled into the pot and is "dead money" just like traditional antes.

It is not a "super big blind" because a player facing the action doesn't have to call the amount of both the ante and the BB, the call is just for the amount of the BB. If the blinds are 400-800 with a big blind ante of 800, the player in the BB does have to put 1600 chips in the pot between the two bets. But the next player can just call for 800. Or raise to as little as 1600.
 
Kensco said:
So it boils down to the game having a small blind and a super big blind, and no antes.

Or is this an over simplification?

And opposing players (non-big blind) only have to call the blind minus the ante amount??
Click to expand...
No, that pretty much nails it.
 
Kensco said:
Thanks.

Then no real benefit to the players at the table; seems more like a game of hot potato (n) :thumbsdown:

Might be good for TV but no thanks in my home gmes
Click to expand...
Lots of people prefer no antes in home games. If there's one thing everyone seems to agree on here, it's that if you don't like antes in general, the BBA probably doesn't appeal to you. Unless your sole problem with antes is in the dealing inefficiency.
 
Why don’t they just make the small blind pay the ante? He’s closest to the button so he should always get a chip in any chop situation.
 
Poker Zombie said:
until more than one TD supports it, the BBA is still experimental.
Click to expand...

You know, if you read the Article, you would see WSOP circuit, Some 2018 Wsop events, amd the MSPT have all used it. Savage represents the WPT, and with the WSOP using it, those are the two biggest brands in tournament poker.

I know there's room for disagreement on the merits of BBA or antes in general. But to try and say it's "still experimental" on there's only one tournament director supporting it is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
A handful of events at the WSOP used it. The vast majority did not. Why? Experimental. Not ridiculous, factual. I guess I see it for what it is, because I'm not committed to it's success or demise. I'm just watching and eagerly waiting.

But so far I haven't been to a room dealing it yet. I will eventually i suspect, and then i can weigh in for or against, but so far, every article in support of it, is only Matt Savage saying it's great.

Though no TDs have called it a failure, so the score is 1-0 in favor of the BBA
 
First:

"It would seem the only problem with the big blind ante is there are no problems, leaving little for a debate-hungry poker community to argue over."

Then:

"The debate rages on as to whether a short stack without enough to do both should pay the big blind or the big blind ante first."


It would seem to me that the second sentence invalidates the first. Maybe it slipped past the editor.
 
bba.png
 
DoubleEagle said:
There is not always a small blind.
Click to expand...

In an ante tournament must there always be an ante?

I ask this because one of the “rules” is that there always has to be a Big Blind. If you have to have an ante and you have to have a BB then you will have conflict when the BB can’t pay both.

So you can either have an ante but no big blind, or you can have a BB and no ante.

If your ok with no ante occasionally then the SB might be a better choice for paying the ante.

Or even the Button ante.
 
Last edited:
Poker Zombie said:
Wow. An article about what one guy says. The same one guy. Maybe the BBA is the future, but please, until more than one TD supports it, the BBA is still experimental.
Click to expand...
Do you listen to poker stories or thinking poker podcasts? Every pro I’ve heard has said BBA is the future. It’s not just one guy.
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

SPR
Tourney Your opinion on the new Savage Average tournament structure
Replies
15
Views
719
Santa123
Santa123
ArielVer18
Tourney How well do you understand the TDA poker rules?
Replies
25
Views
731
krafticus
krafticus
Santa123
Cash Game: Adding third blind or raising blinds when playing full ring?
Replies
7
Views
258
KHarp1
K
Wils
Tourney Big Blind Antes - impact on tourney length
Replies
29
Views
1K
Poker Zombie
Poker Zombie
L
Tourney Help me design this crazy, crazy tourney.
Replies
20
Views
744
Larold
L
Back
Top Bottom