Tourney Should all WSOP no-limit hold'em events use the Big Blind Ante format like was done at the recently completed WSOP Europe? (1 Viewer)

[Poker Zombie]

The concept of the BBA is that one player pays for the whole table. Of course, this goes out the window if the BBA isn't altered by the number of players at the table. So the BBA is disingenuously called an ante. It's not really a blind either, because it goes into the pot as dead money.

It should be called the orbit tax. Paid once each orbit, players that don't have enough to pay it in its entirety pay what that have and are exempt from the remainder.

When dealing with money or with game rules, semantics are important.

 

[Gobbs]

The concept of the BBA is that one player pays for the whole table. Of course, this goes out the window if the BBA isn't altered by the number of players at the table. So the BBA is disingenuously called an ante. It's not really a blind either, because it goes into the pot as dead money.

I already don’t like the BBA, but this is a perspective I hadn’t quite considered. So, basically, the BBA “solves” a problem that shouldn’t exist by doing exactly what I say should be done (get rid of unnecessary antes if you don’t like the problems they present) except it adds an “orbit tax” as zombie called it. (Good name, Zombie.)

So, instead of adding an orbit tax, wouldn’t it just be easier to make the blind schedule slightly more aggressive? Then, you wouldn’t have the problems the BBA presents, either.

 

[fieldsy]

I almost hate to go down this rabbit hole because this debate has been had on this forum, and this is just one of those issues where reasonable minds simply differ. But the difference between an ante and a blind is dead money versus a live bet. Which means the presence of antes allows for lower bet-size-to-pot-size ratios than are possible in a blinds-only structure. I like that flexibility and many tournament players do as well. Antes are universally present in online tournaments (where they add no administrative burden to dealing), and a fixture of most live tournaments. If you like antes, you probably like the big blind ante, because it keeps the dead-money feature while adding efficiency, and most people think the wrinkles for a player who has <2 BBs or short-handed play do not outweigh the benefit. I think calling it a "tax" would be more misleading than the term big blind ante. It's dead money in the pot, paid by the player in the BB. And a well-calculated BBA will give each player roughly the same per-orbit cost as a traditional ante structure.

This is not something that was foisted on players in low buy-in, high-rake tournaments to wind up tournaments more quickly. (As an aside, those are the type of tournaments, like casino dailies, where I think you are more likely to find no-ante structures). The BBA started catching on in the Aria $25k+ Super High Rollers and expanded from there. Those were small-field tournaments that are highly responsive to player feedback. In other words, the actual best players in the world could have easily killed this if they thought it caused inequity, but I haven't seen any of them speak out against it.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It's dead money in the pot, paid by the player in the BB.

Unless the BB cannot pay the BB and the ante. Then it simply does not exist for that one player - although all other players must pay it.

Just because pro players do not see the inequities, does not mean they don't exist. Inequities that can be called "variance" are easier to ignore as a pro. Top heavy pay structures are also preferred by pros. This does not make them "better".

Most poker players do not start out as professional poker players. Getting new players into the game is far more important to me than what tickles the fancy of the guy that is using poker winnings, combined with endorsements, and "backers" to make his living. It is for this reason that I dislike antes. It's also why I think the BBA might be better than a traditional ante, but no ante is still better for entry-level to intermediate-level poker tournaments.

 

[fieldsy]

Unless the BB cannot pay the BB and the ante. Then it simply does not exist for that one player - although all other players must pay it.

This is the reason that Matt Savage pushes for the rule that the ante still has to be paid first. It's just not a scenario that concerns me too much either way, since we're talking about a player having <2BB, all in in the dark with everyone left to act. Even in a no-ante structure, a player who is all-in for less than a BB gets to at least see a flop for less than everyone else, and in a traditional ante structure the all-in player can potentially win all of the antes even if he or she doesn't have a full BB to "risk" where everyone else in the orbit did. These odd scenarios happen. With BBA, my vote is to prioritize the BB and let the all-in player double or triple or whatever if they manage to win the hand. But I'm also fine with the alternative, since that player usually got several "free" hands to try to find a spot to get it in and double up before being forced to get it all in in the dark.

Most poker players do not start out as professional poker players. Getting new players into the game is far more important to me than what tickles the fancy of the guy that is using poker winnings, combined with endorsements, and "backers" to make his living, It is for this reason, that I dislike antes. It's also why I think the BBA might be better than a traditional ante, but no ante is still better for entry-level to intermediate-level poker tournaments.

I actually think this is probably the fairest criticism of antes, and one I don't hear much. Antes can be intimidating to new players. That may be one reason why many casino dailies (which are often the first "real" tournaments players try) do not have antes. And in fairness, a related problem with the BBA is that players who are new to it (even players who have played with traditional antes) sometimes find it confusing. For example, if their BB is 800 and the BBA is 800, they put out a stack with 1000+500+100, failing to appreciate that the ante needs to be separated and put in the middle.

Of course, there are situations in which bringing new players into the game is not a primary concern. Tourneys with $1k+ buyins like the WSOP are an example, and I would argue that established home games that aren't looking to expand would qualify. I host tournaments with friends who are all experienced enough to at least have played a handful of large live MTTs (even if just the WSOP daily deepstacks), and we like antes in part to practice playing with a similar structure to what we will see in bigger tournaments. These days that means the BBA too.

 

[Craig D]

How is a BBA different to a table drawing cards and the highest is not eliminated?

Have Fun

 

[andy699669]

Button ante (sorta?) mitigates this problem, with clear rules that Button Ante is suspended if Small Blind gets Game Over, and it (sorta?) balances the benefit of being the strongest position.

 

[trigs]

Button ante (sorta?) mitigates this problem, with clear rules that Button Ante is suspended if Small Blind gets Game Over, and it (sorta?) balances the benefit of being the strongest position.

I'm no expert, and I don't play MTTs very often anymore, but I agree with this. I think button ante is better. I'm fine with the random hand that has no antes due to a dead button. I don't see anything wrong with it happening occasionally. After all, there are dead SB hands randomly and that's not a problem.

However, I'm planning on hosting a tournament soon(ish) and I think I'll just skip the antes altogether.

 

[BGinGA]

Even the button ante doesn't eliminate the inequity problem created when a player can be forced to lose their stack but cannot win any chips besides their own.

 

[LordFalsate]

No, they only added BB as ante to speed up tournaments and make more profits.

 

[trigs]

Even the button ante doesn't eliminate the inequity problem created when a player can be forced to lose their stack but cannot win any chips besides their own.

That's obviously true, but I really don't understand the big issue with "what comes first, the blinds or the antes?" Why can't we all just say the blinds come first all the time? Why is this such a terrible thing to do?

 

[BGinGA]

That's obviously true, but I really don't understand the big issue with "what comes first, the blinds or the antes?" Why can't we all just say the blinds come first all the time? Why is this such a terrible thing to do?

That only addresses the big blind ante issue, while creating yet another inequity of some players not being required to post antes on 'their turn' to do so.

It doesn't address the problem with the button ante at all (forced all-in with zero profit opportunuity).

None of the proposals are good, which is the root of the problem.

 

[DoubleEagle]

No, they only added BB as ante to speed up tournaments and make more profits.

Not true. The BBA started at the Aria as a result of player requests.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Even the button ante doesn't eliminate the inequity problem created when a player can be forced to lose their stack but cannot win any chips besides their own.

I really think this is a non-issue because it so rarely happens. But, if I were king, I would rule the BB is posted before the ante.

 

[ekricket]

I really think this is a non-issue because it so rarely happens. But, if I were king, I would rule the BB is posted before the ante.

What? Waste it on that? If I were King I would rule that I could declare I have the nuts anytime I want, and it would hold up and I don’t have to show. Then I can pay your BBC or BBA, whatever it takes, anytime it comes around.

 

[trigs]

That only addresses the big blind ante issue, while creating yet another inequity of some players not being required to post antes on 'their turn' to do so.

It doesn't address the problem with the button ante at all (forced all-in with zero profit opportunuity).

None of the proposals are good, which is the root of the problem.

But some people can't post the complete ante or blind on their turn if they don't have chips, so how does that make a difference now? Maybe I'm just dumb and don't get it. If I have less than 1BB and I'm in the BB, I'm posting less that I'm supposed to on my turn, am I not? So how is this any different? And it does address the problem with the button ante if BB is posted first as the player does have a opportunity to profit.

You know what, I'm not going to argue with the known tournament guy around here. I'll just take your word for it (and quietly to myself not understand).

 

[BGinGA]

I'll try to type more slowly.

But some people can't post the complete ante or blind on their turn if they don't have chips, so how does that make a difference now? Maybe I'm just dumb and don't get it. If I have less than 1BB and I'm in the BB, I'm posting less that I'm supposed to on my turn, am I not? So how is this any different?

If a player lacks the chips to post the big blind on his turn, he is still eligible to win the pot containing any multiples of his contributed amount matched by all other players. He is posting less, but is also entitled to win less (than if he posted the full big blind amount). Same thing in a regular ante tournament where ~any~ player doesn't have enough chips to post his full ante amount: he is still eligible to win a multple of his contribution (times the number of antes posted) -- he is posting less, and therefore eligible to win less.

If, in a big blind ante tournament, the antes are posted by one player (the big blind position) for the entire tournament. If rules state that the table ante must be posted first (fair for all, since nobody gets to skip posting antes), then a player without sufficient chips will only be eligible to win back his own chips and nothing else (unfair to the big blind player).

And if the rules state that the big blind is posted first (fair to the bb player), then he gets to skip his scheduled turn of posting the table ante (unfair to the other players at the table who did post table antes).

Either way, an inequity exists that is simply not present if individual antes are posted (or if antes are not used at all).

And it does address the problem with the button ante if BB is posted first as the player does have a opportunity to profit.

Nope. If using a button ante, the ~button~ player must post the table ante for the entire table (and the big blind player posts just his big blind amount). If posting that table ante takes the button's entire stack, then he is only eligible to win his own ante amount, and cannot win any other chips (since he didn't contribute to the pot except for the antes). Again, an inequity that can be avoided by not using table antes.