Tourney The abyss - 8 hours level 1 (1 Viewer)

[Legend5555]

Again, you're using raise amounts which are not comparative. Players that raise 3xBB in non-ante games are going to raise 4xBB in ante games, maintaining similar pot odds for callers. Bigger base pots (those with antes) create larger pots after raises/calls.... and if you want to argue that smaller raise amounts equals smaller pots, I'll counter that smaller raises leads to more 3-betting, which also leads to larger post-flop pots.

Pots in ante games are larger, not smaller. At least in the real world.

Well yeah there a bunch of different factors that can change it. I already admitted that. That doesn't change the core point of my example though. In many of the bigger tournaments people are raising 2.1x - 2.5x, and in a comparable no ante structure even a min raise would result in a larger pot per my example assuming people aren't 3-betting.

My numbers are correct. Though as you say and I've admitted, there are factors that alter this. But if I'm going to take a stance on an issue like this, I have to use some controled models to illustrate my point. Otherwise it just turns into the whole issue is just a big ole "well it depends." Models are just models. They illustrate points and have a general application to the real world as you can't account for every factor.

 

[Legend5555]

You speaketh with forked tongue.

On one front you claim the BBA promotes extra action (a good thing iyo), yet when the same construct (improperly implemented, imo) creates a no-action environment (limping heads-up), you claim that's just fine, too. Really?

The BBA concept simply has too many downsides.

I really don't appreciate your characterization of my points. "Forked tongue?" It's not as if I'm arguing in bad faith and trying to be decietful. But anyway...

Limping isn't action when the alternative is likely folding really marginal/bad hands? Large pot odds preflop should rightfully induce limping, especially when you already have half a bet invested.

The SB heads up in a BBA game is getting 5 to 1 to limp AND you have position so there isn't as much a need to end the hand right away. You can call with just about everything, but raising a really marginal hand is still quite sketchy. With no ante, you are only getting 3 to 1. At a larger player count limping from the field in a BBA game is only 2.5 to 1 and you can't guarantee position. Better to raise in that instance.

You can see this effect in Triton Short Deck. At 6 handed you get 7 to 1 on a limp due to the ante only structure. People limp with all kinds of stuff. In fairness it's exacerbated a bit as well by the fact that equities run closer in short deck.

 

[BGinGA]

Limping isn't action when the alternative is likely folding really marginal/bad hands? Large pot odds preflop should rightfully induce limping, especially when you already have half a bet invested.

The SB heads up in a BBA game is getting 5 to 1 to limp AND you have position so there isn't as much a need to end the hand right away. You can call with just about everything, but raising a really marginal hand is still quite sketchy. With no ante, you are only getting 3 to 1. At a larger player count limping from the field in a BBA game is only 2.5 to 1 and you can't guarantee position. Better to raise in that instance.

You can see this effect in Triton Short Deck. At 6 handed you get 7 to 1 on a limp due to the ante only structure. People limp with all kinds of stuff. In fairness it's exacerbated a bit as well by the fact that equities run closer in short deck.

So basically you're saying that increasing the luck factor (by artificially inflating both the pre-flop pot size and pot odds, thus encouraging limps with almost any two cards) is 'good for the game'? Or better than when those things don't exist (i.e. non-BBA structures)?

 

[BGinGA]

Well yeah there a bunch of different factors that can change it. I already admitted that.

My numbers are correct. Though as you say and I've admitted, there are factors that alter this.

Your numbers may be accurate in the narrow scope of your argument (which I believe to be flawed), but they're pretty much irrelevant when discussing the larger issue in a real-world context.

 

[Legend5555]

Your numbers may be accurate in the narrow scope of your argument (which I believe to be flawed), but they're pretty much irrelevant when discussing the larger issue in a real-world context.

How is my argument flawed within the context I set? You still haven't elaborated on that.

 

[Legend5555]

So basically you're saying that increasing the luck factor (by artificially inflating both the pre-flop pot size and pot odds, thus encouraging limps with almost any two cards) is 'good for the game'? Or better than when those things don't exist (i.e. non-BBA structures)?

How does this increase luck? It just changes the odds. Better odds means you should play more hands. It affects everyone equally. It favors the more skilled player as they can likely play marginal hands better. You view playing more hands as dictated by the odds luck?

And yet again, I never said this is better in an absolute sense. I prefer it, but I can see how people not comfortable being forced to adapt to a style they aren't used to may not like it. I think it's good for the game in the sense that I like structures (especially in tournaments) that encourage people to play more difficult to navigate spots. IMO tough decisions are what make poker (or any game) fun.

 

[BGinGA]

I can see how people not comfortable being forced to adapt to a style they aren't used to may not like it.

Very fucking condescending. Ever consider that people may not like it for more legitimate reasons, none of which you are willing to even acknowledge?

 

[Legend5555]

Very fucking condescending. Ever consider that people may not like it for more legitimate reasons, none of which you are willing to even acknowledge?

Whoa... relax. I was being serious not condescending. It's a legit thing to not like for that reason. Some people are more risk adverse or not comfortable with those types of situations. That's perfectly fine. I can't know all the other reasons you are referencing that I haven't already addressed.

I have acknowledged and responded to every comment about my stance. If you just don't agree with my arguments that's fine. I'm not here to purposely ruffle feathers, I just think this is an interesting conversation and you constantly seem to think I'm not debating in good faith. That's really unfortunate. What have I not acknowledged?

All I have done is argue why I think BBA isn't the horrible thing you and some others think it is. You don't have to agree, that's cool. But if you are going to ask me questions or attack my argument, I'll defend it the best I can. That's what a discussion should be: Questions and answers backed up by reasoning.

 

[Legend5555]

@BGinGA conveying tone over a print medium is tough. I really am not trying to goad anyone, be condescending, or be negative in any way. I'm not sure what I've done to cause you to feel that way.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Why is playing differently preflop based on pot size broken? Or is the fact that the size didn't change broken? I'm not sure why either is "broken," just different.

You are talking about a system that requires some players to play differently to win (incentivizes), while players who typically play that way have an advantage.

That's not better for the game, it's just better for you.

That is what I would call a broken game.

Mind you, there are a lot of things casinos do that I consider "broken". To wit, 10 hours without a blind increase, followed by 20 minute levels, the Big Blind Ante, and steep pay structures that see nearly every tournament end in a chop.

Now if you like something better, like antes, that's fine. Claiming it's better in a thread where you are the only one arguing that it is better, should be a strong clue that they are not.

 

[Legend5555]

You are talking about a system that requires some players to play differently to win (incentivizes), while players who typically play that way have an advantage.

That's not better for the game, it's just better for you.

That is what I would call a broken game.

Mind you, there are a lot of things casinos do that I consider "broken". To wit, 10 hours without a blind increase, followed by 20 minute levels, the Big Blind Ante, and steep pay structures that see nearly every tournament end in a chop.

Now if you like something better, like antes, that's fine. Claiming it's better in a thread where you are the only one arguing that it is better, should be a strong clue that they are not.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because I am outnumbered in this thread by at most 3 to 1 that I somehow necessarily hold a minority opinion. I may, but you can't assume that from this discussion.

As to your first point, playing an optimal strategy requires adapting to the structure and incentives offered. I could tell you that I play differently in the two games, thus neither is necessarily better, just different. In the situation of no antes, you would in theory be forcing the players whose strategies are better at ante play into a disadvantage. It works both ways by your standard.

And once again... And again... I've not claimed playing with antes is somehow absolutely better than not playing with antes. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that or acknowledge that player preferences exist before you and @BGinGA hear it.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Claiming it's better in a thread where you are the only one arguing that it is better, should be a strong clue that they are not.

I have promised myself not to engage in any PCF ante wars, but I just want to point out that the lack of public support for @Legend5555's posts could be because there might be more people who have promised themselves not to engage in ante wars.

 

[Legend5555]

I have promised myself not to engage in any PCF ante wars, but I just want to point out that the lack of public support for @Legend5555's posts could be because there might be more people who have promised themselves not to engage in ante wars.

I'm relatively new to PCF (lurked for a while prior to signing up). Didn't realize ante was such a hottly contested issue. Especially not one that warranted what I've experienced here.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Ante wars are easily avoided.

"I prefer antes" = no war.

"Antes make the game better" = shots fired.

Eliminating antes has the huge con of not putting enough pressure on short stacks and causing tournaments to take longer.

Calling no anties a "huge con" sounds like a bazooka.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Having tournaments with antes is fine, it that is what you want. Having tournaments without antes is fine, if that is what you want. Having antes affects how the game is played. If you like the effects, have antes. Otherwise, don't. I prefer one of the two, I'm not telling which, even though there is evidence scattered around in my posts here at PCF.

There, I broke my promise!

 

[Legend5555]

Ante wars are easily avoided.

"I prefer antes" = no war.

"Antes make the game better" = shots fired.


Calling no anties a "huge con" sounds like a bazooka.

I'm sorry I didn't say IMO. It became apparent as this dragged on that if I didn't include IMO with all my statements then it's taken as some sort of assumption on my part of absolute truth and that everyone that disagrees is inherently wrong. I do find it frustrating that it is necessary to amend every statement with an IMO for some to understand it's an opinion.

I'll be more careful in the future.

 

[Gobbs]

Wow!!! I take a 12-hour trip and things blow up, but it is rather amusing to read the posts all at once and see how many different ways there are to say the same incorrect things.

 

[trigs]

Note to self: Don't comment on antes on PCF.

 

[BGinGA]

I've not claimed playing with antes is somehow absolutely better than not playing with antes.

Agreed, you've merely expressed a preference for antes vs not. You do, however, seem to be pretty intent that playing with a BBA is somehow better than individual antes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Note to self: Don't comment on antes on PCF.

Despite your advice, I'm jumping in at the deep end here...

You do, however, seem to be pretty intent that playing with a BBA is somehow better than individual antes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this evidence of which you speak show both pros and cons with the BBA vs a traditional ante? If so, isn't it a matter of deciding if the pros outweigh the cons?

I've hosted lots of tournaments with traditional antes (and done so without too many issues, I might add. There are ways of reducing ante-issues in home games.) and a handful of BBA tournaments. So far, I have had no reason whatsoever to return to traditional antes. For me, IMO, YMMV (etc...), all BBA issues that people fear have not (yet) reared there ugly heads.

Note that this post does not discuss antes vs no antes, just BBA vs traditional.

If any of the above falls under "shots fired" then I apologize, it was not my intent.

 

[Legend5555]

Agreed, you've merely expressed a preference for antes vs not. You do, however, seem to be pretty intent that playing with a BBA is somehow better than individual antes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'd hardly call it overwhelming IMO. And I don't think the minimal "downsides" outweigh the benefits IMO. I believe I've addressed most, if not all the issues you have with BBA. I've explained why I think all your concerns are not as big a problem as you think they are. If you think they are a still a big problem, okay. That's a you thing. It's okay to disagree.

I don't think it excuses your attitude toward me for having a different opinion even if I could have phrased certain things better to avoid the type of response I got from you. But at least I know now.

I can say that from this and our discussion of tournament structures a while back that I've learned it's probably best to avoid any sort of discussion with you about "correct" poker game structure, even though a lot of it is a matter of taste and opinion. I mean all this sincerely and not as snark.

You seem so rigid in your opinion that it's not at all fun to discuss this stuff with you. You take it too seriously. Or at least our interactions lead me to believe so. Could just be the problem of talking over a digital medium though. I've found it's much easier to attribute malice and ill intent in online discussion when tone and body language aren't available.

 

[1A25R]

make antes great again

 

[DoubleEagle]

Agreed, you've merely expressed a preference for antes vs not. You do, however, seem to be pretty intent that playing with a BBA is somehow better than individual antes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That would be your opinion. Not a fact.

 

[Kensco]

Stop calling them "antes" when referring to BBAs. It's a misnomer. These are nothing more than blind increases you would not tolerate without some trendy name attached.

Antes cause everyone at the table to have skin in the game. "BBA"s do not.

 

[Poker Zombie]

That would be your opinion. Not a fact.

Facts:

• BBA is faster to post than traditional ante, but slower to post than blinds only.
• BBA has flaws if a player cannot post both the BB and Ante

 

[BGinGA]

Facts:

• BBA is faster to post than traditional ante, but slower to post than blinds only.
• BBA has flaws if a player cannot post both the BB and Ante

And a BBA structure is significantly more intrusive than individual antes when table size is not full (unless appropriately modified) -- it becomes a totally different animal shorthanded or heads-up.

That would be your opinion. Not a fact.

Sorry, but I didn't post an opinion OR a fact there -- just an observance.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd hardly call it overwhelming IMO. And I don't think the minimal "downsides" outweigh the benefits IMO. I believe I've addressed most, if not all the issues you have with BBA. I've explained why I think all your concerns are not as big a problem as you think they are. If you think they are a still a big problem, okay. That's a you thing. It's okay to disagree.

I don't think it excuses your attitude toward me for having a different opinion even if I could have phrased certain things better to avoid the type of response I got from you. But at least I know now.

I can say that from this and our discussion of tournament structures a while back that I've learned it's probably best to avoid any sort of discussion with you about "correct" poker game structure, even though a lot of it is a matter of taste and opinion. I mean all this sincerely and not as snark.

You seem so rigid in your opinion that it's not at all fun to discuss this stuff with you. You take it too seriously. Or at least our interactions lead me to believe so. Could just be the problem of talking over a digital medium though. I've found it's much easier to attribute malice and ill intent in online discussion when tone and body language aren't available.

Highlighted part is probably accurate..... since your above statements pretty much summarize my take on you, too (you thinking clear and obvious issues are not really problems, you discounting the opinions of others and their importance when they don't align with yours, your snarky attitude towards others holding differing opinions, you holding rigid opinions and being unwilling to discuss without interjecting attitude, etc.).

I don't know you, and you don't know me. Hell, could be we'd be best friends irl. But I'm not going to just sit back and just let you throw opinions out as facts without response, or tolerate condescension on your part when others disagree.

 

[Gobbs]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this evidence of which you speak show both pros and cons with the BBA vs a traditional ante? If so, isn't it a matter of deciding if the pros outweigh the cons?

First, I want to note that I recognize you stated the post did not address antes vs. no antes, just antes vs. BBA and I appreciate that and your perspective. However, I think only considering the two options is part of the problem. I don’t see the value in comparing these two particular options as if they are the only two when other options exist. So, to answer your question, no, it’s not just a matter of deciding if the pros outweigh the cons. It’s a matter of identifying all options and choosing.

Having said that, if I were to evaluate just those two options, I think it’s an incredibly simple choice. I don’t even need to see the pros and cons of traditional antes. Just looking at the pros and cons of the BBA - the pros are procedural in nature with very little actual game play advantages while the cons are game play in nature.

The procedural pros far outweigh the negative effect the BBA has on game play. So, easily the BBA is the obvious choice ... if I’m the casino (or the dealer).

From a player’s perspective, I care little about procedural advantages, though. Negative effects on game play trumps about anything else in my book. A traditional ante is far superior.

Of course I can’t end this without simply saying that eliminating antes takes care of everything, though. Just sayin’.

 

[Mr Winberg]

@Gobbs, I'd like to acknowledge that the reply of yours was the total opposite of the kind of replies I feared triggering. That's a good thing! If everyone continues like this I might even dare to weigh in on this topic that I'm actually very interested in.

Just an FYI:

However, I think only considering the two options is part of the problem.

So, to answer your question, no, it’s not just a matter of deciding if the pros outweigh the cons.

I appreciate that one must consider the whole picture. I just want to point out that my reply was to @BGinGA's post where the context was BBA vs traditional:

You do, however, seem to be pretty intent that playing with a BBA is somehow better than individual antes, despite

Now, regarding:

From a player’s perspective, I care little about procedural advantages, though.

Well, I actually think you should. The more hands per level the better, IMO. At least if

1. You like playing poker. More hands = more fun!
2. You think you are better than average. More hands means more situations where your edge can be utilized.

If there's a procedural advantage where 20 minute levels play like 22 minute levels, then I think that is in the interest of the players, not just the casino or dealer. IMO, of course.

the cons are game play in nature.

I think where I stand here is that when I look at the cons in theory, I just don't think they are that big. When I experience them in practice (sample size just 5 tournaments, I'll admit) I have not yet disproved my theoretical assumptions. YMMV.

Of course I can’t end this without simply saying that eliminating antes takes care of everything, though.

Of course you must, I expect nothing less! If PCF keeps ante debates as civilized and courteous as you have now proved possible, I might actually jump in to that debate some day! But I'll watch from the sidelines for now.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Highlighted part is probably accurate..... since your above statements pretty much summarize my take on you, too (you thinking clear and obvious issues are not really problems, you discounting the opinions of others and their importance when they don't align with yours, your snarky attitude towards others holding differing opinions, you holding rigid opinions and being unwilling to discuss without interjecting attitude, etc.).

I don't know you, and you don't know me. Hell, could be we'd be best friends irl. But I'm not going to just sit back and just let you throw opinions out as facts without response, or tolerate condescension on your part when others disagree.

Having debated many things with BGinGA over the years, it as always important to remember, that in real life he does not look, sound, or have the demeanor like this...

It is much more like this...

Big Blind Antes not here man...