I recently played an ante-up tourney, which is a tournament which has mainly antes, and just tiny, unchanging blinds. By eliminating blinds, this tourney leaves only two "power factors" that have effect on how powerful a position is: pre-flop playing order and post-flop playing order. And something striked me as terribly wrong. Consider the big blind vs UTG: their post-flop position is just 1 apart, but pre-flop UTG acts first, while BB acts last. So, it would seem that BB is a more powerful position than UTG. But in traditional blind-based tournies, the BB is in an even better situation, since it is already priced in.

More generally, UTG is an awful position, since it plays first pre-flop, and doesn't get rewarded for it post-flop. And BTN seems incredibly strong, since it plays last postflop, and almost-last preflop.

So, I posit that a much better playing order would be:
postflop: just as today
preflop: BTN acts first, then CO, then HJ, and so on, and finally SB.
This makes sense both in an ante-based game and in a blinds-based game.

So, in particular, in this order any 3-bet would be 3-betting OOP (since if e.g. you are CO 3-betting BTN, then you'll be OOP postflop), which seems to make much more sense than allowing one to 3-bet IP with abandon (such as what people do on the BTN today). In other words, this plying order seems to balance the positions better, since it negates postflop position by reversing it for preflop position.

Does anyone know why the current playing order in positional games is as it is (historically, I mean), and why the order I suggest, which others probably suggested before me, was not used?

So you're suggesting that the action goes counter clockwise pre-flop and clockwise post-flop? I don't like it..

Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. And you'll have to do better than "I don't like it"

It definitely takes away some of the power that late-position players have. I think that the closer the powers of different positions are, the better for the game, but I can be convinced otherwise. Mostly I'm just wondering why things are done as they are, since the current playing order seems very weird to me.

Why are you trying to change a fundamental aspect of the rules of the game and why do you think that the change would be good for the game anyway?

I'm questioning a fundamental aspect of the rules of the game for several reasons:
1. to understand why things are done as they are right now. (And/or understand if there even exists such a reason).
2. questioning aspects of the game sometimes allows you to discover ways to exploit the current rules, and in general to understand the game better
3. if we do find that changing this aspect of the game gives a "better" game (for some definition of "better") then it might be worth it to start playing with those rules. If everyone will think they're better, it might catch on.

In general, I don't think there's anything "holy" about the current rules. Discussing them and possible variations of them seems like an interesting thought experiment, which seems like the kind of thing we like to do in the theory forum. Of course, not everyone enjoys thought experiments. If you do not enjoy thought experiments in general, or this one in particular, then you're definitely welcome to not partake in the discussion. I find questions of the form "why should we even discuss subject X" to be often counterproductive in a medium like this where one chooses which discussions one partakes in. However, this type of questions sometimes come from people who have not been introduced to the wonderful world of thought experiments and theory at large, which is why I'm writing this answer.

In short: we discuss it because it's interesting.

Why do I think the change will be good for the game? I don't necessarily think so, per se. Maybe this doesn't come up from my OP, but what I meant is to solicit opinions and/or start a discussion on whether this would or would not be good for the game. I strongly suspect it would be good, but am of course open for other opinions, which is why I started this discussion.

#1 - Everyone shares the button equally in the long run in a random seat tourney. So this makes button strength a mute point in terms of fairness between players.

#2 - Current rules are the way they are for simplicity sake. Trying to make multiple rule changes to make position play more fair really just hurts the good players. The barrier for fish to understand the game increases the more complex the rules and poor position decisions don't cost as much.

"Minute to learn, lifetime to master" is a good saying to follow when creating a card game or rules for it.

^^ Thanks for the answer. However, I find it somewhat unsatisfying.

#1: yes, of course the game is fair, but so is a game where in every hand the big blind just gives the BTN 1BB, and small blind gives the BTN 0.5BB, and no one has any cards. In other words, I'm not saying that the game is not fair, I'm saying that changing the playing order might balance out the power of different positions, and I claim that balancing the power of different positions will make the game more "playable", without taking away skill edges. In fact, my guess is that skill edges will just increase, since people will be able to play more hands from early positions (because early positions now act late preflop), so people in general will be playing more hands, and then fish will be more exploitable. Again, I'm not sure of any of this, but I think that to disprove this you'll need more than just the arguments you give.

#2: I really don't think my version of the game is more complicated than the current version. You just reverse the order of play pre-flop, that's not complicated at all.

By the way, notice that non-positional games like stud don't play positionally at all. It seems to me like position is necessary in games where there are no up-cards, so there is no way to decide who plays first, so we have to determine this in some arbitrary fashion, hence position. I would assume the most "natural" poker is non-positional (for some definition of "natural").

I think that the relative strengths of positions are a big part of what makes poker highly strategic. As has been noted, position rotates such that it will affect everyone equally.

Fundamentally, I'm not sure why balancing the power the positions is necessary. The game plays just fine with the BTN having the biggest advantage and I don't really understand why you need to mitigate that.

Also, stud does play positionally, it's just based on down cards rather than BTN position and changes on each street, but you do have an advantage on a particular street if you're later to act.

I agree with OP - it would be interesting to see new options.

And it would be nice to have a version of holdem (and the principle would be easily transposable to other non-stud games) in which the game can be played for antes, and every seat has equal chances (albeit perhaps with subtle differences) on each hand.

If nothing else it would make seating and breaks much more convenient online! Just like stud you could get dealt in straight away without penalty, and sit out for a few hands any time you wanted.

The button is supposed to be the most powerfull position there is. Making it less powerfull removes a giant skill aspect of the game and thus reduces the skill cap and also makes the game more boring and less dynamic. I dont see why you would ever want this.

I'm not against discussing new and interesting ideas

That said, I must say I don't like this particular one.

Yes you could play a little bit looser UTG in your version ( would we still call it UTG tho? and maybe would have to start calling the button 'Under The Button'? ) and the button would have to play a little bit tighter.

To me that would just close the gap on most players ranges from one position to the next. Somebody who plays a 15/10 style game at full ring might have a vpip of 7 UTG and 25 or so on the BTN. In your game they might just be around 15/10 in all positions.

If ranges become more static because there is no incentive to play looser or tighter in a particular position, then it will take some of the skill out of the game. It would definitely be boring and less dynamic as zelov stated.

An interesting idea. I'd have to think about it but it may make it too hard for the BTN to play, having to open into a large field, especially in a game that is as static as NLHE.

It would actually be really interesting to see what would happen if a game like this was to be played. In a sense, it is already done with heads up on most sites making one player the BTN/SB and the other BB.

Indeed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of reversing position. Whether it creates a better game is hard to know unless you try it out for an extended period of time, which will not really happen.

I remember Bobby Hoff advocating the idea of having the BTN act first preflop, then SB, BB etc. (possibly with CO and HJ posting the blinds) and I'm not sure if he said he had played it. It seemed like an interesting idea at the time.

I think my main issue with OP's idea is that the opener is always stealing into people he has position on. This makes it really hard to defend, and will probably decrease the amount of flops actually seen.

Reversing order postflop is creating an entirely new game. In this scenario I'd feel the blinds had the greatest position and advantage since they're already semi-priced in and will act last postflop. In this version strategy would revolve mainly around those 2 spots much more so then CO-BTN.

Stealing would become much less of a concern as the blinds would be much more likely to call PF and stick the CO-BTN in the First-to-act positions. So the CO-BTN positions would require much more aggression PF and Post.

I think it would be an interesting game on it's own. It would have to be it's own game...

Thanks everyone for your comments! A few answers:

This is a good point. I agree that understanding ranges is important for today's game, partly because it forces one to understand how ranges change, understanding board texture relative to ranges, and often pitting a strong hand OOP with a weaker hand IP. Removing this element will hurt the game, and it's not clear if it's worth it for the advantages.

Well, it can't possibly harder for BTN to play in this variant than it is for UTG today. Plus, BTN knows he'll have position over everyone postflop. I think the ranges from all positions will be similar, unlike today. Whether this is a good thing is a subject for debate, but I suspect it is.

Well, if I told you that there's a game where skilled players can make twice the EV per 100 that they can make right now, you'd be thrilled. Would you be less thrilled if I told you that game is holdem with reversed pre-flop positions? Reversing pre-flop positions makes more hands playable from :early" position (e.g. UTG, UTG+1,...) which means that now people will be able to play more hands overall, I think. IMO this is likely to be good for the game.

Stud is what is called "an unpositional game". From wikipedia: "Stud games are also typically non-positional games, meaning that the player who bets first on each round may change from round to round". I didn't invent this terminology.

Other way around. The opener is always stealking into people that he's OOP against. This makes it easier to defend.

Other way around. I suggested to reverse order preflop (more specifically, that BTN acts first, and you go counter-clockwise from there. Postflop order stays the same.