I wish there was some empirical evidence to see if both structures play the same, or are there some additional psychological factors at work here. (I'm referring to the game's "action", not dealing time, although I would like to sort out how much individual antes really slow down a game compared to blinds only)

For instance, would these two 10-handed games play identically:

• $2-$5 blinds w/$1 antes
• $2-$5 blinds w/$10 ante out of the BB

Anyone who starts an ante game 10 handed should get as far away from poker as possible.

I'd personally like to see a $1 ante only game at one of the smaller rooms. It would obviously be slow and a 1-2/5button ante game would work better, but I think people would be more likely to play a $1 ante game not realizing its bigger.

I agree completely. Incidentally, this coincides almost exactly with what Clayton's observed:

Wait. I just disagree with this. I mean, I started playing poker when stud games were spread more prevalently than hold'em, and putting in an ante was as clockwork as it is for you to post your blind.

I remember when hold'em started getting more and more popular, all the old school stud grinders at the Taj in AC would say, "Hold'em is just a fad! The average player walking in from the casino floor will never understand 'blinds' because he doesn't play with them in his home game!" I mean, those guys were just so sure that no game with blinds was viable.

Now, we're seeing a trend back towards mixed games, and all the people who only know how to play NLHE are learning proper strategy for stealing blinds in the stud variants, and a lot of the lowball games are played with both a blind and an ante.

Obviously, the "average player walking in off the casino floor" who wants to sit an a 1/2 NLHE game doesn't play games with antes most of the time. But to say that the average player can't get used to an ante is incorrect.

I CAN imagine this scenario, however: It seems to me that, hypothetically, if a player were to walk into a cardroom and his regular small to mid-stakes NLHE game is being spread at two tables--one with an ante, and one without an ante--he is going to be more inclined to stick with what he knows (the game without the ante). But, of course, this scenario is strictly imaginary, and no poker room actually offers such an alternative.

My bigger point is that it is unwise to underestimate the extent to which the game will change, and the players will change along with it. There was a time not too long ago when stud for high was the big new thing, and all the players in CA were playing lowball draw poker (often with a joker!). No one seems to remember that poker is an ever-changing game, and I seriously wouldn't be surprised if more ante NLHE games at the mid-stakes started popping up as the trend towards mixed games continues to take hold.

And as for the charge that antes slow down games, well, I agree in part, and dissent in part. The obvious solution to this problem is to have the big blind post the antes for the whole table (as suggested above). This is a method that is often implemented in mixed games. Once this is accepted at any given table as the proper mode for paying the antes, the game will run just as quickly as it did without the antes. BUT, this method has a serious drawback in my opinion: When a weaker player posts an ante, he is more likely to get involved in pots which he shouldn't. (Such a player will often play many more starting hands than he would had he not "already invested money in the pot.") When such a player is relieved of the obligation to PHYSICALLY post his ante each and every hand, this benefit is greatly diminished because such a player will be more inclined to perceive (incorrectly) the ante as a "third blind." So while that extra dead money is still in the pot, I suspect that one of the benefits the OP perceives to a NLHE game with an ante is, in large part, lost.

DISCLAIMER: I don't even play NLHE unless it's the only game available or is in the mix... So I certainly don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of NLHE trends. But my point is that players can--and will--adapt to much more dramatic changes than adding an ante (a concept most people grew up on, playing poker at home with Dad or whatever) to a game of hold'em.

And as for the charge that antes will slow down a game, I have to agree in part, and dissent in part...

The obvious solution to this problem, as above, is simply to have the big blind post the antes for the whole table. This will keep the game moving at the same speed as a game with no antes. The problem with this solution, however, is that the benefit of having an ante in any given game is greater than just adding a bit more dead money to a pot: When a weaker player pays an ante, he is MUCH more inclined to get involved in pots with weaker starting hands, and will therefore misplay many more hands than had he only posted two blinds per rotation. But if the weaker player does not PHYSICALLY post his ante (because the big blind has done this for him), then he is MUCH less inclined to get involved in more hands, and may come to perceive (incorrectly) that the antes he is paying are simply a "third blind." I believe that it's hard to overstate the extent to which a weak player is inclined to feel psychologically invested in a pot into which he's already paid a relatively nominal sum. This, in my opinion, is the greatest benefit of playing with antes, and adding an ante to an otherwise tight, miserable game can render it a lose, juicy game where the chips start flying--especially in NL lowball games (as above, I don't really play NLHE, but I can't imagine the effect of adding antes would be any different in a hold'em game...).

For this reason, it is best to have each player post his own ante each hand in games where there are weak players (which are the games we want to play in, obv., and are the the games OP is in search of). So it really boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis as to whether the amount of money to be gained by having bad players post antes is greater than the amount of money that will be won if more hands are played per hour/session with those same players. I believe that the answer to this question will largely depend on the quality of the dealers at the venue where the game is spread. Dealers who are used to keeping stud games moving along, for example, will often successfully get all of the antes posted before the automatic shuffler is finished with the deck for the next hand. Unfortunately, most dealers these days either never learned how to best coax the antes out of the distracted players who have failed to post of their own accord (dealing NLHE and LHE almost exclusively), or are rusty because this particular skill is no longer in high demand. (I remember several dealers in AC who were so good at keeping stud games moving along--a game that moves much more slowly than hold'em--that they'd literally make double the tokes of weaker dealers! The regulars were so grateful to play more hands per rotation that they'd reward the good dealers for getting the cards in the air quickly after the end of the previous hand...)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I feel like when I read Super System 1 for the first time, some of the LIMIT hold'em games described were played with an ante. I seem to recall that there was a game at the Stardust, a game at the Aladdin, and a game at the Golden Nugget. Proper play, the author explained, depended on the blind structure and whether the game was played with or without an ante. Does anyone remember? Were the 2-chip/4-chip games back in the day played WITH an ante, while the 2-chip/3-chip games were played WITHOUT an ante? That would seem to make sense... I SOOOOOO WISH MY REGULAR 20/40 LHE GAME WAS PLAYED WITH AN ANTE!!! How sweet would that be?!?!