Except for the SB and BB who now have a disadvantage. Everyone else got to act knowing there was a raise to $200 coming so they can limp in with a monster knowing they will be able to re-raise. SB and BB do not get that option, ergo making it unfair to them. If you can't see why that is unfair to them then idk what else to say.

Same exact situation except BTN stays silent and never looks at his cards. Everyone limps. At his turn to act he says "I haven't looked yet, but I'll make it $200". Now there is no advantage to any other player over another except the advantage they all get over the BTN.

Button Blind OOT not equal to Button straddle ... not equal to Button Blind 'in turn' GL

What? Sb and bb are positions with a negative profit expectation. Villain putting in $200 with any 2 cards makes the position inherently more profitable.

Except when done out of turn, SB and BB must be worried about everyone else that limped in because they did so knowing it was going to be raised to $200. How do you not see the difference? Everyone that limped in could be holding a monster just waiting for the pot to build because they know action will be reopened to them with 100% certainty. They don't need to be worried about this if BTN bet $200 blind IN TURN.

Can you show some math to support that? I am pretty sure we can agree that SB/BB have an advantage aka higher EV compared to the "regular" situation (not compared to other players at the table) if button puts in $1000000 blind in a 5/10 game and SB/BB cover him.

Why do you need math? Common sense works.

If BTN bets $200 OOT blind and I act before him then I know action will be reopened to me if I limp. This gives me an advantage over anyone that acts after him because they do not get that opportunity.

They definitely have a disadvantage when compared with the other players. As I stated earlier, it may still be +EV for them to have someone else raise blind. I certainly couldn't do the math to show when it is +EV or not, but it would be more likely to be at bigger bet/blind ratios, and more likely to be -EV for them at smaller ratios.

Of course, you can't really have a rule based on bet size ratios. The bottom line is: these kinds of bets are against the rules, and they could possibly be disadvantageous to some players at the table. Therefore, they should not be allowed unless everyone at the table agrees to the change; similar to agreeing to change a fixed limit game to no limit, or a holdem game to Omaha.

As I just addressed, you two are comparing different things. You are saying the blinds have less advantage than the other players, which is definitely true.

He is saying the blinds still have a +EV situation when compared with the guy
not betting out of turn, which may possibly be true, and almost certainly is true for extremely large bets.

Let's say button goes all-in blind for $1000000 in a 5/10 game and SB only plays AA. His odds of getting dealt AA are 0.453%. If everybody else folds, SB has 85.2% equity to win against a random hand. That means SB has an EV of $3855 or 385.5 big blinds. (That's the minimum, his EV could be higher if he also played KK and/or other players called the all-in with hands weaker than AA)

If button doesn't bet blind, SBs EV is usually negative or at most marginaly positive in a weak line-up.

I don't think you can argue that SB was put at an overall disadvantage by putting him in a spot where the EV of his hand goes up from something like -$4 to +$3855? SB was put at a disadvantage compared to the other players at the table, but that point is kinda mood because nobody in their right mind would complain about a spot like that. And if all 9 players want to play the game like that, I don't think a dealer or floor should intervene.

[and no, I did not adjust the EV in case another player has AA too. That happens less than 1% of times that SB was dealt AA and also impacts the odds of button since he can't be dealt an ace in that situation which actually improves his odds to 16.65%]

I get that. Just because they have a +EV situation (which I don't think they do) doesn't mean they are not at a disadvantage. Who cares if they know they are statistically ahead of any 2 random cards that BTN may have when the player they should be concerned about is the limper.

But how much did the EV of everyone else at the table go up? Considerably more so than SB or BB right? IDK, I'm not into calculating that stuff so maybe it goes up the same, but I know if I am SB or BB, the only hands I'm playing in this spot are KK and AA because it's far too likely one of those limpers has something similar.

I think this is unfair to me now because they can limp with hands like AQ/1010 and wait to see if anyone calls the $200 or raises before they make their decision whereas I do not get that option. Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems far too unfair to me.

No one is saying position doesn't matter. Seat position relative to a fish can have a huge impact on win rate. If you are utg would you not allow casino to do a splash pot that hand?

Depends on several factors, most importantly stack sizes.

If the $200 is the effective stack, being the BB and last to act is pretty cool. Especially if we're not talking about 20BB in a 5/10 game but 100BB in a 1/2 game. OTOH, if the effective stack is $10k, the situation for BU is not too different from when he sleeper straddles or even Mississippi straddles.

What, lying in a poker game? I am shocked to hear of this.....
Actually, I quite often see players announce that they are going to play a hand blind, and then raise (either in or out of turn), purportedly without looking at their cards.
Often these players are not big donors, but good players who are trying to stimulate action (which it does) or to project a loose image (which it also does). So I think that it does often accomplish something.
Perhaps this should be against the rules, but I almost never see anyone object. Regardless of who may actually benefit, I think that most people think that having another player throw money in blind must be good. The players who don't like it are the same ones who dislike loose raisers in general (for making the game 'too big").
It does seem, though, that players who announce (after the cards are dealt) that they're playing blind do seem to wake up with AA or KK a lot more often than they should, though........