So, I work for multiple rooms in Vegas and the different rooms I work for have different positions on which should come first.

If the BB is first, then the the player in the BB (if they don't have enough for both bb and ante), puts up whatever they have for the BB, and then can win back what they have X however many callers. There is also then no dead money in the pot in this spot.

If the ante is first, the player in the BB (if they don't have enough for both bb and ante), puts up what they have to cover the ante (dead money) and can essentially only win back those dead chips. They cannot win additional chips and there is no BB. If they have enough to cover the ante, but not enough for a full BB, then they can win the ante back plus whatever they have for the BB X however many callers.

Now, I have discussed this with the floors/TD's in the different rooms that have the opposing positions on this. I understand both sides of the argument, but ultimately feel that the BB should come first.

The argument for BB first is that it's a forced bet and keeps the play dynamic the same as non-BB ante tournaments. Meaning, in ante-first bb-ante tournaments, if you are short, you can only win back your original chips thus punishing the short stacks and changing the dynamic of play.

Argument for ante first is that since the entire table is paying for your ante, you must reciprocate by paying the ante first. Also, in tournaments if there is an ante, it has always traditionally been that the ante comes first.

I tried to stay as neutral as possible when stating both sides of the argument.

What do you guys think?

If the ante comes first in a traditional tournament, I can't see a reason to do it differently here.

Ante comes first here.

We recently switched to the more "player friendly" BB comes first. I personally like it and so do the majority of our players, but I can see the traditional thoughts of "ante comes first because that's the way it's done" crowd.

My room has been BB first from the start for the reasons you've mentioned.

Ante first where I´m at

BB first, in order to facilitate chip in a chair comeback dynamics.

I don't understand the reasoning of that's the easy we have always done it. You also always had every player play the ante previously...

BB first just makes sense.

Ante first makes exactly as much sense.

Both “sides” have valid arguments and I can understand everyone who says one of the two options is better in their opinion. But I have a hard time understanding players who claim one option is unequivocally better and those who disagree are wrong.

It's a poker player thing. "The way I'm familiar with is the right way. Any other way is wrong." See it every day.

I don't understand how it makes sense for ante first. I'm not saying anyone who disagrees is wrong, I just dont get the argument of, "but that's how it's always been done!"

There's just as much available in the pot for everyone to win either way, so why not give the person a chance to increase his or her stack?

If every player anted, when would the chips go in the middle? Ante happens before everything.

Right, in the old way...we are talking about a new process. Why do we have to keep reverting to that's how it's always been?

Also, in that scenario, the all in player has a chance to increase his/her stack.

Ultimately, it is still an ante. An ante gets put into the pot as dead money before the start of the hand.

It’s not a new process, it’s just changing which players have to ante. Instead of all of them, it is just the big blind. And the size of the ante is much larger now.

And because it is an ante, it must be put into the pot first, before the blinds.

That is the argument for ante first.

As I originally stated, I think that the blind should come first however, because of the fact that such a large ante that is dead money, ultimately punishes the short stacks and changes the dynamic of play.

Although I think the ante should go in first I can also see where the BB garners support as well. Why should a Player with no 'required' blind in front of them deserve a hand?

The guy in the computer (Bravo) says 'blinds and antes' ... blinds first. Most structure sheets say SB, BB and a 'X' ante. This should lean most to the blinds before antes.

Not sure where 'Player friendly' comes from, but I certainly would want a piece of a pot that all the Players were forced to enter as opposed to one where they could fold out of and limit my earnings potential. GL

Our room is bb first. I would argue as follows:

BB ante is a misnomer. Forced action before the cards are dealt are broken into two categories: antes and blinds.

Given the below definition, if everyone is not contributing before a hand commences, it is not an ante, despite being called one. Therefore, if short in a bb ante tournament, player should pay bb first and the other forced action second.


Card player definitions:


ANTE
A small bet all players are required to make before a hand is dealt. An ante is similar to a blind, but everyone has to contribute it before a hand commences. Antes give the pot a value right off the bat.

BIG BLIND
The amount of chips the second player to the left of the dealer has to bet. The amount depends on the stakes. Like an ante, it is a posted amount that makes the pot worth playing for before the action begins. It is equivalent to one complete first round bet. It's a called a blind because it amounts to placing a bet without seeing the cards first.

BLIND
The generic term for either the big blind or the small blind. If you are one of the blinds, you are sitting either immediately to the left of the dealer button (small blind position) or one position farther left (big blind).

Of all the reasons on either side of the issue, this is the dumbest.

If the ante is 800 and the player on the button only has T25 left, he is entitled to win T25 from everyone else in the hand PLUS the 800 ante correct? The reason is because he already paid the ante when it was his turn. If the BB has T600 and is allowed to post it as his blind and can win 600 from everyone in the pot without ever posting an ANTE, why should he be able to win the ANTE that everyone else posts for the rest of that round when he didn't have to post it on his turn?

The ante gets posted first.

What punishes the small stacks is the fact that they either got hammered by a prior hand or they let themselves get blinded down because they don't play very well.

Either way why are we subsidizing them? Poker is not and should not be a welfare program.

Every hand prior to the Big Blind the short stack has had another player ante for them. It is patently unfair to now get a free pass when it is their turn.

And this.

At FW the BB gets posted first because its FW. I did have a discussion with some of the Floors there and they were receptive to thinking about it.

A much better solution is to walk away from this structure and instead have a BTN ante. No way to screw that up. And for the "we should be letting people get the most bang for their remaining chips" crowd, the short stacks would get to play their blinds before having to ante for the table.

But for this truly to make sense, a new player to the table coming in between the SB and the BTN would then have to "buy the BTN". Something I would love to see because it makes no sense to me that in a tournament a player has to sit out a hand and then not get to play the BTN...

For a dead BTN there would just be no ante that hand.

You answered your own question. The button had enough to pay both when it was his turn and now can only win what he puts onto the pot. Players get screwed all the time when tables break and get moved closer/into the blinds. There is no guarantee that you will all pay an equal number or amount in blinds.

The blind can not cover both, so a choice must be made.

I love the Button Ante idea.

This makes the most sense out of all arguments that I've heard, thank you.

I would argue that nobody has put in an ante for anyone else, the ante is the responsibility of(in this case) the big blind. That said, I understand your point better now.

What would happen in situations when there's a dead button?

Well since dead button means the button does not move someone would have to pay twice. But I don’t play tournaments but I don’t think they have dead buttons.

My point was what happens when a player gets the button twice, lol.

They should not have to ante twice.