Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Crispen
Cup, love you friend, but the logic of being totally fine with sometimes there being no small blind but vehemently against there not being a button ante (for the same reason, a player got knocked out the previous hand), it just doesn't make sense and you haven't presented a convincing argument for why it's different.
Unfair to BB in the hand with a dead button (if there's a button ante). They are forced into putting up their bet as the BB, and do not get an ante (dead money) in the pot like everyone else? Not right, when this is fixable by a BB ante in the first place.
No SB is okay and having "no ante" is not, because by the rules of the game, a small blind is not required in order for a hand to begin, and it never has been. It sounds like a simpleton answer, but it is the truth.
However, if you want to have a button ante then I propose the following:
Make the SB required in a button ante format, I would like that better, as long as the BB would effectively buy the button and post both a dead SB and live BB. This forced requirement of essentially "making up for the eliminated player" would happen randomly, but ensure an equal pot to anyone putting up a forced bet or ante.
The effective button position posts the ante twice, but it is now fair to all because they are essentially getting all of the same amount of money in the pot, both at a cost and with a gain. It's fair.
Effective button position is retaining the best position for two hands at the cost of putting up an ante twice, but also now getting both blinds in the pot both times. The BB incurs the cost of having to post both blinds in one hand, but at the benefit of not having to play from the worst position two hands in a row, as well as now receiving an ante in the pot just like everyone else. Again, fair.
Next hand the button moves to the previous hand's BB, and this eliminates the situation of the same player having to ante multiple times without receiving an equal pot to start the hand.
If the BB who is posting both blinds busts in that hand, the next player is forced to do the same and "buys" the button, and effective button position posts ante again. It's still fair, because the pot to start will always be equal, and the button position is yet again being retained while having to post the ante, but getting a complete pot.
Again, this responsibility of both parties (buying the button and posting the ante in succession) would fall randomly upon the players.
This is legitimately the only solution that makes sense to me, in a button ante format. I like it more than a BB ante, in fact, because I think it eliminates the concern of "ante-first" or "blind-first".
I'm speculating of course, but I think most players would agree that the cost of incurring the ante multiple times in a row is a fair exchange for retaining the best position twice and getting both blinds in the pot, with one of them being dead as well.
I also think most players would agree that being forced to post both blinds, with one dead, is a fair exchange for immediately getting the button the next hand while also getting an opportunity for a complete ante, like everyone else.
In the event that the BB does not have enough to cover both a dead SB and live BB, then their remaining chips go towards the BB, and should they win the hand, the button will go to them as long as they now post a dead SB in the next hand. The next player posts their BB.
Okay, here's the knife. Start carving me a new one.
Last edited by CupOfSalt; 05-20-2019 at 07:24 PM.