The answer is a few posts above yours.

Bad solution IMO

Why? No harm in playing one hand without ante.

Doesn't seem fair to me that the player in the BB gets a pot with no dead money in it, when everyone else does. Then, that particular BB will be forced to ante on their button, when there was no ante in the pot when they were the BB. Every hand has a BB, not every hand will have an ante.

Also, the situation can occur when the button is "dead" for 2-3 hands in a row. We've all seen it. Would that mean those 2-3 players posting single BB's now get a pot with no antes in it and, in addition, will post a button ante when they did not get one?

Ultimately, this is why I think the button ante doesn't work in a tournament and has to be the big blind.

^^ Sure, but as you can see in this (your) thread, bb ante has its own set of problems.

In that same hand, UTG+1 gets a pot with no ante in it. MP2 gets a pot with no ante in it. SB gets a pot with no ante in it.

Then, that particular UTG+1 (and everyone else) will be forced to ante on their button next time it’s their turn, when there was no ante in the pot when they were UTG+1. Every hand at a full table has an UTG+1 player, not every hand will have an ante.

Let’s say the tournament uses the ‘old’ format of individual antes. Does BB have a legit complaint if a hand starts 8-handed after an elimination and now there’s only 8 antes in the pot instead of 9?

Right, however, they are not being forced to put money into the pot whereas the BB is. If you are being forced to put money into the pot, all of the circumstances should be the same as it was for everyone else, to the fullest extent naturally allowable. Therefore, complaints of "it's not fair that the person putting up the ante doesn't have enough to cover it, on my blind" are invalid, because the means of enforcing the fullest extent that is naturally allowable, in that scenario (to make all circumstances equal) are already being implemented.

In a BB ante, the furthest you could reach is that sometimes the SB will encounter a situation when the BB doesn't have enough for a BB + ante, and then depending on whether the room does ante-first or blind-first, will determine what the concern is in that scenario. It's also something I'm more open to discussing, because my stance on it has shifted from "firm on blind-first", to now "either one, equally" -- both make just as much sense to me as the other.

I think that last bit in your post is a ridiculous position, I'm pretty sure you know that. It would be in the same league as someone complaining that, due to an elimination, there's now one less player that they can win chips from, in a tournament. The answer, ultimately though, is that all circumstances must be equal for players who put in a BB (forced bet), since all hands must have a BB to the fullest extent that is naturally allowable.

To be conclusive, button ante cannot be considered because in the event that there is a dead button 2-3 hands in a row, it would be both unfair to either have the player who is the "effective button" always ante (resulting in that same player putting up an ante 2-3x) and to have there be no ante for those subsequent hands. Thus, button ante cannot work since both possible solutions are unfair.

To be clear, I've never said and am not saying that the big blind ante doesn't have its concerns. However, I do think that there are more benefits to adopting it than there are disadvantages.

It's no more unfair for someone to be BB with a dead button and thus no ante than it is to be BB with a dead SB, and thus no SB. And OMG now it's unfair for me on the button when there's a dead SB, and it folds to me and there's less that I can steal!

Things that come up rather unfrequently, are completely random as to which players they affect, and tend to balance out over time don't need huge adjustments to prevent.

I understand that you're a dealer and might have a different understanding of the game, but from a theoretical standpoint that doesn't make much sense.

You're saying it makes a difference if a player put money into the pot or not. If that's the case, every single hand in an 'old' ante tournament should be treated that way because every single player put in an ante and therefore has money in the pot.

Yes, it absolutely does. It's not fair to force one player to put money into the pot when all of the others are getting dead money in there, and that player isn't.

This doesn't apply to when there's no SB, because, by the rules of this game, there must always be a BB, and thus the only solution is to have no SB. There is simply no other way, that is simply how the game is played.

In the example you posted, if every single player puts their own ante up, then it's always going to be fair by definition.

Bad example, this situation doesn't apply to when there's no SB, because, by the rules of this game, there must always be a BB, and thus the only solution is to have no SB.

The game is literally being kept fair by always having the BB and sometimes having no SB, otherwise, that player gets to avoid the big blind, which is just nonsensical.

If you think that "not having an ante sometimes" is okay, then why would it be illogical for me to assume that you would think that "a player not paying their BB sometimes" is okay too.

Well, sometimes a player is UTG and their table breaks, and they get put on the button. In a way, that's like not paying the BB.

In some rooms, there is always a SB, just posted on the button in situations where there would, or two big blinds posted, and then the next hand 1 big and two smalls. None of these are inherently more or less fair.

And the analogy applies just as equally to allow "no SB" as it does if it is written to say "no ante" if there's a dead button. You're just used to the rule of no SB. But in both cases, players get different playing conditions than other players did in the same orbit.

You have unusually fixated on this "BUT I PAID FOR IT" idea, which is the same way that players (incorrectly) adjust by calling wider from the BB in BBA tourneys because "THEY ARE INVESTED."

That is not at all like not paying the BB. The player is being moved from a broken table into to a brand new table, one which they have not yet paid any blinds or seen any hands. No game integrity is being sacrificed by putting that player on the button, it's not a situation where everyone else paid their blinds and they didn't. Nothing is unfair about it, where else would you have them sit, if that's the only open seat? They have not yet come into the blinds., therefore they have not yet had an opportunity to even skip out on them. The analogy is just invalid.

We are not talking about cash games here. We are talking about tournaments. I thought that was a given.

I generally really like your posts, this just seems a bizarre fixation and line-drawing as far as what is needed for fairness on the ante. I have heard roughly 10 million poker players ***** about being moved from late position to early position when moved from breaking tables. I have heard roughly zero ***** about making sure the pot size is EXACTLY THE SAME WHEN I'M THE BIG BLIND.

No "game integrity" is threatened by having a "dead button ante" any more than it is threatened by me going 25 hands without posting a blind because my table broke 2 times in a row and I keep drawing button, while meanwhile in the same tourney some guy posted 4 big blinds in those 25 hands. It's probably most fair when breaking and combining tables to prioritize late position spots for players who just posted blinds at their previous table. BUT, it's random happenstance, and is equally likely to benefit a player as hurt them, so we don't get all up in arms about it (we meaning people who like poker to run smoothly and fairly, not meaning the players who do get all up in arms about it).

I too, have heard too many players complain about being moved from LP to EP. But, their complaint isn't valid when they are coming from a broken table. Players from broken tables get their seats assigned randomly, not by position, not by who paid the blinds last. If the method chosen to assign new seats is random chance (which is what is done) then by virtue you cannot complain about your previous position. It's random.

You can't rationalize having a dead button (player who is the effective button) ante twice, as fair, because you say it's random -- it's not random, that's not how we decide who gets the button and therefore pays the ante. It is random chance, however, where the button happens to be when it becomes dead. If the button position itself were random each hand, then yeah, a player paying twice is fine. But it isn't, therefore you can't force that player who is the effective button twice to pay the ante twice.

This is exactly why you can't have a button ante in a tournament -- you can't just not have an ante, and you can't have the same player pay it twice. It's the same reason why a player will often lose out on getting the button, when it goes from 3 players to heads up.

But you CAN just not have an ante. You can. It can be the rule, just like it is the rule that players from broken tables get their seats assigned randomly.

There is no actual reason that having a rule that a dead button = no ante is any more or less fair than dozens of other rules that players and dealers accept because IT'S HOW IT IS (like random seat assignments from broken tables, like a dead SB, like the button starting in seat 9/10, etc.).

No, because if we can make the BB the ante, then this situation of not having an ante in the pot doesn't have to happen, due to preventing the same player from paying it twice. Hence, button ante is a bad solution.

It would be incorrect to allow there to be no ante, because, as I've already said, the player in the BB is not being presented with the same opportunity that everyone else got/will get (dead money, the ante, in the pot). That is to say, they are not getting this dead money because a player lacks the chips to pay it, they are not getting it because nobody is paying it. That is a fundamental difference.

And now, since we can't allow there to be "no ante" for the reasons above, you have to dismiss the idea of a button ante.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can't do it. I highly doubt any gaming commission would stop you from using button ante in your tournaments. If players don't like button ante, they don't have to play in the tournament. If you don't like button ante, you don't have to deal in the tournament.

I didn't say that you can't do it because of my feelings. I said you can't (shouldn't) do it for the logical reasons that I outlined above.

Reiterated, the two possible solutions to the problematic situation:

On the same player putting in ante twice, in dead button situations
You can't rationalize having a dead button (player who is the effective button) ante twice, as fair, because you say it's random -- it's not random, that's not how we decide who gets the button and therefore pays the ante. It is random chance, however, where the button happens to be when it becomes dead. If the button position itself were random each hand, then yeah, a player paying twice is fine. But it isn't, therefore you can't force that player who is the effective button twice to pay the ante twice.

On there being no ante for the hand, at all
It would be incorrect to allow there to be no ante, because, as I've already said, the player in the BB is not being presented with the same opportunity that everyone else got/will get (dead money, the ante, in the pot). That is to say, they are not getting this dead money because a player lacks the chips to pay it, they are not getting it because nobody is paying it. That is a fundamental difference.

For these reasons, a button ante is a bad choice.

It should not be called an ante because not everyone is paying it. Big blind ante is a misnomer and the concept was created to speed up play. As a bb is always required, if they both cannot be covered it makes more sense that the bb is taken first. When everyone does pay and it is a true ante, the ante should be paid first and the bb can only with the amount he can put up in the bb.

Cos point about the button is a good one. You don't always have a button and you can go numerous hands without one if players get knocked out.

This (numerous hands with a dead button) happens almost never.

But if there is serious objection to having no ante (and because it is random when it happens I personally wouldn't care any more than I care that when somebody gets knocked out there sometimes isn't a small blind) then just have everyone ante when there is a dead button. I think this is a worse solution but it is still better than having a BB ante where the BB doesn't put out the ante but instead puts out his BB.

Having everyone ante won’t work. Often the needed chips won’t be on the table. Getting low denom chips off the table earlier (or not needing them at all) is a big benefit of BBA. If we are playing 300/600/600, we don’t wanna keep quarters on the table just in case one hand of 300/600/75 breaks out.

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.

That logic is weird because an ante is not more required than a SB for a hand to begin.

As some have already mentioned, from the BB player's perspective, having a dead SB or having a dead BTN (hence no BTN ante) is either equally unfair or equally an arbitrary rule.