I believe BBA is an improvement over the traditional ante for many reasons, but there are some logistical flaws that do raise some concerns.

I would simply go to 1-2-2 blind structure and get of antes altogether. The orbit costs are the same as BBA, and it does not require a change to traditional antes late in the event. It also increases action, which gets the events over with quicker compared to a 1-2 blind structure.

One could also offer BBA and 1-2-2 blind events in the same tournament, so that skilled players can adjust to the strategy changes required for each and gain an advantage.

Getting it all-in as a huge favorite and losing to a two-outer feels unfair to a lot of players and adds to the sense of frustration that many people get from tournaments. I don't personally find that situation frustrating, but many people do. If I were trying to design a better tournament, I would ignore the concerns of the tournament audience that wants to whine about the two-outer problem.

Huge improvement to the standard.
Those who oppose it imagine the other way around if it was always BB ante and suddenly we change it to everyone pays their share of the ante!?!!

OK, let's go with this analogy.

Many poker player do find bad beats frustrating. But casinos have not ignored these concerns. Instead, in some contexts, they have changed the rules to make bad beats less common by allowing players to run it multiple times. We have collectively decided that in many cases the upside of reducing variance and frustration is worth the downside of slightly increasing the time it takes to resolve the hand.

Of course, casinos cannot adopt this solutions in tournaments. The downside of allowing players to run it twice in a tournament would be much greater, as it would substantially lengthen the entire tournament and also create collusion issues. But in both cases the the rule is adopted or not based on the balance between advantages and disadvantages.

Is paying the BB twice in a row after a table break a huge issue in tournament poker? I don't think it is. But I've also never thought that the time it took to collect antes was a huge issue either. In my mind, BB antes alleviate one minor problem while exacerbating another minor problem. So as it is, I am pretty ambivalent toward the change. But if the broken-table problem could be addressed at the same time, I'd be all for it.

I only run it once in cash games, so I am not compelled by a desire to reduce variance and frustration.

Lol people have literally been caught glancing at where the button is at their table and then walking quickly/slowly/pretending to be lost/whatever it takes to get the best advantage. While I support BBA (I almsot never play NLH tourneys, though), this is definitely a problem with it.

So the only advantage is that it saves incompetent dealers who can't manage the game time in that they don't have to actually do their job and ask players to ante?? Please...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using 2+2 Forums

Faster game, no need to make change every ante, no need to repeatedly remind seat 4 using his iPad to ante up, no confusion over who didn't ante, more hands dealt per hour. I like it.

I hope you’re a fad. Now go

Online normal ante tournamanets are a non issue, but from my experience live the one guy always forgetting his ante can definitely slow the game down so I don't mind the BB ante tournaments/

I laughed so hard it was physically exhausting.

I think BB Ante definitely is better for when you are in push-fold mode on a sub-20bb stack, you can basically see like 8 hands for free and not be whittled each individual hand.

I also agree that table changes are where some real angling will happen. It's already far to easy to meander about pretending you just cant find "Orange 351", it'll be worse with BB Ante.

Wouldn't necessarily agree with the first paragraph. Sure, when you are on the button you have the "free" hands, but if you lose a high % of your chip stack when in MP/EP, you are obliged to stick your 5-10bb in pre on the hand or two before you lose half your stack in the next two hands. And when you are on the button, its because you have "prepaid" your free hands anyway from the hand or two before.

Agree with the second paragraph, but the solution would be to pick off players from a broken table as the hand is in progress, and have said players guided to new tables with greater supervision etc...

The other alternative (common in Australian pub bar or recreational games) would be to have the players assigned position cards rather than table or seat cards, and that players from any broken table are seated by position and no worse than there current position etc... So a player due to be BB next hand is sat down in relatively early position, and any player four seats or more away from the BB are also sat down as close to behind the button as possible.

While that solution could plausibly be prone to manipulation by TD's officials, its better than the alternative of players being able to manipulate their position with stalling tactics.

I would add Superante and then Superante2 and then merge them gradually with blinds. Their value should be logaritmic so nobody would really know live what he will pay next round.

And it's also nonsense how many trolls there are on this thread when there's a legitimate issue/topic to debate here

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using 2+2 Forums

I agree that big blind ante isn’t the best but it’s better than the traditional ante system. The only thing I don’t like is the fact you may have to pay per se more when a player gets knocked out or table is short compared to other tables

However the way bb ante speeds up play, I think it’s much better than traditional antes bc some players never ante right away and dealers having to make change is timely. It still annoys me when people don’t understand big blind antes in 200+ buy in mtts. It really explains how clueless some live rec players are. It’s not a hard concept to understand. People still don’t quickly throw the bb ante to a dealer before a hand starts which really irritates me In live play.

If the speed and logistics of the BB ante and regular ante were the same, which would people prefer?

Then you probably should have debated it.

regular

So excepting that they aren't? That removes the reasons why the BB ante is preferable.

Is it amazing that this op would receive nonserious replies?

DUCY?

I would probably be indifferent. I might lean towards BB ante because it seems to make stupid people cry and I enjoy their suffering.

It really makes no difference what postion posts the tables antes forgetting the implications of table changes and playing shorthanded (Hi Chainsaw).

It seems way more "fair" and I think people would prefer a btn ante. This way you are only ever forced into 1bb on any hand and if you got unlucky and had to pay the ante on the btn, then at least you have just had two btns. You can rest assured none of the other players or the staff will let you take another btn on a table change.

It also adds a nice symmetry to posting. BB, SB, BB. I vote btn ante.

You've either never played live poker before or you're one the players that is always not paying attention and last to ante.

Hmm, actually I have done both. I'm pretty sure I've won the argument here. THE BIGSTACK TAKES IT DOWN AGAIN

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using 2+2 Forums