Yeah I’m looking forward to the schedule. Hopefully be out soon since everyone else has put theirs out. I just hope the $1100 doesn’t overlap with the double stack as I can see the double stack being a huge event even without a guarantee.

I don’t believe your numbers are anywhere close to accurate. In order for what you say to be true (and assuming an average of 27.5 hands per hour with the standard ante system), it would mean hands are being played 21% faster with the BB ante system. That’s 103 sec/hand with the BB ante and 132 sec/ hand without. This would indeed be a significant reduction in time, but it would also mean it’s taking nearly 30 seconds on average, per hand, to collect antes from all players vs just the BB. That just doesn’t jive with any real life poker experience I have had, even ones with lesser skilled dealers.

Really looking forward to you experiencing this for yourself and your subsequent comments. I absolutely believe the numbers RAHzero has suggested given my own experiences at the Wynn. There is a very significant increase in play and across the board, regardless of age and poker experience / success players were loving it. I think you’ll be very pleasantly surprised by how positive a rule change this is. It’s going to become the norm very quickly as those tournaments that don’t implement it will quickly see entry numbers drop.

You won't take his hands-on comments any more seriously than you take the commentary offered thus far for the very same reasons as comments like mine get ignored. And yes, I played at the Wynn.

There was no 'significant increase' and we had to consistently wait for two specific players to post (ironically, the ones claiming how much better this POS is). Implementation will certainly have the potential to impact turnout, but it will be a two-way street...I will be looking to AVOID the events that use this crap.

Isn't the WSOP Marathon then? I think that is a great tourney,

The whole argument here of BB ante vs traditional ante is getting to be over the top. Its going nowhere and probably has no effect on whether Wynn or other places implement this. The argument here is propelled by a couple of vocal advocates against the system.

I hope Wynn releases their schedule soon so this conversation can turn back to their awesome summer schedule!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were perhaps unlucky with who you were sat with. The rest of your post is categorically nonsense, in fact laughable. There was a very definitive and significant increase in hands played at every table in both events. Consistently hours upon hours of additional hands in both. There may be a handful of naysayers like you which is of course your prerogative but this is already a game changer and will become increasingly popular and the norm moving forward. Maybe the smaller casinos will put on traditional ante tourney series for you and similar proponents of the good ole days but I doubt it, shame.

Marathon is probably different price point as seen by the amount of entries.

I just don’t want Wynn tourney to be wed-sat day 1 when double stack is on. Tuesday-Friday or Monday-Thursday day 1 would be better so you bust the milly maker and then place this and then double stack on sat.

Totally agree getting off topic.

Players will decide the fate of this in the end anyway

Looking forward to the schedule as well

I play at the Wynn less than some other venues, but my recollection is that their dealers a pretty competent... perhaps even more so than what I am used to on a regular basis on the East Coast. I have no reason to believe that eliminating ante-collection from Wynn tournaments will somehow create a much better time-savings benefit than elsewhere.

Its really comes down to this... if you're going to advocate for a new system which essentially eliminates the collection of antes, and if you're going to claim that this will save significant time, then by definition, the collection of antes must take significant time. This was not really my impression when this issue was first broached. But I was willing to actually look into it deeper in order to take perception off the table as a contributing factor. And what I found was that collecting antes does not take a significant amount of time. Now, I will readily admit that my experimentation in this area is not the end-all be-all on this matter. And I'm certain there is some amount of variance to be expected. But I was actually surprised at how consistent the results were. Nevertheless, I will probably repeat my experiment at some point just to be sure.

In any case, at this point, I do not believe collecting antes takes very long, and I have actual data to back it up. Maybe it "feels" like it takes a long time. But that is a completely different topic, and certainly not any sort of justification to change things when there are real warts with the new system.

I will be very curious what comes out of the Wynn's own experimentation in this area and I will be interested in their methodology. I think mine was pretty solid... directly measuring how long it took to collect antes. I don't think they're going to do exactly that. I guess we'll see, but I'm not sure what kind of look it will be for a casino to admit their ante-collection process takes a surprisingly long amount of time. I mean, that's sort of admitting they have a dealer quality issue, and if that's the case when it comes to collecting antes, imagine what it means for the many other more challenging and important tasks a dealer must execute in order to do their job.

As for what will happen with this in the future, like I mentioned in another post, I have no idea. Maybe you're right. Maybe there will be a large enough (or perhaps vocal enough) group of players who prefer the new system for whatever real or fake reason and casinos will acquiesce to their demands. That is certainly in the realm of possibility. But I doubt very much something like this will drive numbers any time soon. That will still be dominated by things like guarantees, structure, buy-in, etc.

And lastly, after playing in one of these tournaments... I may agree with the proponents. I may say I "like" it. I may say the game dynamic changes it brings about are good, or at least a nice change. I may say some of its more esoteric benefits are more consequential than I thought. I may even say that all of these benefits are enough to overcome the things that aren't great about it. I'm actually pretty open minded at this point. But I really doubt I will ever come out and say, you know what, this is significantly faster. Because physically, it can't be. And I don't believe in making changes based on perception alone.

Let me add that I, too am looking forward to the Wynn schedule.

This is my take on it:

Wynn 400,Spring Classsic 18k chips,30 minute blinds; assumption 2 rounds for 30 minutes (questionable but any figure can be used,within reason)
bb ante running total
1, 600
2. 800 1400
3. 1000 2400
4.1400 3800
5. 2000 5800
6.2400 8200
7. 3000 11200
8.4000 15200
9.5000 20200
10.6000 26200
11. 8000 34200
12. 10000 44200

Wynn Seniors 15 K chips,old way, 30 minute levels
ante blinds running total
1. 300 300
2. 450 750
3. 600 1350
4. 450 600 2400
5. 900 900 4200
6. 900 1200 6300
7. 1350 1800 9450
8. 1800 2400 13650
9.3600 3600 20850
10. 3600 4800 29250
11. 5400 6000 40650
12. 4800 7200 52650

It is evident that the chips are taken by force faster at the lower levels of the BB ante system but later on it smooths out. An example is that at level #5 there is a loss of 5800 chips in the BB system versus 4200 in the old system. At that level the player will have lost 1600 more chips than in the old system or if assuming equal starting stacks about 12 % loss of chips due to mandates and not due to playing, note: "not due to playing". Another percentage is that in the BB ante system there is a 38 % higher loss of chips than in the old system.

The system is speedy early and if not careful you could run out of chips while enjoying the fact that you don't have to work..i.e. throw the ante s in. Yes its wonderful, just sit and play without obstruction, waiting for your ship to come in.

I'm a nit but at some point the system has to challenge me rather than allow me to swing in the breeze psychologically . I can drink my own coffee and no one has to pound me on the back in order for me to breathe. To be fair I know that there are other ways to give an estimation of my position in the tournament and when I will have to act but this one offers nothing but a sham.

I say sham for it is possible to have the same structural loss using the Big blind ante system but this structure , as noted above, is speedy early and I am quite sure that the hoped for consequence will be that people will bust earlier, which may be, or not.

Its a changed structure with a filigree of supposed wonderfulness because we don't have to work. LOL.

As an aside, try implementing this structure with the series $1000's with 5k chips and its flaws will stand out.

Appreciate and respect your detailed and well considered response, some very interesting and salient points made! I do think you are a little out of the ordinary in how you think about these things (not a criticism) and that the average joe (by far the majority!) will take a much more simplistic view to this change and simply go with it and enjoy it but time will tell. I was at some very fun, chatty and diverse tables over the last week and made a point of asking bracelet winners and crushers as well as older gents in their 60's, ladies and various other demographics and the response was unanimously in favor so I'm definitely keen to hear your feedback having experienced it.

Michelle,

Help me understand how the tournament would have been faster if the players who refuse to pay attention and put their money into the pot pre-deal had to do so on 9 hands per orbit, instead of just 2. Honestly, having two players who need reminded 100% of the time is an amazing argument FOR BB ante structure, since they now can't muck up the hands much more of the time.

In my years of playing ante-based games, peer pressure tends to take care of such issues when some numpty is being an idiot every hand. They quickly lose their ability to claim 'oh my bad...I forgot.'

This whole shift people are trying to force is a solution to a problem that simply does not exist at anywhere near the scale some people assert.

I know you play mixed games more than NLHE. I think the problem is much worse in NLHE. I agree with you that I hardly ever see the issue in HORSEaments. But IME the guys who need reminding every time are brutal in normal ante NLHE tourneys. I don't see why peer pressure wasn't working on the numpties in the Wynn tourney you played, why isn't a player on either side of them reminding them on the two hands an orbit where it's an issue?

I can't speak to Michelle's experience in the BB ante tourney she played. But what I think she's trying to convey is, its not like the BB ante eliminates the time it takes to collect antes completely. You are still going to have instances when the BB needs to make change for their ante and you are still going to have instances when people aren't paying attention. And the degree to which this slows down the hand will be variable.

All that being said, in all the analysis I have done, I have given the BB ante system the benefit of the doubt and just assumed it completely eliminates the time it takes to collect antes. Its still not convincing that this represents a significant reduction in the time it takes to play live hands of poker. Here are the results of my experimentation which I posted in another thread where this issue was being debated...

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...4&postcount=66

So, you're typically going to gain somewhere between 1 and 2 hands per hour if you eliminate ante collection. Not very impressive.

Like I said, I will be curious what the results of the Wynn's tracking of this are. If they do see a significant (on the order of 15%) increase in hands per hour, it will either be because their dealers are incompetent, or something else which has nothing to do with the collection of antes. One thing I might postulate in that case is... the BB ante system might make it so there are typically fewer players per hand. If this occurs (just theorizing now), then it could lead to less active hands which see fewer streets. If this occurs, then of course more hands will be played per hour, since there will be fewer players making fewer decisions. But this will have nothing to do with the time it takes to collect antes.

I saw that, and frankly there is no way there is ever 5 seconds between the time the first ante hits the felt and the time the dealer has them all swept up into the pot.

The time is not between when the first ante hits the felt and the time the dealer sweeps them all up. The process isn't... dealer turns to player in first seat, asks for ante, waits for it to be paid, and then proceeds to next player. At least that isn't the process in any cardroom I have ever visited, and if it were, I would probably never return.

Anyhow, antes are typically already out before the dealer is ready to collect them. All the dealer does is collect them. There are, of course instances where that is not the case, but those are far rarer than people claim. Anyhow, the time I measured was the time it takes for the dealer to collect antes... which I defined (pretty accurately, I think) as the time between when the dealer puts the deck down to collect antes, to the time they pick the deck up. 5 seconds was not nearly the most common time, but it did happen a few times during the 25 ante level. The average time was more than double that.

And I think time from dealer pushing pot to dealer beginning ante collection is going to be longer in tourneys without BB ante, and you didn't account for that, by your own definition.

I'm not quite sure what that means. In any case, after they push the pot, there is a bunch of stuff the dealer does to prepare the deck for the next hand. They do not wait to do this until all the antes are out. They begin doing this while people are posting their antes and blinds. When they are done preparing the deck, they put it down to collect the antes. Of course, if they have put down the deck to collect antes, and players are still posting them, or fumbling around on their phones, or staring at the ceiling, it will increase the time it takes to collect antes. I certainly took that into account in my experiment. And on a handful of occasions, players had to be reminded to post their antes. And, on one occasion, the pot had to be counted because there was a question as to whether or not a player posted or not. My only point is that these instances which lead to ante collection delays are much rarer than players "feel", and even when they do occur, they do not lead to a significant increase in the length of a hand. In my experiment, the longest ante collection process took 25 seconds. That's a very long time, given the average was 11 seconds. But its still not an eternity. Hands get delayed for much longer than 25 seconds much more frequently for all sorts of other reasons.

Sure, but that's a fallacy to say "eh there are other delays, so why do anything about this one?" I'm all for reducing tanking delays, etc., also.

Well, my results show a 6.5% reduction in time if we completely eliminated the ante-collection process. Of course, in reality, that time savings is a bit less since the new system takes some time too.

Anyhow, even if one accounts for variance, I just don't see anywhere near a 10% improvement, and even that would be questionable from a real impact standpoint. People wouldn't notice a hand taking 120 seconds vs 132. Nor would they notice getting ~2 extra hands per hour.

All that being said, if this change had no potential negative impact, then I too would be all for trimming the process wherever one could. But that is not the case. The BB ante introduces game dynamics changes and enhances inequities caused by unbalanced tables and table breaks. I've sort of glossed over that first point since I haven't experienced it first-hand and also haven't given it a ton of thought. But I'm not prepared to say its irrelevant. If the game changes, some will like it and some might not, but who is to say its for the "better".

I recognize that people may "feel" like its a lot faster and they may even prefer to not have to think about posting antes every hand. But these are pretty much perception advantages, not real ones. To this point, no one has articulated a particularly good and real reason why the BB ante system is actually better. So for now, I fall on the side of, why introduce it?

How many more times do I need to use the phrase "most importantly" before you'll continue to dismiss the real benefit here? Level jumps that increase the preflop pot size 50% or more in tournaments, especially deep in tournaments, are super dumb. Having that be the case because the ante is tied to the smallest chip on the table is no longer an issue in big blind ante tournaments.

I dismiss it (to some degree), because I don't think its that big a benefit. Any sort of structure "irregularity" is something that can be taken advantage of by observant players. And why would you fret over structure "smoothness"... something that effects all players equally, but not really care about some of the inherent imbalance issues that the BB ante introduces, as described here by Greg Raymer...

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...1&postcount=58

Those issues affect individual players and tables of players unequally. Surely that is a bigger deal than whether the structure is a smoother, is it not?

Anyhow, if smoothness is the most important factor for you, and that's why you support the BB ante, then fine. I really don't wish to argue about it too much. To each their own. As long as you don't make any disprovable claims about how much faster it is, then I don't really have a huge quarrel, since other reasons are likely based on personal preferences.