That seems the be the question nobody wants to answer despite their claims about how great it is...

Maybe because it's an obvious answer: Players don't have to be reminded to ante every single hand & dealers don't have to making ante change any more ... it's not rocket science here people.

Players don't have to be reminded every single hand with the current system. And requiring dealers to make change is way down the list of concerns when it comes to them performing their duties. These are not compelling reasons to introduce the warts of the BB ante.

I just played a few events at the Wynn with the BB ante. I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed playing with it. The whole experience was way more enjoyable without having to worry about anteing each hand. Play felt a lot faster without the extra work for dealers and players before each hand.

Overall the structure was great. I am a rec player who takes the game seriously. I think the vast majority of rec players will enjoy this tournament experience more.

Personally, if there are two tournaments at the same time, one BB ante and one traditional. I will pick BB ante every single time.

Other than that, the entire experience of playing at the Wynn was very enjoyable. The floor was great and the dealers were experienced. And even though the tournament area is on the casino floor, we got very little 2nd hand smoke. I'm not sure if that speaks to the ventilation at the casino or the patronage there (maybe both).

Lol, this has been answered multiple times.

It's faster. The amount of dead time between hands is less. Dealers have to make change and count things less frequently, and the time in which people are actually playing poker increases. And most importantly, and I mean vastly most importantly, it smooths out the structure a TON. Every level jump is between 20-33%, whereas in normal structures the lower and upper bound is way higher.

In my experimentation, the time savings is really a figment of people’s imagination... some sort of confirmation bias. The amount of real time being saved is inconsequential compared to what goes on in a typical hand. As for other perceived benefits, I’ll leave it to others to debate.

No, some players do have to reminded to ante. How about all those times players argue who didn't ante? Good times

"The warts of the bb ante" LMAO! WTF are you talking about?

Better get use to bb ante guys, it's going to be the standard in poker.

Your experimentation? Have you still not played a BB ante tourney, yet remain staunchly against it?

Also, I've noticed that you haven't ever disputed the real argument-the smoothness of the structure. You tell me, which of the following is better (assuming 9 handed table):

Structure A:
1500/3000/3000: 7500 per orbit
2000/4000/4000: 10000 per orbit (33.3% increase)
2500/5000/5000: 12500 per orbit (25% increase)
3000/6000/6000: 15000 per orbit (20% increase)
4000/8000/8000: 20000 per orbit (33.3% increase)
5000/10000/10000: 25000 per orbit (25% increase)
6000/12000/12000: 30000 per orbit (20% increase)

Structure B:
1500/3000/500: 9000 per orbit
2000/4000/500: 10500 per orbit (16.6% increase)
2500/5000/500: 12000 per orbit (14.2% increase)
3000/6000/1000: 18000 per orbit (50% increase)
4000/8000/1000: 21000 per orbit (16.6% increase)
5000/10000/1000: 24000 per orbit (14.2% increase)
6000/12000/2000: 36000 per orbit (50% increase)

Ideally, the structure of a tournament is exclusive of whether the antes are posted by the big blind or by the individual players. They are not the same and so a good structure with the big blind ante can be a good structure with the blinds posted by the players.

Of course the calculation may be more difficult to implement one for one if one attempts to transform a blind tourney to a big blind tourney. As an example at the level of 100/200 blinds one will usually see 25 antes which could convert to a 250 or 225 ante with the big blind but the calculation was made simpler with the big blind ante which would be a multiple of 100.

For example, the Wynn structure has small blind/big blind/antes of 100/300/300 at level #4 whereas in the old way when antes start we have 100/200/25(total of 250/round) .

The effect of this big blind ante structure is to increase activity early on, as more chips are leaving the players for structured necessities early on ( i.e. 100 ante first round, etc.) It smooths out rather well later on... But yada,yada,yada...

Therefore the structures should be evaluated irrespective of the method of garnering the antes . Of note is that the Venetian has an occasional big blind ante tournament which doesn't collect antes until level #4 but again, looking at the structures in comparison offers more insight into what the nature of the tournaments are.

All right, the dealers work less and we play faster but my particular downside is that when antes start in the old way I brighten up for in my experience play also brightens up . Maybe these players who like this ante system felt good nitting it up since they can watch a whole 9 hands without putting in their monies. Its not quite right , of course, but none the less it seems that it does affect the playing activities of the group , i.e. the lack of entering into the pot with antes.

On a historical basis I believe the Main Event was played with a single level blinds throughout and people really nitted it up and they changed to an accelerated structure and of course antes came about also in order to more so increase activity.

To complete, what is offered is a tournament without antes, no matter what its called, which in some measure changes the blinds. Next step is to add antes to these structures..LOL

Except that this argument has been shot down as basically a non-starter. In fact, you ALSO chose to ignore the issues I pointed out with an event that I played AT the Wynn just last week where we had two specific seats that had to be reminded just about EVERY SINGLE ORBIT to post their blind and ante.

Contrast that with the HORSE event the day before which has three different ante games and where we didn't have issues you assert. And THAT HORSEament is not the only one I draw upon...

Actual experience in the past week showed this to be false. We spent more time in a BB ante event with 22% of the table (ironically, the two claiming how much better it is) having to be reminded EACH ORBIT to post their blind and ante. And we were stuck with one of those two almost from the first hand dealt...the other was moved from a different table (where it would not surprise me to learn he had been a slug as well).

In traditional ante structures, players are quite adept at making their own change amongst themselves. While I busted the HORSE at RIO earlier than I would have liked, I cannot remember a single hand where there were arguments over whether someone had posted. Change was made amongst the players IN ADVANCE of having to post.

In short, while my run at the Wynn event was deeper, the table was smoother at the Rio.

I've not spent enough time looking at impact on structure, but you don't fix structure issues by screwing up the game. Unless, of course, the goal is to kill poker.

Fortunately, the seniors event seems to still use a traditional structure. Guess I will be playing more of those. Players are more social as well, which makes for a better day...

This happens very rarely, and even in cases when it does happen, it does not lead to a significant increase in the length of the hand. The idea that collecting antes is a significant part of the time it takes to play a hand is a figment of people's imagination. Eliminating antes altogether would reduce hand length by less than 10%. You wouldn't even feel it, if it weren't for the fact that people blow any tiny delay way out of proportion.

This has been discussed in this (I believe), and certainly other threads. The BB ante process increases disparities caused by imbalanced tables and also during the table break process (this is my biggest gripe). It also fundamentally changes the dynamics of hand play, with players being incentivized to play either tighter or looser, depending on the particular situation (in comparison to the way antes work now). I am less concerned about the game dynamics changes, but I recognize the concerns of other who care more about this. If there were a clear and unambiguous benefit to the BB ante system in time savings, I would probably urge people concerned about the dynamics changes to consider the greater good. However, that benefit simply does not exist.

I really feel like people who advocate (especially strongly) for the BB ante system fall into one of two camps... A) They recognize it has little real time saving benefit, but they like the dynamics changes for whatever reason and are perfectly happy to promote a fake benefit in order to uphold their own position, or B) they simply have fallen under the demonstrably false view that the new system would save a lot of time.

This second group of people are just misguided, and if they are those who really do care about how long hands take to play, should definitely look elsewhere for reform.

It doesn't matter if I haven't played a BB ante tourney. My experiments and arguments about time savings assume the new system takes precisely 0 time. This is an assumption which is very favorable to the BB ante system and which is obviously false. The time savings in a real BB ante situation is even less than the paltry amounts I obtained with my experiments, and if you believe posters like michelle... significantly less.

Anyhow, as for your analysis of structure, I'm not really sure how you are deriving your numbers (I would have to see the actual structures). That being said, I am not prepared to dismiss what you have derived out of hand. Maybe it does make for a little smother structure. That doesn't seem to be a needle-mover for me, though, since one's forced contribution comes from only two hands with the BB ante and this sort of counteracts the structure being a little smoother. The fact is, your forced participation in hands is much less smooth with the BB ante.

I am no soothsayer. You may be right. However I have talked to a few TDs on both coasts and they are ambivalent about it. They are willing to give it a go and see.

I can understand a tiny benefit of the BB ante system to casinos, in that they don't have to train dealers to collect antes. But again, this is such a minor benefit that it hardly seems useful to mention it.

And, again, I haven't heard any TDs talking about the major benefits of the BB ante. All I have heard is some number of posters taking in general terms about how much they and their (potentially fictional) friends "loved" the new system. But unless someone can actually demonstrate a real benefit, then I don't see casinos just going all out to implement the new system. These sorts of tangible benefits have yet to be demonstrated or even explained by the proponents of the BB ante system.

It's gotta be rough being an old person on the other side of progress, it requires you being afraid of things you haven't experienced.

What will happen is that the BB ante structure will continue to proliferate and a few vocal people will complain because "the old way is the way we've always done it!" (literally the dumbest argument for continuing any sort of behavior) It will get acceptance and likes from the majority of most fields, which will cause it to proliferate further, and at some point an American tour will switch its structure to use BB antes, at which point the majority will follow suit.

What do you mean "haven't experienced?" That tells me you don't read worth a damn. My post was based upon what I just experienced in an event AT THE EFFING WYNN! So, not only is it timely, it is at a property that wants to cram this down the throats of the poker community. And you ALSO chose to overlook the very distinct problems I noted as having experienced at a table FIRST-HAND.

Speaking for myself, I am quite a ways away from being eligible for seniors events. I don't know how old you or anyone else is, and when it comes to this issue, I'm not really sure why it matters. My objections have nothing to do with being anti-change, or claiming "this is the way we have always done it". I think I have voiced my opinions on why the change is a net negative many times. I have also gone to the trouble to consider and deeply investigate the claims made by proponents. Those claims seem to fall flat, so I'm still waiting to hear a good argument in favor of this change.

And, if the change does become mainstream, I think it will not be because it represents an advancement in poker, but rather it represents a community of TDs who are either tired of dealing with, or would just go the extra mile to placate a group of ADHD-suffering players who are engaging in some sort of group hallucination about how long things take to do in live poker.

Lol at some of the posts re the BB ante. I've been playing at the Wynn all week and the BB ante system is absolutely fantastic. It is saving loads of time and players are loving it. I haven't met one person at any table that hasn't been completely enthused by it and that includes pros, semi-pros and recreational players of all ages. Its one of the best things to happen in poker in a hell of a long time and its popularity is going to mean it becomes the norm.

Happy to see Wynn offered a PLO tournament, 8-max, during the Classic. Nice!
Hope to see more 8-max events in the summer schedule.

Played in the $600 buy-in, $250k GTD, as well as the $1600 buy-in, $1,000,000 GTD Championship last week. I was skeptical at first about the idea of the bb ante structure. However, after playing I really really enjoyed the structure! One thing that not too many people talk about.. After level 5, the ante was always the exact same percentage of the blinds, which is nice because you no longer need to adjust your range every level. Now that the antes are the exact same percentage of the blinds, each round has the same amount of chips to fight for!!! Streamlined process, faster play! LOVED IT!

What is "loads of time"?

This is actually a real potential benefit (unlike non-insignificant time savings). I don't really think its much of a benefit, but others are free to disagree. I would say, though, one of the things I like about the antes not being uniform is I am able to take advantage of players who might not be aware of this. So, in reality, this is only a benefit to players who don't pay attention to such things.

Hi, looking forward to the summer schedule. A lot of casinos have already released, at minimum, drafts. Here are some suggestions for event placement based on the schedules that have been released. These would be considered bigger guarantee events; buyins from $600+. I think you could make that work with the current gaps i see in the schedule. Events would begin 6/6-6/8, 6/12-6/14, 6/27-6/30.

I'm pretty sure that BillyBizzle post wasn't aimed at you.

Played a bunch of BB ante during the LAPC at Commerce and now hate playing regularly ante. BB ante is much easier for the dealers since they only have to collect an ante (and make change) from one player. Also, the BB ante allowed them to get rid of 25 chips, which speeds up the game significantly as dealers have to make change less often. This plus not having to wait for everyone to ante (there's always at least one person at the table that is THAT GUY) lead to a pretty large increase in hands per hour. Typical hand dealt tourney poker is something like 25-30 hands per hour, with the BB ante we were getting in an average of 35.