Quote:
Originally Posted by akashenk
I had a funny online exchange with a fellow poker player in one of my local card rooms. He's of the opinion that collecting 1 ante takes less time than collecting 9 antes, so therefore BBA is better. Case closed. He, of course, ignores any downside to the structure and is not really interested in understanding exactly how big a benefit it is. These views are his prerogative.
But there was a instance when I was explaining to him the relatively paltry time saved (~10 seconds) by eliminating antes and he was adamant that my numbers could not be correct. He believed it was on the order of three times that. He didn't care that I at least made some effort to collect empirical data whereas he was relying on what he "felt" about it.
Anyhow, at some point in the exchange, he posted a 30 second video showing the pre-deal activities in a hand as "proof" that I was wrong. Ignoring the idea that a single instance means anything in this debate, I found it really amusing that his 30 second video proof depicted exactly 6 seconds of ante-collection. And the rest of the time was taken up by all the other things that occur prior to a hand being dealt (fixing the deck, shuffling, etc, etc.). I pointed this out to him... that his video was basically making my point... ante collection does not represent a significant portion of the time it takes to play a hand, and therefore eliminating it, or reducing it, doesn't save a lot of time. But he would have none of it. In his mind, the process took 30 seconds. It really goes to show, the folks who feel this way are experiencing a different reality than me (at least). I think it would make for a fascinating psychological study.
Anyways, the BBA is definitely here to stay until such time as technology eliminates chips. I have no idea if the BBA will be the reason for structure changes at the WSOP, but given the chip stack changes, some sort of structure changes will likely be necessary.
The poll in nvg had 56 for reduce and 58 for non reduce at the end of tournaments. Wynn in their tourneys, when the final table hits 4 players reduce the big blind ante to the small blind which is reduced to elimination of the big blind ante at 2 players.
Its a glaring problem at any level. i can't tell you as to how many times my table gone to 5 or 6 players in which case we would be putting in the big blind ante every 6 hands as apposed, to on the whole, the rest of the tournament tables are at 9. The tournament directors can't move fast enough to balance the tables appropriately .
The only venue that can possibly equalize this method is online . The Wynn changes at 4 players but too little too late and they can't give enough chips to equilibrate a built in seizure of chips by the system. This unfair and inferior system adds criticality at all levels and is well hidden from the player.
Not only is the individual player putting in a small and big blind per round but places in a big blind ante which is only fair if the table is full (9 players) . Every lost player at the table increases one's risk and loss of chips to the system, not related to an individual's ability whatever that may be.
This type of comprehension is best understood in the dynamic, or movement, and not just assume things will be ok by adding more chips to start. Its poor thinking, or in other words sits in someone's head but not connected to the reality in movement. Its Zeno's paradox at the poker table as the tournament directors would have us believe that Achilles will never catch the tortoise.
Translation, again, thinking has to match with reality as we all know that the tortoise is dead meat.