My guess is they cannot argue the actual points that have been made, so it becomes easier to engage in the ad hominem attacks against me. They are obviously one of the kiddies that don't understand those of us in the over-50 demographic have options...our lives don't have to revolve around a game. It is also why skipping a BBA event does not crimp the lifestyle.

Ironic in the multiple attacks that have involved the spurious claims related to lifetime winnings is that it would seem to strengthen the claim that my funds should be precisely the sort of funds they WANT in the events at all cost.

As a nitty cash game specialist, I like the idea that I can wait from OTB to UTG without bleeding chips while waiting for a hand to push when short-stacked. However, I have more than 15K in lifetime tournament winnings.

If there had never been tournaments with individual antes and all tournaments had been BB ante since time immemorial, no one would come up with the idea of breaking the BB ante into individual antes to fix perceived inequalities.

Unlike the largely mythical time savings, the inequities are not perceived. They are real. When you are at a short table, you are paying more per hand than your fellow competitors at other tables. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t view that as bleeding chips.

However, I do agree if the BBA were in place from the beginning, it would not be wise to switch to traditional antes. That’s because neither system causes or solves any significant problem in structure. They just each have pros and cons. I’m convinced the BBA was put in place to placate player ADD under the pretense of game speed management. And so long as that pretense remains ingrained in players’ perceptions, BBA is here to stay.

But when you win a pot, you win a larger pot. That makes up for it.

This. Blinds aren’t rake.

Neither are antes.

Exactly. But people act like short stacks are only punished by the antes being bigger in a BBA tourney when short handed. But those chips stay on the table, they aren’t raked off.

Let’s say I have 12k chips at a 6 handed table. Blinds are 500/1000. In a traditional ante tourney, antes are 100, in BBA they are 1000 obv.

After one orbit, I play and win 0 pots, my stack:
Traditional 9900, BBA 9500

After one orbit, I shove and win 1 pot, my stack:
Traditional 12k, BBA 12k

After one orbit, I shove and win 2 pots, my stack:
Traditional 14.1k, BBA 14.5k

So I have slightly less chips if I am not winning pots in BBA, but slightly more if I am winning pots. It balances out. They aren’t just dropped down the rake hole. I can win those chips. But BBA opponents only focus on the first scenario.

I probably agree with you math, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. Structures are not evaluated based on how many hands a player wins since that is unknowable ahead of time. They are evaluated on things like cost/orbit and cost/hand. And with respect to these, BBA makes table imbalances more of a problem. I mean, if a structure has 5 minute levels and started with 5BB, and I won every hand, I wouldn't really care how crappy the structure was. So, while I get you main point, I don't really see it a good argument. The BBA has structural issues and one must only look at all the various and complicated ways TDs are trying to reduce them in late-tournament scenarios. One either cares about these structural issues or does not, but they do exist.

The point is that some people dramatically overstate the inequity of being on the shorter table in a BBA tournament. They focus only on what you can lose and not on what you can Winn

The tourney is down to final 13, six at one table, 7 at the other. You have 12 big blinds. How much -EV do you think it is to be at the short handed table? Where does this EV go?

If you win your exact “fair share” of hands dealt, it doesn’t matter which table you are on. See the above plain math which you “probably” agree with, where you are 1/6 of the players and win 1/6 of the hands.

What if the tourney is down to 6 players and you have 12 blinds. How much -EV is it to be playing BBA instead of traditional? Do you think you would gain significant $EV if the blind levels went from 40 to 60 minute levels?

Either way, I would MUCH rather be at the table where people fold too much if I have 12 BB. And if I’m at that table, I would rather be playing BBA than traditional, because I win more per hand at BBA.

The point is that BBA probably doesn't change EV because you win a bigger pot when you win, which balances out the average amount you lose when you fold. It might affect variance, but I don't think that is a big deal. I think it feels like a bigger deal than it is to certain types of players who I don't feel the need to placate. TDs shouldn't try to over-complicate attempted fixes to soothe the feelings of a few crybabies.

I just don't think table imbalances in general are a huge problem that needs to be solved. For example, I think that a difference of two players between the table with the most and fewest tables is generally acceptable and doesn't need micro-management to make tables as even as possible. You said that BBA and regular antes have both pros and cons. I am not conceding that late table inequities are a con, but if they are, it's a small one and the benefits of BBA would outweigh them.

I think BBA creates more evenness in hands per hour between the table with the best dealer and the table with the worst dealer who is inefficient at making change and pulls in antes in a way that causes them to sometimes have to figure out who hasn't anted. I'd suggest that BBA has more value in larger tournaments with a wider disparity in dealer skills.

If you ran a series of simulations where you took 13 players of equal skill level, gave them random distributions of chips at the start of each simulation, and played it out to a single winner each time, with a "traditional" ante structure, you would find that the 6 players who started at the 6-handed table would achieve slightly worse results than those who started at the 7-handed table. Same thing would happen if you started with 11 players, to those who started at the 5-handed table.

With the BBA structure, this disadvantage to being at the short-handed table would increase slightly, because the cost-per-orbit increase also increases variance at the short-handed table. And it is this increase in variance that leads to the inferior results. Because there is value to mere survival at this stage of a tournament, anything that increases variance at your table, if it does not also change something else, will reduce your equity while at that table.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

I think Greg summed the question about EV better than I can.

As for the rest, table imbalance is a problem in poker. BBA makes table imbalance worse compared to traditional antes. A person doesn't have to care about this, or think it's a big deal, but it does exist. And I don't really see anyone dramatically overstating it (not like, for instance, the folks who claim there is a large time savings with BBA). The table imbalance inequity is what it is. And from what I've seen with the methods TDs are using to try and avoid it, there really is no way around it which doesn't cause other issues.

The easiest solution to table imbalance with 13 players left is to combine to one 13-handed table.

The anti-collection process simply doesn't take that long. While there is time savings with the BBA, it pales in comparison to the amount of time it takes to play a hand. The effects of a truly bad dealer manifest themselves throughout the hand, from deck manipulation to dealing to managing the pot/table. And despite all of that, the #1 cause for the amount of time it takes to play a hand has nothing to do with the quality of the dealer.

So, I really fail to see how differences in dealer quality, which are less than people imagine (at least when it comes to ante-collection), is something that should bring about structural changes to the game. If length of hands is an issue, go after the things that really drive the length of time it takes to play a hand.

But to be honest, I really don't think any of this has to do with the actual lengths of hands, since reducing antes cannot reduce the length of hands that much. It has everything to do with people's perception of time and psychology. If a dealer screws up or another player significantly delays a hand during the ante collection process (compared to what it might have taken), people lose their minds. They simply cannot handle that sort of obstruction to their desire for instant gratification. They start imagining it happens all the time, or at least frequently. So along comes a promise to take a way all of that imaginary consternation, and as a bonus, the player can flake out for a while too since they don't have to ante on most hands. So that's what the BBA is really all about. Not helping dealers. Or speeding up the game, but rather, allowing players to focus on anything but the game for a few seconds each hand without having to make an effort or face scorn from others.

Any I'm perfectly fine with all that. Just don't tell me BBA saves lots of time (it does not). Don't tell me it has no downside (it does). Don't tell me its good for the game. It maybe good for some players' fragile psyche, but the game is bigger than individual players' fragile psyches. There ought to be really good reasons to introduce anything which increases the luck factor in something which we all claim is a game of skill.

Nahh.. Just cut a player in half.

I think whining about late table inequities is good for the fragile psyches of certain players.

I think that it is silly to over-stress the skill component of poker and I think that attempts to decrease the luck factor, like that dumbass "Protection Poker" concept that they trotted out at the Aria a while back, are misguided. And, if poker is a game of skill, I think it might require a greater level of skill if you present a wider range of scenarios that you have to prepare for instead of trying to make it the same for everyone.

I have no idea what the "Protection Poker" concept is, so I have no comment on it. As for the rest, I just think you're wrong. Inequities are not things that you can prepare for. You either live with them or you don't. Venues should be in the business of reducing them where they can, not increasing them for no particularly good reason other than people's inaccurate perception of the passage of time.

Knowing that an inequity exists (if it does) should enable you to take advantage of the situation, no?

How do you take advantage of paying more per hand than someone at another table? Ask for a table change?

Playing 400/800/100 at a 6 handed table, cost per orbit is 1800 or 300 per hand.

Playing 400/800/100 at a 7 handed table, cost per orbit is 1900 or ~270 per hand.

Playing 400/800/800 at a 6 handed table, cost per orbit is 2000 or ~330 per hand.

Playing 400/800/800 at a 7 handed table, cost per orbit is 2000 or ~290 per hand.

So BBA increases this “inequity” by about 10 chips per hand at 400/800. Is 1/80 of a big blind per orbit significant in your opinion? Or is this inequity something that just “feels” bad, like you claim the traditional ante delays are?

Paying? It's all right there in the pot for you to win.

Your analysis is incorrect because it treats an orbit at the 6 player table the same as an orbit at the 7 player table. They obviously differ in the amount of hands played, and therefore you cannot treat an "average" hand at the 6 player table the same as an "average" hand at the 7 player table. In order to analyze the inequity you need to consider both tables playing the same number of hands. That analysis was first done (to my knowledge within these forums), by Greg Raymer in this post...

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

The only flaw in his analysis is that he assumed the BBA would be equivalent to the same number of players paying the standard ante. That is obviously not how it's been typically structured and, instead, the BBA is equal to the BB. But if you do the same sort of analysis with the typical current BBA structure you get similar results.

I don't know where Greg stands with regards to the BBA and referencing his post here is only to provide the correct way to look at the inequity

Anyhow, If you consider the 6 vs 7 handed example and the blind levels like you suggested...

Standard Ante

7-handed: plays 42 hands (6 orbits), pays 1900/orbit, or 11400 over the 6 orbits = $271/hand

6-handed: plays 42 hands (7 orbits), pays 1800/orbit, or 12600 over the 7 orbits = $300/hand

The inequity with standard antes is 29 chips, or 10.5%

BBA

7-handed: plays 42 hands (6 orbits), pays 2000/orbit, or 12000 over the 6 orbits = $286/hand

6-handed: plays 42 hands (7 orbits), pays 2000/orbit, or 14000 over the 7 orbits = $333/hand

The inequity with BBA is 47 chips, or 16.7%

So the inequity with BBA is 58% worse than standard antes.

Again, increased luck factor. You can do the same sort of analysis (and I did) for a variety of structures and table imbalance scenarios. The effect of the BBA is not always the same but in my investigation it is always at least 30% worse, and in some cases can be nearly twice as bad (as it is with 200/400/50 vs 200/400/400 and 9 vs 10-handed tables, where the BBA is 83% worse than standard antes).

And these inequities are on a per-hand basis, so they add up quickly. Anyhow, like I have said before, a person may care or not care about this increased luck factor. But it seems that enough people do care that TDs are going to all sorts of lengths to try and minimize them.

Then I assume you have no opinion as to the relative merits of these two structures..

A: 15K starting chips, standard levels, 5 minute blinds
B: 15K starting chips, standard levels, 60 minute blinds

I mean, both start with the same amount of chips, both have the same number of competitors, and both are right there for you to win. You just have to win pots.

Man, that’s embarrassingly misleading. You just showed that BBA costs 18 chips a hand more than traditional antes at 400/800/800 and are trying to spin that as “omg 58% increase!!!” It is still minuscule. Basically a rounding error. It is less than 3% of a big blind.

And again using “cost” in this context is misleading as the chips are still on the table to be won. You don’t just lose the chips you post. You also can win the increased chips that others post.

The impact would be the same in an 8 handed anteless tourney with even tables and one table playing 400/800 and the other playing 450/900.

They are different types of tournaments, but instead of playing like you would in the standard turbo you'd need to adjust to the unusually long levels.