Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason P B
Thanks for the comments. Can you give an example of the equity problem you're discussing with the above structure?
My understanding (which is limited to live tourney play) is that the main problems to solve with BBA format was to speed up the game and play more hands.
Check out the first couple posts in this thread. They contain links to other posts that have pretty extensive analysis of the pros and cons of BBA. From my perspective, it’s hard to say what the purpose of the BBA has been, other than to placate players who don’t want to be bothered to ante every hand. It’s not about saving time, because this is largely a myth. It’s just about making “live” play more conducive to those who are impatient or would rather direct there attention elsewhere instead of on the game.
In any case, the BBA does simplify the process of playing a hand of poker. In my estimation, based on gathering actual data, the reduced ante-collection gains 1-2 hands per hour. In a vacuum, this and the process simplification would be ample reason to implement the change. But the BBA system has structural warts, particularly in later stages of tournaments, which increase the effect of luck on results. This is why most TDs are making great effort to figure out complicated rules for down the stretch to reduce the negative effects of the BBA. So much for process simplification.
For this reason, I don’t consider it a worthy change, especially when there are so many other factors which individually and in combination play a much larger role in the length of poker hands.
Anyhow, BBA is very popular, so it is likely here to stay for the foreseeable future.