dead button. button stays where it is and bb is now sb next hand.

So, no tournaments use moving button?

Not that this matters much. The fact that some hands have no small blind (dead button) is accepted by all.

moving button is only cash game setting.

Have read nearly every post on this between all the 2p2 "forum warriors" and haven't really said much because it's pretty much the same people saying the same thing over and over again. However, with this point, I would argue that tournaments don't actually take longer because structures are more sped up in the beginning and generally have a level removed over traditional antes.

I don't really care how venues decide to do level 1-3(or 4/5/6)etc but many of the structures take a level less to get (for example) BB 1000 so that will already speed up the tournament just by pure mathematics.

What is the point of having $1,000 WSOP M=68/36/25 for the first 3 levels w/ no ante when you can have 51/27/20 with an ante? No ante basically forces a turbo mode for levels 4-6 to catch up.

Level 1 w/ no ante is almost a complete waste of time, allowing players to show up late with no penalty.

Well, I hypothesized TDs would have to something like tweak structures if the BBA does lead to a slower breakdown rate.

I'm just hearing/seeing BBA in my local casino tourneys. My thought is that if the intent of the BBA tourney structure is to speed up the game, simplify for dealers/players/etc. then wouldn't it be better to have the Big Blind post the forced bets (BB and/or SB) and everyone's antes? Here's a structure for your dissection

For example (Full Ring):
Reg Tourney Format Level 1: $0 Antes/$25 SB/$50 BB - - total chips per hand is $75
New Format Level 1 BB Posts All Chips (BBPAC): $0+$25+$50 - - $75 BBPAC per hand
*
*
Reg Tourney Level 4: $25 Antes/$200 SB/$400 BB - - total chips per hand is $1050
New Level 4 BBPAC: $200 SB/$400 BB/$400 BBA - - $1000 BBPAC, $400 pulled into the pot per hand (also, if SB bet is eliminated then BBPAC is $800 ($400 BB + $400 Antes))
*
There is always a Big Bind in a hand so the structure above makes sense to me. Also, we could eliminate the SB bet to keep the pot even easier to calculate. There are many situations in tourneys where there is a dead button, dead small. The BBPAC format could even start at level 1 (see example below):

Mins/Level#/SB/BB-BBA
30/#1/25/50-50
30/#2/50/100-100
30/#3/100/200-200
30/#4/200/400-400

If SB is eliminated the structure would look like this:
Mins/Level#/SB/BB-BBA
30/#1/0/25-25
30/#2/0/50-50
30/#3/0/75-75
30/#4/0/100-100

Thanks for reading.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your concept, but one of the stated goals (I don't say benefits because, like pretty much everything with BBA, its a mixed blessing) of BBA is to eliminate small denomination chips from play sooner rather than later. So $25 chips are eliminated altogether, and $100 chips are eliminated sooner. This is why BBA structures do not typically involve the BB paying antes for the equivalent number of players at the table and, instead, just pay the same as the BB for the ante.

In any case, if I understand your premise correctly, further consolidating forced contribution into a single hand instead of two would likely exacerbate the equity problems with the BBA. Given the lengths TDs are going to to try and reduce these problems, I don't see how exacerbating them would be a benefit.

I don't like it either, as someone who really prefers BBA to traditional ante.

It makes it confusing as to what chunks of the money in the pot are live or dead, and reduces the number of players who have "live money" in the pot from 2 to 1, which decreases incentive to play.

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.

Thanks for the comments.

Why would it decrease the incentive for people to play? In this situation, there is still BB+BBA being posted by the Big Blind every hand that's up for grabs.

It could mean that people may play more selectively which is similar to what occurs in no-ante tournaments/cash games.

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.

Black aces can answer as well for himself, but I believe it has been conjectured that reduced ante structures lead some, if not many, players to play more passively, since they are apt to make many decisions based on how much they have invested in a particular hand. So they are less likely to play if they have no money invested, and more likely to defend their BB. This is not to mean that this way of thinking is correct or optimal. It’s just what the perception is. And I think it’s likely accurate, though I have no real data to back it up.

What’s interesting is, more passive play would actually lead to more hands being dealt per hour since pots would be contested less frequently/strenuously. So something that has nothing to do with the process of collecting antes could actually lead to faster play... but only by fundamentally changing the dynamics of the game.

Being put into BB from a broken table is pretty much offset by being put in CO from a broken table where CO gets to enjoy 6 free hands with no ante.

Also, most venues pay the blind 1st when BB is short and can't cover both the ante and blind. This is technically incorrect, as it gives an unfair advantage to short stacks. So this alone offsets the disadvantage a short stack has when moving to a new table into the BB as well and happens much more frequently.

Only negative thing I see with BBA, is when game is 5 handed or fewer, I think BBA should be cut in half to equal the SB.

An inequity is not inherently unfair, but inequities should be avoided, not exacerbated.

Why not just go to 1-2-2 binds w/ no ante?

I think some 3-blind structures were discussed at some point and it definitely seems interesting. Without thinking about it too deeply, I believe it would probably be a bit better than BBA when it comes to inequities, but still not as good as standard antes.

3 blinds really changes the way the game plays due to the money being live. 100/200 with a 200 BBA plays exactly the same mathematically as 100/200 with a 25 ante with 8 players at the table with the exception of slightly widening EP jam ranges for short stacks.

3 blinds would dramatically change proper open sizing, SB strategy, etc.

3 blinds should increase the size of pots, no? That has to be favored by the tournament director, who is trying to balance big fields, reasonable progression of levels, and field sizes decreasing fast enough to accommodate more events with fixed resources.

As hysterically as some people resist BBA, the pushback would be much bigger to something that actually changes the game play pretty significantly.

I suggest somebody start a thread investigating the pros and cons of a three-blind structure.

I’m not opposed to the BBA, however, I have a cautionary tale about a drawback.

Local casino the other day I’m in seat 9 (10 handed), and in the Big Blind. Blinds at this point are 300-600. I have two $1K chips out in front of me, one for the BB and the other for the BBA.

Seat 10 UTG asks if I’d like change so he and are are exchanging chips and I’m placing out 600 and 600. As this is happening the dealer is dealing and I’m now stacking the remainder of my change in my stack.

By this time UTG and UTG+1 have each folded and then +2 and +3 have each called.

I prepare to look at my hand and discover I only have one card. I tell the dealer and she pauses the next player from acting. She calls over the floor and they declare my hand dead because I only have one card and there’s been significant action.

I understand the ruling I suppose - certainly frustrated me - nothing like tossing in 1,200 without a chance at the pot.

Just an FYI or a warning of sorts if you will. I certainly doubt this happens often, but maybe it could happen to someone else along the way.

It's not really a drawback if it is something that can be avoided by not being stupid.

Or if it can also happen with traditional antes.

Ahh there’s the compassion I’m so familiar with in the poker world.

My mistake for taking the change I got from another player and trying to help speed the game along.

In all seriousness, I’ll just tell fellow players from now on - no thanks - and that I’ll wait for the dealer to make change and let the game slow down that way.