If anyone has read any of my posts on the subject, I am obviously opposed to the BBA. I recognize the BBA does offer some benefits over the traditional ante. However it also has drawbacks which I listed above. IMO, the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks sufficiently enough to warrant making wholesale changes to tournament structures. I allow that the benefits of the BBA may be more conducive to certain types of tournaments (turbos, for instance), and if the BBA were routinely implemented in some events (as opposed to all), I wouldn't have any particular issue. However, the BBA has never been debated as such. It has always been a treated like a proposed rules change which will effect all events. In my mind, there is not nearly enough evidence, either of a real or theoretical benefit which would justify making such wholesale changes to a system that has worked perfectly well for so long.
I also feel like there has been a deliberate effort to cram this change through on the part of certain advocates in the industry for some unknown and/or unspecified purpose using advocacy tactics normally reserved to the dirty business of politics. That gives me even more pause as to the wisdom of implementing this change.
Here are my specific thoughts on the above benefits/drawbacks in my original post.
Benefits
1) Demonstrable benefit #1 doesn't need much analysis. It is real. My personal feeling is it is not a particularly arduous task for players to have to post antes, and when compared to all of the tasks a dealer must accomplish in the course of performing their duties, the collection of antes is a small step. However, the BBA obviously is a simplification.
2) For demonstrable benefit #2, I claim a gain of about 2 hands/hr. In my investigation the real savings is between 1-2 hands per hour, while other reasonable posters have claimed between 2-3. So 2 hands/hr seems like a decent value. I don't believe posters who claim "tons" of time is saved by eliminating antes. IMO, they are either being disingenuous in order to try and strengthen their argument for the BBA, or they are simply suffering from some sort of confirmation bias when they believe that delays which occur during ante collection represent a significant amount of time. In order to strengthen my beliefs with regard to how long it takes to collect antes, I did two rounds of experiments which I have summarized here:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...4&postcount=66
, and here:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...1&postcount=36
My experiments are not scientific since I cannot control for all variables. However, I think the results were pretty sound and, even if allowing for large variability, still only indicated paltry time savings if one were to eliminate ante collection. These savings are real, so I don't claim they should be completely ignored. However they are not significant and would only be a justification for making the change if the change had no drawbacks, which is not the case.
3) Demonstrable benefit #3 is literally the only "real" benefit which has been provided by some advocates for the BBA (at least in these threads) which isn't grossly exaggerated. The structure is smoother, no doubt. I discount this benefit, though, primarily because the main thrust of the argument is that short stacks will benefit from smoother structure. On its surface, this makes sense, since obviously a big jump in cost per orbit will hurt short stacks more than others. However, under the traditional ante system, you get two full levels before and two full levels after the relatively large cost jump where the structure increases at a slower rate (up to twice as slow) than with the BBA. I believe that this extended period of time where costs increase slower is just as big, if not more, of an advantage to short stacks, as the higher cost jump is a disadvantage. So in the end, the effect of the smoother structure caused by BBA on short stacks is basically a wash. There is no, or at least no significant benefit. I will allow that the benefit of a smoother level-to-level structure may be greater for large stacks than it is for small. But in the final analysis, I just don't see how smoother structure represents an obvious benefit to all players.
Drawbacks
1) Demonstrable drawback #1 is real and significant enough that there have been a number of ideas put forward on how to avoid the issue (or lessen its effects) by introducing different rules under different circumstances and/or points in a tournament. I have no opinion on the effectiveness of these suggestions to counter-act the inequity exacerbation caused by the BBA. But I think having all these different sets of rules will drastically reduce or even eliminate what is supposed to be one of the most important benefits of the BBA... simplification.
2) Demonstrable drawback #2 is a pet-peeve of mind, so I definitely care about it more than other issues (or perhaps other players). There have been suggestions, such as the button ante, which have the effect of lessening this inequity exacerbated by the BBA. However, in the end, all of these various ante-less or ante-reducing formats still concentrate the forced contribution into a smaller number of hands, making those positions more consequential. So, a player is more likely to be moved into a more consequential position under these formats, which obviously can be bad for them if they are short-stacked.
3) As a player (and a rec one at that), I don't have a lot to say about potential benefit #1 and potential drawback #1 (they are related). But I do think potential drawback #1 would be bad for venues, and therefore indirectly bad for players.
So, that pretty much summarizes the issue for me. I continue to be open to anyone who can present and argue for any additional "benefits" which I didn't list in my original post. I would hope that these would be "real" benefits, and not ones made up or exaggerated in order to try and strengthen the case for the BBA. IMO, the BBA will basically improve things in some areas, and make things worse in other areas. I assume the degree to which one accepts the case for improvement and worsening will largely determine which side of the issue they may fall on. For example, I believe there are some players (perhaps many), for whom demonstrable benefit #1 is all that matters. They only care that the change will make it so they are inconvenienced less. If that is how they feel, its fine with me. But in order to get a real understanding of people's views on the subject, I feel like they need to be informed about it. The need to understand it as completely as possible. Otherwise it is just too easy to play games with "polls" in order to get an outcome a person wants. To a large degree the numerous back-and-forth debates going on in multiple threads is a good thing to inform people of the various aspects of this issue. I started this thread to hopefully consolidate things in a more central location that talks about the issue in it’s entirety.