Revisiting this to relive the days when Akashenk and that female poster simply were obsessed against BBA when the entire poker could see it was a long overdue improvement. Too often people, esp Boomers, hate change so much that they resist clear improvements.

If the benefits were limited exclusively to speeding up hands then the benefits are marginal.

But with the smooth increases per level, along with the logistics of fewer chip denominations and fewer chip raceoffs, it's a wonder why bba was not done years ago.

Another benefit: getting antes in early rounds.

I think a 3 blind structure w/ no ante would also provide most of the benefits of bba, but it would change complexion of play. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

3 blinds w/ no ante is more similar to 2 blinds w/ no ante than 2 blinds w/ ante. The main thing going on is what the min raise size is compared to money in pot at start of hand (i.e. the immediate risk reward for the opener), which in large part determines how loose/tight ranges should be.

In a 2 blind no ante game you must risk 2bb to win 1.5bb which incentivizes very tight play -- compared to 2 blind w ante where you risk 2bb to win 2.5bb.

3 blind no ante is somewhere in the middle (say two SBs one BB -- but you also have 3 blinds that get discount on open price vs 2 blind games where you have 2 blinds that get discount on open price. in general think that if you want to really incentivize action you just jack up the ante size -- say ante = 1.5-2.5 bb instead of typical 1bb ante.

All true but, similar to bba, 3 blinds offer smoother level increases, increase action and pot sizes, and get the smaller chip denomination out of play more effectively than 2 blind w/ no ante.

3 blinds probably speeds up play a little bit over bba, but my evidence is anecdotal.

I personally think it would make more sense to have the dealer button position be the one to post the ante instead of the Big Blind. It just feels like a double-hit when you're the big blind AND you gotta post the BB ante. Having the dealer position be the ante seems to make more sense and be more palatable. Plus, once it gets to 2-handed, they can either still have the dealer position post the ante or eliminate the ante once it's heads up.

Who posts the ante when it's a dead button?

Too often people, especially youngsters, swallow whole what is fed to them, and avoid using their brains at all costs.

That being said, I’m not sure why you felt the need to revive this thread. The policy was new back then and it was right to debate its strengths and weaknesses.

As for which posters agreed with me, I’m not sure who they were or what their gender is/was. I know fossilman (I assume he’s a male since I have met him and he has the word “man” in his avatar), shared some of my concerns about the inequity of imbalanced tables, especially in late tourney situations. In fact he did a whole mathematical analysis of it. I have no idea how he feels about it now, but that concern still exists, as far as I have seen.

Still, BBA has become the standard now. I don’t think it merits debate at this time since venues have long since decided the benefits to them more than make up for whatever warts it has.

If it was up to me, I would say there would be no ante if there's a dead button the same way as when there's no small blind when there's a dead sb and the big blind is big alone. If there was a dead button AND a dead small blind, then we'd still have the next person be big alone in the bb.

That is a solution. However, I think I prefer the current situation over that change.

the main "problem" w/ bb ante is it warps heads-up play quite a bit. not like you get heads-up that often in an mtt but the proper bbante heads-up play is really odd poker b/c the small blind is getting 5 to 1 on a limp and therefore has to vpip 100% of hands. there is some logic to moving away from bbante solely for heads-up due to this dynamic