ok, so just a normal tourney

100 dollar bill = "The Big Bill"

Geez, I didn't even look at the buy in..

Hi Chris, when do you think we will have structure sheets ? Thank you

Good morning, below is our base structure we will be using for all events besides daily turbos and sattys. BBA represents "big blind ante" for events that will utilize the big blind ante. Key changes are single 100 - 200 - 25 level and the addition of 7,000 - 14,000 - 2,000 and 70,000 - 140,000 - 20,000. For events utilizing big blind ante, the big blind ante will drop to the size of the small blind once 5 players are remaining in the tournament.


Also considering big blind ante across the board for all events...thoughts?

Level Ante BBA SB BB
1 50 100
2 75 150
3 25 200 100 200
4 25 300 150 300
5 50 400 200 400
6 50 500 250 500
7 75 600 300 600
8 100 800 400 800
9 100 1,000 500 1,000
10 200 1,200 600 1,200
11 200 1,600 800 1,600
12 300 2,000 1,000 2,000
13 400 2,400 1,200 2,400
14 400 3,000 1,500 3,000
15 500 4,000 2,000 4,000
16 500 5,000 2,500 5,000
17 500 6,000 3,000 6,000
18 1,000 8,000 4,000 8,000
19 1,000 10,000 5,000 10,000
20 2,000 12,000 6,000 12,000
21 2,000 14,000 7,000 14,000
22 2,000 16,000 8,000 16,000
23 3,000 20,000 10,000 20,000
24 4,000 24,000 12,000 24,000
25 5,000 30,000 15,000 30,000
26 5,000 40,000 20,000 40,000
27 5,000 50,000 25,000 50,000
28 10,000 60,000 30,000 60,000
29 10,000 80,000 40,000 80,000
30 10,000 100,000 50,000 100,000
31 20,000 120,000 60,000 120,000
32 20,000 140,000 70,000 140,000
33 20,000 160,000 80,000 160,000
34 30,000 200,000 100,000 200,000

Looks great Chris!

I am in favor of BB ante, and think cutting the size in half once down to 5 players is the best compromise.

Thanks for continually posting here and seeking player input, it's appreciated!

How many of the events will be maintained with a traditional ante structure?

BB ante is horrendous and makes it easier for me to simply strike the event from consideration.

I know you think it doesn't speed up play, but I'm curious what would make it "horrendous" and a complete dealbreaker to playing an event at all, as opposed to just an unnecessary change.

I don't get it; what were the complaints about the old ante /structure ?

BB ante seems to have gained a lot of momentum in the industry. Experienced players see the value in BB ante...how is BB ante perceived from recreational players though? I'd like to see some perspectives from players who may not play poker on much more than a semi regular basis. Will someone participating in a $100 event see the BB ante different than someone participating in a $200 or $600 buy in?

Few and far between to be honest. However when there is a trend that's viewed as positive in the industry, attention needs to be paid to it.

i travel to play poker tournaments maybe 3-4 times a year. Played the big blind ante at the wynn a few weeks ago and loved it.

In the summer, especially with inexperienced dealers, this will both speed up play and make the whole playing experience more enjoyable.

I've booked my dates for my summer trip and was seriously considering just playing events at the Wynn due to big blind ante.

To add more context to my post, I haven't played a hand of poker since mid-January, and before playing 5 days then, hadn't played a hand since early September 2017. I play a few tournies at 6-10 tournament series a year.

I am okay if you go BBA, but please keep the cut in half at 5 players, but drop the ante when heads up.

If you go BBA, you also need to add two early levels. Check out the Wynn structures, they seem to be well thought out.

In the event I played last month that had it, there was no speeding up and the same idiots had to constantly be reminded to post. It was worse than playing HORSE with people who DON'T typically play ante-based games. And if we can get THEM onboard with posting inside of an orbit, there is no reason a competent dealer cannot do the same in a NLHE game.

I also disliked the impact on the game as the bubble grew near.

It is an unnecessary change that will make it easier for me to skip events that insist on changing what isn't broken.

Which leads to the question posed by Chris...'gaining momentum' does not mean it is a good thing, especially if it is going to be costing you entries (and potential re-entries). I AM one of those semi-recreational players who will fly for events I perceive worth playing. By example, I am flying back to play the April seniors event at the Wynn since they have kept the traditional structure for the monthly seniors event. If it were a big-blind ante, I would NOT make a trip specifically for a tournament.

Last June, I made three trips across the month of June (did the back and forth thing so I could attend to client-related matters). I have gone from my original plan of booking a room at Vdara for the entire month (avoids the resort fee) and going back and forth to all plans being on hold at the moment until I see structures for the NLHE events. A widespread implementation of the big blind ante has the potential impact of me going from an expectation of ~$30-50K in entry fees (or more) to less than $12K. I would simply go back to playing cash games if the BBA crap becomes the norm in NLHE.

I asked you in that thread, and you never answered to my recollection: If there are players who aren't posting and need reminded every time, how can it possibly be WORSE to have those players posting on 2 hands an orbit instead of 9?

Also, you say that it was "unnecessary" and fixed something that "wasn't broken", but don't say how it was horrendous, or why you would boycott entirely a tournament, or skip 20-40 thousand dollars worth of tournaments due to it.

Also curious how you think it impacted the game near the bubble, I've never heard that before. I can see how it impacts the game nearing the FT bubble, though I think the impact is minimal.

Could anyone explain why there would be a need to list an ante as well as the BBA? I understand that the button/BB would cover the costs of the antes each round in a setup like this one but am having trouble understanding things like how between rounds 3 and 4, the BBA goes from 200 to 300 but the ante is still the same.

Thanks! Looking forward to trying some tourneys like this out. Ideally, I'd like to play a little of both when I come out this summer.

As far as I can tell , without the actual putting in the antes by individual players it would seem there is a loss of "incitement" or "push" to play the game in a more active manner . The player(s) stand the risk of being mesmerized by "not playing" for there are no antes to kick the player in the arse

In this world of passivity this BB stuff gives the player a soporific as he can wait until his next small blind before risking anything. He's happy because he is in a state of passivity which will catch up with him, sooner or later, but who cares ? I am being suckled by the BB ante.

Even if one converts one for one from the old method to the new the tenor of the game will change but hey, I'm so happy I don't have to put in the antes each hand, nothin' but fat, dumb and happy.

I generally have not had problems at tables with a traditional ante. Players made their own change long before it was necessary and had everything within easy reach of the dealer. This is at events across the country, so it isn't something unique to one casino.

But apparently my experiences don't count for anything, which is a big part of why I abandoned the other thread. It had devolved from 'well, you just haven't played it' to, after having done so and STILL hating it, being ignored.

That is correct. It is unnecessary and changes the game in a manner that I feel is not an improvement. As such, there is no sense in playing a game with that structure. Even Chris concedes that there is no real problem with the current structure but appears to be making a change under a theory akin to lemmings over a cliff...and to me, that is NOT a wise decision by a tournament director.

That still isn't answering my question, though. You have said that other dealers always get the players who forget in line. So might not the problem in the one BB ante tourney you have played been the dealer(s) who failed to get those players in line?

In other words, why do you think those players WOULD have been in line in a traditional ante tourney?

You also didn't answer how it impacted play approaching the bubble, or why something that is just an unnecessary change but makes no major impact is a "horrendous" dealbreaker that will make you choose to not play tournaments that you normally would play, and completely alter your summer plans.

It would make sense to me that if one venue was running a $600 NLHE that was traditional and another was running a $600 NLHE that was BB ante to say "I will choose the traditional one every time", but you seem to be dramatically overreacting because you would just rather it not be that way.

I'd love to continue this convo with answers to my questions, but either way, GL this summer.

I play a fair bit of poker and I travel to Vegas about three times per year to play in various series, including spending 3+ weeks each summer in town. I am not a professional. I probably play about 3-4 tourneys per month on average in local card rooms. But my job does allow me the flexibility to travel so much and I do play more than many typical "recs".

Anyhow, I think my views on BB ante are well established in other threads. But since it was asked, I will discuss them here. At this time, I am opposed because the BB ante makes worse certain inequities created by imbalanced tables and table break procedures. Regular antes do not prevent these inequities, of course, but the BB ante system makes them worse. So, for me, there needs to be a really good reason to introduce the new system in order to overcome its shortcomings. Such a reason doesn't appear to exist, or at least has not been articulated by anybody. The closest anyone has come was to say the BB ante makes for a "smoother" structure. This may be true, but IMO, making a structure "smoother" is not necessarily an improvement. In any case, its debatable.

What is not really debatable is the contention made by most proponents that the BB ante saves significant time. This is pretty much the biggest factor people cite. Anyhow, its not debatable because it simply isn't true. It pretty much can't be. The time expended in the collection of antes is just not at all significant. It doesn't matter how people "feel" about the process. It is what it is. There is no significant time to be saved because the process does not take very long at all. So eliminating the process cannot be the major thrust of the argument for the BB ante.

I have been thinking a little about the game dynamics changes the BB ante could bring about. While I am not as fervently opposed to these as some others, it does not mean their points are not valid. If there is some noticeable reduction in the length of hands with the BB ante, I am convinced it is because of these dynamics changes and not because of more streamlined process of ante collection. I agree with carlo in that, I could see the BB ante reducing many players' aggressiveness. This would lead to fewer contested pots and generally lower levels of resistance. This alone would seem to be a big advantage to a "pro" type player who makes their living abusing lesser-skilled or more passive players. So, it would not surprise me at all if these types of players were in favor of the BB ante for this reason alone. And it really wouldn't bother me either, except when they claim their support is based on "saving time", when it is likely something else altogether.

Anyhow, in the other thread on this topic I have put forth an idea for a system which eliminates the ante process (ie has all of the benefits of the BB ante, and more, when it comes to time savings), but does not introduce the increased inequities of the BB ante. This system is not without its warts either, but I think they are something that could be reduced or eliminated altogether with a little creative work. I have not really thought it through as far as what dynamics changes this type of system would bring about, and perhaps people would be opposed to those.

Or, like I said, maybe the dynamics changes of the BB ante are really what people "like" about it. If that's true, it seems to me it would be a change made in the name of helping poker regulars to the detriment of poker "recs". Unless the goal is to go back to the "old days" when major tournaments would have 100 great players fighting it out, instead of the massive fields we still see today, then I don't think these sorts of changes are necessarily good for the overall health of the game.

It is far easier to get people Pavlov'ed to the fact that 'hand over, ante out' than it is to get two or three idiots to pay attention. Ironically, those same two or three idiots were the ones touting the crappy Big Blind ante.

Because at some juncture, even the most inept ring winner (yeah, one of the problem children had multiple rings) will pay attention when everyone else is putting out their chip (or stack of chips when trying to get rid of smaller chips).

The mere fact that I don't care for it should be sufficient for reasons that I decide not to play events using that insipid ante.

The proponents ALWAYS gloss over the fact that it adversely impacts a player at a short-handed table. Tables that have an imbalance under a traditional ante structure are not creating a situation that unfairly impacts the players at a table. Six players versus seven in a traditional structure sees all thirteen players posting. However, where there is an imbalance under the stupid system, you see the short-handed table having to post more frequently (which leads to stalling for the sake of avoiding that inequity).

There are other issues in the play I saw but those would be more appropriate in other forums except for the fact that the proponents don't want to listen to anyone anyhow, so why waste the additional thread space...

If a venue is running an event that uses the Big Blind Ante, then I won't be entering. It is about that simple. I played one for the sake of being able to confirm that inequities existed (since that was one of the claims in the other thread, that once played, we would fall in love with it) and that it was a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. I won't play another one. The fact that an event may only be a low buy-in like the $600 changes nothing. And TD's like Chris need to know that those of us with discretionary funds WILL go elsewhere if they decide to make this crap the norm...

I disagree, based on many experiences of the same dullards being told hand after hand after hand to ante but I appreciate you honestly discussing it.

I do feel like you went into the tourney wanting to hate it, and were prepared to assign any issues to the BB ante structure. The courts I teach the law for had a complete rewrite of the rules in 2013. A few judges before the process started were vehemently opposed. Unsurprisingly, despite the huge majority widely favoring the new rules over the old, those who were strongly opposed before ever seeing the new rules hated the new rules once they saw them too.

And THIS above illustrates the frustration that myself and others have with this topic...we get told we haven't played it and thus our concerns haven't been validated and that once we do play it, we will love it. Then when we DO enter an event, run deep and come back to post that we did NOT love it, we are told that we went into it wanting to hate it and so that is why we believe it is unnecessary. It boils down to the reality that any dissent simply won't be given heed and that the commentary is invalid.

This is not unique to poker. We saw it in the past election and it is something that has been seen in many areas of life during my ~35 years of adulthood. I liken it to the discussions with my former agency when they sought to implement a paperless system...one Board member remarked that 'we were promised a Cadillac and they delivered a Yugo.'