You citing the 8% is also pretty misleading, since 42% in that same poll chose button ante, with 40% choosing traditional ante and 10% choosing no antes at all. Button ante is certainly MUCH closer to BBA than to traditional ante.

Given that more people in this poll prefer one person to post the ante instead of everyone posting one, it hardly seems odd that after players play a tourney with one person posting that they would give positive feedback about it.

This is similar to the Button ante idea being tried/considered. And, it is essentially the same thing as a 3-blind format, which is something I discussed in another thread. In any case, all of these ideas are likely better than the BBA.

Not having thought about it too much, I assume all of these reduced ante-ideas still have structural drawbacks which counter any structural benefits to some degree. And we know that the time savings will be minimal, regardless of where the single ante is posted.

So all we are really left with is the question... are the "convenience" benefits of essentially eliminating antes (in other words, players no longer having to think about and physically move their bodies a bit to post antes most hands) worth the hand dynamics changes the alteration brings about? For some the answer will definitely be a yes, since they like the hand dynamics changes. What aggressive player wouldn't like a more passive table? But I think if all players actually considered this tradeoff, there would be nothing like the sort of "universal approval" that pro-BBA advocates claim.

I know you have been on a Button ante kick as a potential "compromise" in this and other threads. I agree its better than the BBA, though I can't really say I'm for it since the little I have thought about it... it still suffers the same sorts of inequity drawbacks as any of the other reduced ante structures, and again, still provides little (or at least a muddled amount) of real benefit.

As for the poll, my aim is not to use it to show anything, other than serve it up as an example that the claims made by proponents about the popularity of BBA are not likely correct. I myself don't trust this poll because, as I have repeatedly stated, I don't think the people answering it really understand the issue. But, even if we were to treat this poll as gospel, it means that nearly half the respondents prefer the system as it is and only a small majority want to make a change. So we have an actual poll which basically shows that people are fairly split as to whether any sort of change ought to be made. This result is nothing like the claims being made by BBA proponents who seem to think that the BBA is universally liked by almost all who are polled.

When I took the poll, 69% were regular ante, 8% big blind ante with the rest among the other choices. Went back recently and see that its changed
and regular ante was 49% and button ante rising and probably due to the increased readership; there may be more people paying attention than we realize. The poll hasn't closed; a forever poll ??

Either way , if this poll is considered the big blind ante is last in the hearts of men. Disclaimer; I do not believe that taking any type of poll should be used to make plans in any field of endeavor; political or otherwise. Its poor mathematics made the poorer by by those who would load the dice.

3 blinds are not at all the same as 2 blinds + antes, regardless of how the antes are posted. Antes are dead money, and blinds are live. It's funny that you complain that the BBA changes the nature of the game, but propose 3 blinds as better, despite it being a much larger change to how the game plays, ranges, etc.

It's also funny that you have probably the most posts on this topic of anyone on the board (probably except Michelle), but you always say "you haven't thought much about it."

BBA proponents have said that after people have played it, it is (nearly) universally liked. I don't remember seeing anyone who played it who said they definitely did not prefer it, other than Michelle, who was calling it crap and stupid before she played it, and her complaint after the fact was that anteing took too long because a couple players at her table weren't paying attention.

And I didn't mention the button ante part of the poll to specifically advocate for it (though it does seem to me the best option, at least until I play it and BBA in June). I mentioned it because saying "In this poll, only 8% chose BBA!" implies to most readers that 90% or so of the respondents want to keep traditional ante, which isn't true.

I don't believe I ever really advocated for a three blind structure. I just served it up as an example of an ante-less system that might have fewer warts than the BBA. At this time I prefer the ante system as it is.

I haven't thought about alternate single-ante systems much. I have thought plenty about the BBA.

This line of reasoning is like a TD asking a bunch of people if they like the new fancy lights and device chargers at the table, but are unaware of the increased rake which paid for them. You're likely to get a certain answer, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you claim it means.

Anyhow, again, I brought up the poll because it directly contradicts the claims being made by BBA proponents with regards to the popularity of BBA. I don't think players thinking critically about this issue should trust the poll. And I certainly don't think players thinking critically should trust hearsay evidence provided by agenda-driven TDs and others. Neither one of these are reliable data points.

Instead, people should actually think about the pros and cons of the proposed change and, if a change is going to be made, explain why the pros outweigh the cons to a degree that a universal change is warranted.

Which would underscore the claimed time savings, which is, as you are well aware, the claimed benefit to this charade.

Fortunately, there are MANY events going on that don't show the crappy BBA in their structures and I note also that the July/August event in Durant is using traditional antes.

Going forward, I will continue (schedule permitting) to play those NLHE events with a traditional ante. After cashing at the Wynn earlier in the month, I let them know that the SOLE reason I had flown out to play was because it was a traditional ante and that I lose ALL incentive to travel for a BBA event.

You never responded to my question as to your thoughts on a button ante event.

And we will have to agree to disagree that players who aren't paying attention and have to be told every orbit to post would be good little players in a traditional ante environment and post every hand without request and plan ahead and make change, etc. My hypothesis is the tourney you played at the Wynn with those players would have gotten less hands per orbit with traditional ante. But we will never know. GL this summer.

We'll all see wsop time whether bba will be a big hit. if it is, people will flock to those tournaments. if not, people won't. its quite simple.

I have never understood this line of reasoning, but if you would like to explain it, I'm all ears. To me, forced contribution is forced contribution, whether that contribution sits out in front of you as a blind, or is dragged into the pot as an ante. Either way, you have to post it. Either way you get two card. Either way you have an opportunity to win it back.

There is really only one scenario in which a blind is different than an ante.. and that is the BB in a walk situation. Maybe I'm spoiled by the level of action I am used to, but walks happen so rarely that they hardly seem to be worth mentioning, and certainly don't provide a very good argument for treating blinds and antes differently from a forced contribution standpoint.

The difference is a blind counts to what I have to put in to see the flop whereas an ante doesn't. For ease let's say we are playing 10 handed at 500/1000 and either a trad ante of 100 or BBA of 1000. Folds to the button who makes it 2400. As the BB, regardless of structure, I now owe 1400 into a pot of 5900. The source of the contribution of the chips is irrelevant to whether I should continue.

Or take a 500/1000 with 1000 button ante, and now the CO makes it 2400. It is still 2400 to the button even tho they posted the antes. So their decision is exactly the same as it would be in 500/1000/100.

On the other hand if the extra 1000 comes from another big blind, and the button makes it 2400, there are now two players who can see the flop for 1400 more instead of just one. That increases the number of flops seen, drastically impacts opening ranges, open sizing and more, bc the 1000 is "live" instead of "dead"

Your math is a bit off in your first example, but I see your point. And I think there is really a much simpler way to explain it, going back to my "walk" example. When posting the BB, there is an opportunity to win the hand outright (though rarely), or at least see a flop without contributing anything more. When posting an ante this is never true. You always have to contribute more to win a hand or even see a flop.

So, the "forced" contribution is the same when you fold pre-flop. But the "real" contribution made when a player decides to play a hand or not will be different depending on whether the forced contribution came from a blind or ante.

It is interesting that, when evaluating tournament structure, it is almost always orbit costs which are looked at. The specific distribution of those costs within an orbit are never considered (to my knowledge). And yet the specific distribution obviously matters when it comes to how hands play out.

Anyhow, you've convinced me that any of the proposed consolidated ante formats (BBA, UTGA, BA) are different from a hand dynamics standpoint from a pure 3-blind format. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the merits of these consolidated ante formats when compared to traditional antes.

Shock that a senior would argue against change. Get off my lawn with this BBA!

Good change with insignificant disadvantages. Only thing I'd change is that if the table gets six handed the ante should be half a BB. It's too big (arguably) when short handed. You could argue that it just changes the strategy, and if you do I'd counter it just changes it a little too much towards shoving/being forced to call shorthanded with 1 BB to be as much fun.

Besides that, though, seems a lot better.

I am old enough to play in the Super Senior's and may even do so if I miss Day 2 of the Mixed Omaha8. I can tell you that at the BBA tournament I played at Lucky Chances it was only a few young fish that complained about the change. The better players and the older players all liked it. While I can't build a solid case one way or another based on just a few tables worth of players, I don't think your generalization of senior's attitudes about BBA has any foundation either. Just in case it does, stay off of my lawn!

Played YET another traditional ante event yesterday (Venetian $400) where antes were out almost without exception even before the dealer had the deck out of the shuffle machine. Time to pull them in was generally less than ten seconds (I looked at the clock on multiple occasions).

The time savings argument just fails to hold water when players actually pay attention to the table instead of being buried in their phone/tablet.

Doesn't always happen that way, especially in large field tournaments where you could have one table who are on the ball about antes and getting more hands per hour in than another table that is generally slow about the antes and need constant reminding by the dealer.

Even if it's 10 seconds per hand, every 6 hands that's a minute saved, a few more of those and you've got a couple more hands per hour getting squeezed in. If it's 1-2 more hands per hour, that's an improvement in efficiency, and I am all about incremental improvements to the game.

I played in one of the Venetian events earlier this week which used the traditional ante approach and the table got to discussing the new BB Ante format. 7 people (ages 20s thru 60s) at the table had played with it and all preferred it. The dealer chimed in about how much easier it was for them to get the hand ready and deal when it was coming from one person. There were only 2 players who hadn't gotten to try it in person yet, and of those, both thought it sounded like a better idea in theory. Sample size small, but real world example from where you just played too.

Were any of the players mentioned aware of the negative aspects of the BBA, and was this discussed too?

Yes it was an in-depth discussion that carried on for 20+ minutes, and the pros and cons were both discussed very openly. I believe in the end, experience and the extra 2-ish hands per hour beat out the biggest cons you've mentioned. I actually pulled up several of your posts akashenk, to quote some of the negative aspects while discussing.

Ok. This is all I ask when it comes to how people debate this issue. If players are aware of all of the real drawbacks and real benefits and come to the conclusion that the latter are worth it to make such a fundamental change, then that's fine with me.

Like the idea but admittedly haven't played one yet. I fear the issue will be super stalling before table breaks by a shorter stack and can't say that I blame them. Also, I can see many ppl changing tables and seeing the blind coming & acting lost. We'll see