Well, I would look at it from the venue's point of view and think of it slowing things down since it reduces the forced contribution under certain circumstances. However, its a rare enough occurrence that it probably isn't something to worry too much about. Like I said I haven't though about it a great deal. I assume the BA would still exacerbate the imbalanced table inequity. But in general it would likely be better than the BBA.

BTW, I mentioned in one post somewhere on this topic that I don't see any particular reasons why the button shouldn't have some sort of increased forced contribution disadvantage to make up for the positional advantage.

this would be true, except there are only two positions paying... not three.

The "imbalanced table inequity" is an example of an exaggerated problem IMO. Blinds and antes are not rake that is pulled off the table. They are money that is in play and winnable every hand.

With traditional antes, if I'm at a 5 handed table, I win less when I steal the blinds and antes than a person does when they steal them at the 6 handed table. Isn't this an inequity?

Are you saying that if there were 11 players left in a BBA tourney, you would pay some monetary value to be at the 6 handed table instead of the 5 handed table? How much EV do you think the 6 handed table gains? Keep in mind that I win the same by winning the blinds/antes at the 5 handed table and have one less hand to get through.

There are obviously inequities caused by table imbalances. You described just one. The BBA does not cause the table imbalance inequity. It exacerbates it. Greg Raymer did an analysis of this here...

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...1&postcount=58

He assumed that the BBA would be equal to the equivalent of a full table, which doesn't seem to be the case in structures I have seen. However, the thrust of his calculations have little to do with what the ante actually is, and depend rather on it being the same for two tables, even if they have different numbers of players. If you assume the BBA is the same as the BB, his second set of calculations leads to an increased in cost per hand of 24 chips instead of 26. This is still nearly double the increase under the traditional ante.

So not only is each hand more costly under the BBA, but you combine this with getting more hands per unit time, and now the overall cost of inaction or bad luck, or whatever you want to call it, under the BBA is even worse.

You can make of his analysis what you like. I tend to agree with it. The BBA makes an existing problem worse.


I haven't really ever thought of it in terms of EV, at least with specific numbers. I guess such a calculation could be made, but I am not the person to do it. Needless to say, if an inequity exists, it means someone is benefitting and someone is not. In my mind, rules should be made to reduce inequities, not make them worse. Its kind of a principle of fair competition.

In a different thread, I mentioned the Seniors tournament earlier this month where we were six-handed for multiple orbits while other tables were still nine-handed. Since we were using traditional antes, the inequity was not as pronounced (but it still existed). However, adding in big-blind ante and things would have definitely been noticeable.

We are not talking inequities towards the end of an event but the ones that can occur in the middle of an event when tables are unbalanced. These situations happen far more frequently in my experience than the instances of people not posting in a timely manner...

I mean, I would agree that tables shouldn't be 6 handed and 9 handed for very long, if at all.

The chips still stay on the table though, right? I would say being 6 handed at the BBA table sucks more than normal if you're running cold and is better than normal if you're running hot, so it mostly balances out.

Do you have thoughts on the Button Ante system I mentioned that Binion's is using for its Main?

Like all inequities, it only balances out in the long run... the very long run. Are you saying the short term is irrelevant? If so, I would not agree with that at all, especially in tournament poker.

Anyhow, I'm curious, since you seem to be one of the vocal proponents of the "smoothness" argument... What exactly is the huge benefit of increasing the smoothness of the structure? I mean, I can see how some players might prefer this... just like some prefer turbos and others lengthy events. But in what way is the smoothness actually "better" for the game or majority of players, other than being something one player may prefer over another? And also, why is the smoothness over the course of levels more important that the smoothness over the course of and orbit. Surely, you'll agree that the BBA leads to less smoothness over the curse of an orbit.

I disagree that it takes the "very long run" for that inequity to balance out. Even in the relatively short run, it would be quite unlikely to have a player consistently both on the shorter table and running much colder than normal. Even if you are running cold, that could be offset by having bad/predictable players at your table to allow you to manufacture chips.

Smoother level jumps are a significant factor in keeping the average stack higher in terms of number of blinds. That allows players to play multistreet poker rather than push/fold poker. That allows good players to maximize edge and the vast majority of rec players prefer playing deeper as well.

As far as smoothness in an orbit, I don't see that as an issue because every player is still playing the same stakes at the same cost.

This new method of the big blind ante is not the same as each player putting in his own antes, hand by hand. Even if the big blind were to put the exact same amount of ante as would be expected if each player did it, the numbers though the same, are not the whole story.

Antes were placed into tournament poker in the past in order to add incentive to play or in other words to discomfit each individual player into action.

With the big blind ante it can and will be a structure training into "patience" for nothing has to be placed into the pot for 8 straight hands . Those who in the past were incentifised into playing will have no problems "waiting" for their "ship to come in".

There are those who think they know , those who know, and those who don't know but even the best of players will have to overcome this "relaxation effect" of lack of incentive to play in a hand.

I'll repeat; "EVEN IF THE BIG BLIND ANTE SOMEHOW EQUALS THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS AT THE TABLE THE GAME WILL CHANGE TO A MORE PASSIVE NATURE WHICH IS A STEP BACK INTO THE PAST " .

Its a tournament directors wet dream which offers nothing to the player but some ersatz comfort which is a non reality. There is only propaganda and more.

This is an interesting article and pay attention to what Neganreau and Kessler, two men who actually play poker, are saying.

Also what was interesting is that Poker News had their own poll and only 8% were in favor of the big blind ante while the Aria had a poll which was specious and used to justify the same.


https://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/...cons-29848.htm

How does slowing down action equal a TDs wet dream? Don't they want players busting faster to end the tourney earlier, getting them paying more rake in another tourney or cash game?

Its a good question but I am speaking to the effect upon the players and am not looking to the benefits to the tournament directors. Its up to them to state as to how they believe this system will benefit them; I don't speak for the house.

One consideration is that they really haven't thought this matter through and did what they wanted without really caring as to the effect upon the game for they have their own ambitions.

You literally just posted it is a TDs wet dream. Why did you post that? What did you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_emission

First off, of course it takes a very long time. If it didn’t, then the results would be statistically meaningless. Small edges or disadvantages do not matter statistically in the short term.

Secondly, you are introducing a new concept in structure evaluation which I have never seen before. The “running hot/cold” factor. Does this appear on a structure sheet somewhere?

Basically, you are judging a structure based on how well a player plays or how poorly their opponents play. While I would agree that these things matter... probably much more than structure in the end. However, they’re not how one analyzes structure. A structure can not be evaluated with some sort of guessing game as to the specific dynamics of some hypothetical table.

And I don’t think I buy much of your reasoning for the structure smoothness argument. Obviously, after the chip color up, when the orbit costs jumps with the traditional ante, this will put more pressure on short stacks. However, for the other levels prior to and after this jump, the orbit costs typically increase slower than with the BBA. So players actually get multiple levels where the cost increases slower with the traditional antes. This longer period of slow growth can be just as fortunate for the short stack as the single larger jump level can be unfortunate. So this, in particular, is not a very convincing argument.

And I don’t really understand your argument dismissing orbit non-smoothness either. Every player is playing the stakes at the same cost under the traditional ante too. The only reason I bring up the fact that the BBA leads to non-smoothness within the orbit timeframe is that you are making the case that smoothness on the order of a level is important. Well a level is really only 1.5- to 3 orbits. How can something that occurs on the order of levels be so important that it is basically the main structural argument for the BBA, yet something that occurs over a period which is between only 1.5-3 times shorter be irrelevant? If smoothness of structure is really important (something I am not convinced of, but fine if others believe it to be so), then the non-smoothness caused by the BBA on the orbit level at least puts a damper on any benefit gained by the smoothening over levels. This is why I don’t feel like the structure smoothening is a particularly compelling argument and certainly not one which overcomes the drawbacks of the BBA.

What I find interesting is that the stated goal of most proponents of the BBA is to make things simpler. Yet, in order to overcome the structures’s shortcomings, they have to twist themselves into a pretzel by having different sets of rules for different circumstances and points in a tournament. How is that simpler?

I believe there’s a relatively small group of TDs and players driving the bus on this issue. What proponents have going for them is a largely ignorant and/or disinterested poker playing community. In those kinds of environments, questionable ideas have fertile ground to take hold.

^ I think you have a distorted sense of the position. It is you that is in the small minority. Look at the comments on player feedback in the article:

"[Matt Savage] said afterward that it ran perfectly smoothly. He said nearly all of the feedback he got, mostly from recreational players, was positive."

"In response to player feedback and “testing best procedure,” the World Series of Poker has introduced a big blind ante"

"Consolidated antes appear to be proliferating and performing well."

"“The response has been very favorable,” [Paul Campbell] said. “The vast majority of our regular players want me to make this the format in all ARIA events."

The argument has moved on to exactly how best to implement it, like ante or blind first. The system has been road tested hard in the Aria high rollers and works very well.

Trolling?

I have yet to see a BBA event offered in any one of the half dozen or so card rooms I play in regularly. Until it does so, no one can make a claim about the "proliferation" of the structure. This is not to say anything about the venues that have embraced it. It is certainly gaining some momentum. And as I have said in the past, I would not be at all surprised if it becomes the norm. That would be a shame, not because of change, but because there is no good reason for it. And I think it actually stands to be bad for rec players, and bad for venues. So yeah... bad for the game.

As for comments about feedback, they don't mean anything. Matt savage is a big proponent of BBA. Even if he is telling the truth about the sort of feedback he got, why should anyone trust the method in which he collected it? If you ask someone if they like something and they don't fully understand the thing it is they are being asked about, then it shouldn't surprise anyone when their "opinions" can be galvanized in a way which matches a particular agenda.

Show me a reliable poll where players were presented with both the positives and negatives of the rules change and have the opportunity to decide for themselves, then I will be more inclined to believe and respect the results. Outside of that, all of this talk about player reactions is simply the minority driving the issue in a direction they want.

I mean, without trying to offend you, your post is a characterization of precisely the sort of "dishonest" advocating going on with regards to this issue. You took a story which is at least to some degree even-handed when evaluating BBA (it doesn't discuss all of the drawbacks of BBA, but unlike many other news stories about it, this article at least discusses some of them). Anyhow, you extract a few quotes from this story which support your position and leave out everything which does not.

The proponents of BBA are constantly using similar "hope people don't notice" tactics when trying to "convince" skeptics or others who can be brought over to their way of thinking. It may be an expedient way of arguing an issue. And it could ultimately work. Like I have said, there are a lot of ignorant and disinterested people out there. But the BBA proponents certainly don't seem to be trying to educate people. Which is why in all this time debating the issue back and forth in all these message boards, nobody seems to be able to provide a really compelling and honest reason for why the BBA is so much better than the traditional ante that we should basically change all events to use it.

I remain convinced this is because the real reason (behind all the false narratives about time savings and questionable arguments about minor structural improvements) is some group of people have become convinced it will increase their edge. That may in fact be true, but making that sort of change is not good for the game. It's the opposite.

No. I was answering your point: "I believe there’s a relatively small group of TDs and players driving the bus on this issue." I quoted everything in the article which referred to feedback of players generally (not specific individuals). It wasn't selective - it just happens the player feedback was positive.

People are providing reasons. See my first post itt. It's just that you don't agree with those reasons. Based on my experience in playing 10 BBA tourneys, I heard lots of positive player comments and no negative ones. Btw, it doesn't have to be "so much better" than the ante system to be adopted, it just has to be better. Much of human progress is based on incremental improvement.

Except in the Poker News poll (which was actually a poll and not just heresay). where only 8% favored the BBA. The bottom line is, none of these polls are scientific and I don't trust any of them to gauge the real opinions of the majority of players. And that goes for those which indicate pro and thos which indicate anti BBA sentiments.

In your first post you mentioned a 2.5 hand/hr improvement, and then four bullet points which all basically said the same thing... removing ante collection simplifies the process of playing a hand. I feel like your speed improvement estimate is on the high side, but even at that level its not particularly impressive. I would allow that in a very fast structure, a couple hands/hr may rise to the level of significance. But in most standard tourneys, its just not that important.

the paltry speed improvement, together with a simplified process, on their own, would be fine reasons to make a change... if that change had no downside. This change has downside. Taking one step forward and one or more steps back is not an incremental improvement.

I am really going to be curious what happens when TDs really analyze the effects of this on their bottom line. Not from a popularity standpoint... but rather from a pure logistical cost standpoint. If it comes to pass that BBA events cost more to run, no amount of debate regarding smoothness of structure or player preferences will matter. They will either drop the idea as quickly as it arose, or they will make up for it elsewhere, either in rake or structure modifications. These will be additional bonus "benefits" of the BBA.

instead of having BB post the big blind and ante, just have the guy to the left (utg) of the big blind post the antes. This way it lessens the blow to short stack.

I primarily play my tournaments at WSOP with a few tournies interspersed throughout year. I think i've voiced against the BBA tournaments. Although, I will try them out at aria this year and PH, i feel that this is just trying to be pushed onto the players by tournament directors.

I think in the end, this will backfire on them. Just a hunch. To the point where TDs might just change it back to regular ante mid series.

Literally this guy akashenk has no clue what he's talking about. He probably plays very few, if any, live tournaments. And probably hasn't played any BB-antes tournaments if he thinks only 8% of players had a positive review haha.

I think you use the term "literally" a little too liberally. Anyhow, the 8% figure comes from an actual poll, as cited in the PokerNews article in this thread (just read a few posts above). In other words, it isn't just hearsay like all of the other claims about how popular BBA is. In any case, I have stated that I do not trust this poll, or any poll, really, because polls are almost always used to lead the public towards a particular conclusion, and not to determine what the public actually thinks. To trust people's opinions, one must believe that they understand what it is they have an opinion about. I'm pretty sure certain vocal BBA proponent TDs are not informing those they are "polling".

As to your other points, I have stated numerous times how much live poker I play... something on the order of 75-120 tourneys/year. I have no idea if that is considered "a lot" but I'm pretty sure its more than most, and would certainly not be considered "very few, if any". And I don't claim that makes me some sort of live tournament expert, but I believe I have sufficient experience to be able to look at a clock and determine exactly how much (or how little) time passes during a particular stage of a poker hand.

And I have also studied a fair bit of physics and am pretty sure that actually playing a BBA tournament (as opposed to just theorizing about it, like I have done) will not alter the fabric of space and time, thus changing how long a pretty standardized activity takes to complete... that is, of course, unless the additional weight of the ante chips to the BB chips causes some sort of significant gravitational time dilation effect, on par with a black hole of decent size. haha.