I'm not advocating this change. I'm just putting it up here so that if the change is ever made, I might get credit for the idea.

Which is to eliminate the antes. As it is now, preflop expertise, especially preflop aggression, is the most important attribute a tournament player can have. Unless it is early in the tournament or he is playing a big stack against another one.

The reason is mathematical. Assume that the blinds are 200-400 in a ten handed game with no ante. Making it 1200 means you are laying 2-1 and giving the big blind two and a quarter to one odds. Add a fifty dollar ante and you are almost getting even money on the steal. You raise the odds offered the big blind but not by enough to matter much if he has a decent stack yet to be played. In other words frequent small preflop raises are a MAJOR part of the present day tournament pros arsenal.

This is even more true when your stack is low. Suppose in the situations above you have 5K and a hand that you are considering pushing with. Say you think that it will win if called, a third of the time. If there is no ante you need to get away with this move about 70% of the time. With the ante its only a little over half.

There are other reasons as well. In any case, those who are clamoring for no limit to be replaced by pot limit should change their focus to the more doable goal of having at least some no limit tournaments eliminate all antes.

This is where Dan Harrington's M method comes into play. M = SB + BB + all antes (if applicable). The second you're at M=4, you're in pure push or fold mode.

Antes help to weed out the rocks. We had too many unskilled pure rocks making it way too far in our tourneys. The second we put some antes in, they made it far, but they cash way less often as more skill/theory is involved than just playing premiums when you know antes are sucking chips out of your stack too ...

Basically, when the antes kick in, you just need to make a raise bigger than 3x if you want to weed out other players. Make a pot sized bet instead of a 3x. I know this is basic math, but that's what makes me scratch my head over this post and the big stink over antes?

That said, I'm not opposed to tourneys without antes either, but I feel the main thing they do is create opportunities for and reward people who know the game and are paying attention.

How much would the Poker Dome Challenge format of pot limit before the flop, no limit after the flop help better players?

The Stars Sunday millions structure was changed recently after Pizzolatto posted advocating bigger antes:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...e=8#Post9514464

does this imply he's a sucker trying to make things easier for himself?

I assume you believe this should not be the case? You would rather have tournaments highlight postflop play rather than PF aggression- do I understand correctly?

I'm not certain that eliminating the antes would lead to more post flop play. While it would lessen the value of aggression PF (but not eliminate it) doing so would also lessen the need to become involved in post flop situations.

I think he problem in general with tournaments is that you can't run one slow enough to allow for deep, skillful multi-street play throughout and still have the tournament be a reasonable time investment for the players. Essentially they must all devolve into contests of Pre-flop aggression. Removing might delay this a little longer, but it's inevitable because you have to force people to play to get to a single winner.

If you want skill to reign, I think it has to be by allowing people to play deep for as long as possible. I've often wondered what the effect would be of raising blinds as people are knocked out rather than at a specific time, and in such a way that the blinds double every time 50% of the field is removed. This way the average stack would always be playing at the same depth. It would probably last for freaken ever I guess.

One of the most important skill for tournaments is PF aggression (so stated in the OP, and it's true). Higher antes reward those who are skilled at PF aggression, therefore it rewards better tournament players. So what he wants is a structure that rewards skillful tournament play. That seems natural to me.

Sklansky says no antes are better for better players. You (and Pizzolatto indirectly) are saying bigger antes are better for better players.

I don't know who's right, but it's either one way or the other.

This attitude that poker should be about skill... I see it a lot. You all have to get over it. We play poker because we're maladjusted losers. We all crave getting lucky and winning undeservedly big, or losing it all because what's the difference? The results that matter in life can't be averaged out.

It depends on how you define "better player". As the game is currently played, the better players are those who excel at PF play. Many a player used to playing deep cash games gets schooled in tournaments because they don't know how to adjust. Who is the "better player"? Well, for the game being played it is the tournament specialist. Arguably the deepstack cash game player might be a better overall poker player, though this assumes that the tournament player is not good at adapting to deeper stack cash games, which is untrue in many cases- there are those who excel in both situations.

My point being that if you determine the "better player" as the one who possess the most poker skills, then I agree that boosting the value of PF aggression merely heightens the PF nature of tournament play. If you define "better player" as the one who bests adjusts to the situation and the game at hand, big antes favor those people.

I meant this to say that antes do not favor the overall better poker player across all games. No question they favor the tournament specialist though.

4-tier poker. On every street the minimum bet should to larger than the previous street. Preflop, flop and turn could be limit. Then the river could be pot limit.
Don't antes slow the game down? And there's a chance of an ugly incident like Lisandro with Friedman. Who knows who didn't antes. UTG forced to open blind would be better.

Some random thoughts on this.

When I first started playing holdem tournaments about 15 years ago I quickly learned how to survive. But I would run into problems when the tournament got to the ante stage for two reasons. The first was that the game plays different with all that extra dead money in the pot. The second was that I had little opportunity to get experience playing with an ante as the only time it happened was deep into a tournament. Back then, having an ante was probably in the best interest of the better players because the lesser players didn't adjust properly.

Now, with many getting a lot of experience at all levels of tournaments because of online play, and with the good tournament books now available, many know how to play well with the antes. Moreover, the extra dead money makes errors less costly, as you are getting better odds for your mistakes. So what was previously a benefit for the better players, no longer is.

There is another argument against antes--they slow the game down in live play. The dealer has to continually remind players to ante and arguments always arise over who did or didn't ante. Few things in a tournament are more annoying than the dealer not dealing because the antes aren't posted. Scooping them into the pot takes time too.

And yet another argument is that it requires keeping the smaller denomination chips in the game longer. As well as someone always needing to make change.

In fact, the last two paragraphs are more likely to motivate a card room to abandon antes in flop game tournaments than it benefiting the better players.

i hope they never change to pot limit. No limit is the greatest game ever and no one should change that. theres nothing like the rush i get from playing no limit espicially being able to manipulate my oppenets for small bets and raises and getting them all fustrated then stacking them when a do have a great hand. No antes is fine but please dont change to pot limit.

I think you have to say something a little less ordinary than this to actually get credit for the idea. This isn't exactly radical thinking.