Poker Blinds Vs Ante

The amount of Ante DOES NOT AFFECT the size of the following bets. Hence, it is a dead amount put to increase the size of the pot. If Ante is $1, the bet amounts are not affected and are based on. Levels ante blinds 1 - 100—100 2 100 100—100 3 200 100—200 4 300 200—300 5 400 200—400 6 500 300—500 15 minute break – end of registration 7 600 300—600 8 800 400—800 9 1,000 500—1,000 10 1,200 600—1,200 11 1,600 800—1,600 15 minute break – color up 100 chips 12 2,000 1,000—2,000 13 2,500 1,500—2,500 14 3,000 1,500. How to Adjust to a Big Blind Ante In the ever-evolving world of Poker, even the most age-old traditions can be uprooted with innovations to make games better, this has now even become the case with paying the ante. Many games are now playing with a Big Blind or Button ante, where just one player adds the ante for the whole table. In an effort to speed up the game, poker tournaments are experimenting with a tweaked process for posting antes called the “Big Blind Ante.” In Big Blind Ante games, instead of each player posting an ante at the beginning of a hand, the BB antes for the entire table. So far, players overwhelmingly like the big blind ante format.

Poker Blinds Vs Anterior
Poker Blinds And Antes

Valerie Cross

As with any other major change in an industry, the Big Blind Ante’s adoption in the tournament poker scene has come with its fair share of debate. In the initial stages, that debate centered on big blind ante vs. button ante, and whether or not the Big Blind Ante (BBA) is good for the game. Now discussions have moved toward the finer details of its implementation.

The latest question in the BBA trend is whether or not the amount of the BBA should be reduced (or cut in half) when the tables are short-handed, including when a final table gets down to five or six players.

The outspoken Allen Kessler recently took to Twitter to poll players on whether they are on Team Reduce, or Team Non-Reduce. The results are in with 1,158 votes tallied, but before we divulge, let’s explore both sides of the issue.

An Illustration of the Issue in Question

If blinds are 5K/10K, the BBA at a typical table would match the big blind and be 10K. This keeps the ante amount very close to what would be collected in antes from a full table in the traditional manner of ante collection. But what happens when a table is down to five or six players?

A question arises in this case as to whether the BBA should be reduced or halved to match more closely what would be collected in antes the traditional way. Following from the given example, at a five-handed table, the antes would more likely total 5K rather than 10K (1K for each player). Thus, forcing the big blind to put in 10K plus 10K for the BBA seems excessive.

The Reduce-or-Not Debate

Proponents of reducing the BBA in these cases argue that the excessive ante changes the game, perhaps a bit too much. The big blind, especially if short, is now putting in a larger percentage of their stack before the cards are dealt. The other players have more to gain proportionally by stealing blinds, so shoves become more profitable.

But some, like Matt Savage, point out that the use of the BBA throughout the tournament allows players to see more hands, which gets the tournament to the final table quicker with deeper stacks. In this case, the full BBA at the final table can keep things moving along, whereas reducing could potentially make the final drag out.

Mike Sexton vs. Matt Savage

A friendly discussion ensued from Kessler’s tweet, and within it were two well-respected figures in poker who seem to fall on opposite sides of the debate. Here’s a look at Mike Sexton and Matt Savage’s internet debate for some insight into the issue.

It started with Sexton defending the reduced BB ante, bringing up its recent use during a recent partypoker LIVE event:
“On Day 2, play was 6-handed (meaning many players played it) & @partypokerlive played with the half-ante (SB ante) and truthfully, it seemed like every player liked it.”

Savage, speaking up for #TeamNeverReduce, responded: “More action, deeper Final Tables, and ZERO complaints, what’s not to like Mike?”

'@partypokerlive played with the half-ante (SB ante) and truthfully, it seemed like every player liked it.”

Sexton came back to Savage with a question:
“When everyone put in an ante at FT, the total ante amount was half as much when they reach 5 players. It would be the same if SB ante was used 5-handed. Why do you now like twice as much in ante money w/BB ante 5-handed?”

Savage explained just why:
“Because FT’s are so much deeper now with BBA, you would love it I promise you of course as commentator and even as a player. The ante with BBA is smaller than individual ante already.”

Sexton, being the open and inquisitive poker ambassador that he is, proposed a chat:
“Let’s have lunch next week so you can explain this to me @SavagePoker Much deeper?? The same number of chips are in play at the FT whether the tourn was individual ante or BB ante. I’m confused. FYI, I’m a huge fan of BB ante - all the way to the final six.”

'There is always pressure on the short stack. At the last WPTDS they were both 100BB deep heads up, the extra ante is needed!”

Savage accepted:
“IN! And it’s not close Mike, everywhere the BBA to the end has been used there has been NO ISSUES and NO COMPLAINTS! The final tables are deeper because we get more hands per level with BBA and that’s even with ante being smaller than individual antes.”

From Savage’s perspective, it seems that the full BB Ante is best for most parties involved, except maybe the player or two riding the short stack. One Twitter response brought up this issue and Savage had a response:
“Pressure on short stacks, I can live with that..... as a matter of fact I want that, and so should you unless of course you are the short stackable. There is always pressure on the short stack. At the last WPTDS they were both 100BB deep heads up, the extra ante is needed!”

Clearly, if you find yourself deep in a big tournament, short-stacked and bleeding off at a five-handed table, you would probably advocate for reducing. But in most other cases, perhaps not?

Survey Says…

In big blind ante, which team are you on? Team reduce - (half bb ante if shorthanded or short at final table) or Te… https://t.co/PlFuzbp8K5

— Allen Kessler (@AllenKessler)

Kessler’s Reduce or Non-Reduce Twitter survey drew more than 1,000 votes, and Team Reduce came out ahead, but not by much: 53 percent (614 votes) to 47 percent (544 votes).

Despite obvious sample bias with the survey being posted only on certain Twitter accounts, the results provide a pretty good indication that there’s still some uncertainty as to what is the best way to deal with the BBA late in tournaments. It’s new territory for poker, and a standard will likely be established after some more trial and error — and friendly Twitter debate.

Tags
Big Blind AnteMike SextonMatt SavageAllen KesslerpartypokerPoker Tournaments
Related Players
Allen KesslerMike SextonMatt Savage

In an effort to speed up the game, poker tournaments are experimenting with a tweaked process for posting antes called the “Big Blind Ante.”

In Big Blind Ante games, instead of each player posting an ante at the beginning of a hand, the BB antes for the entire table.

So far, players overwhelmingly like the big blind ante format. Not only does it speed up the game, it also eliminates the need to keep small denomination chips in play past their usefulness.

But not everything is peachy keen with the new structure.

A debate over what comes first, the ante or the blind bets players are required to post at the start of each hand, has overtaken Poker Twitter.

The debate almost exclusively involves high-stakes poker players and tournament directors, with the two sides arguing player preference vs. fairness.

The two sides of the debate

Poker players are focused on what players would prefer, citing the disappointment an extremely short-stacked player would feel if they were only capable of winning their chips back (the antes) in an all-in situation.

Tournament directors are more interested in changing the long-established norm of antes being posted before the blinds, and whether or not doing the opposite is “fair” to everyone.

The conversation is mainly centered around a situation where a player is extremely short-stacked, and the two radically different outcomes that ante-first or big-blind-first create:

Ante 1st scenario. pic.twitter.com/scZaRLqDnm

— Willie Elliot (@Willie_Hmmm) March 18, 2018

BB 1st scenario. pic.twitter.com/sGpW0ZJHaL

— Willie Elliot (@Willie_Hmmm) March 18, 2018

Considering the infrequency and insignificance of the scenario, it may seem trivial. However, there is an important component to this conversation most people are overlooking: game integrity.

Game integrity

In the BB ante format, the big blind is posting the antes for the entire table. That means that each player at the table owes that player a single ante, and the debt is paid when they are in the big blind and pay the antes for the table.

Steve Badger did a good job explaining one scenario where game integrity could be compromised if the ante is considered before the big blind on Twitter:

And it’s not simply a potential issue in unlikely end-of-game scenarios.

Imagine the same all-in situation only it’s the first-hand of a nine-handed single-table-tournament, where each player starts with 100 chips, and there is a two-chip small blind, a four-chip big blind, and a one-chip ante.

On the first hand, each player should have an equal number of chips, but that’s not the case. The big blind is short eight chips that have been “lent” to the other players at the table. In an all-in situation, the big blind is unduly penalized, since they can’t win any other player’s entire stack.

Further, if the BB is eliminated they would never have an opportunity to recoup the chips they are still owed.

If the BB calls an all-in their effective stack is 91 chips (4 chips from the blind and 87 remaining in their stack). On the flip side, the other players are playing a stack of 100 chips. The under-the-gun player can win 102 chips — the 15 chips in the pot plus 87 chips from their opponent — leaving the losing player with nine chips.

Now fast forward a few hands. Suppose the losing player was the small blind and is now the big blind. In an ante-first scenario they would first have to obligate their debts to the other players and would only be able to win the nine chips they ante. In the BB-first scenario they would be eligible to win the blinds, four chips from any player who calls, and the partial five-chip ante they posted.

Ante-first with three callers: All-in player wins 9 chips.
BB-first with three callers: All-in player wins 23 chips.

Yes, this is great for the short-stack, but how should the original BB feel about this player that should have been eliminated now sitting on 23 chips and only partially paying their antes? In practice this player shorting the antes means they managed to avoid paying antes for four of the ninee hands that were played.

In no other part of the casino would this be allowed to happen. If you can’t cover the main bet on a table game you’re not allowed to put money on the jackpot bet.

Considering the lending component and the possibility of unfairness, I don’t know if big blind before ante would stand up to regulatory scrutiny, and if a gaming commission really wanted to be a stickler, the lending element of the BB ante format could also be disallowed – although I doubt a gaming commission would go that far.

The problem with fixing problems

What was implemented as a way to speed up the ante process has somehow turned into a debate over what’s more friendly for recreational players.

The big blind before antes side isn’t making the case from a game mechanic standpoint, in fact, the only logic for it is that it makes the short-stacked player feel better, hence it’s believed to be player-friendly and good for the game.

That may be true, and this issue may be inconsequential enough to not matter from a game integrity standpoint (although I’m not convinced it is), but that doesn’t make the “we don’t want a player to feel bad” argument a good one.

It seems to me they shouldn’t be given any extra advantage just because they can’t afford to pay what they are due to the pot.

— Willie Elliot (@Willie_Hmmm) March 18, 2018

Key takeaway #1

Even if “big blind first” is the best practice for players, it might not pass muster with gaming commissions, and we need to consider all of the different scenarios where a player may be able to game the system in some way.

Eliminating the requirement that new players post a blind or wait for the blind would also be “player-friendly,” but that rule is in place for a reason – people have found ways to take advantage of it and/or it’s simply unfair to the other players.

Key takeaway #2