Consequence of the Big Blind Ante

13CARDS

studog;417112 wroteIt's not a new way. There's no fundamental difference (beyond who pays how much) between SB+BB, SB+BB+Antes-from-everyone, SB+BB+BBA, any other arrangement. Chips that are forced in are forced in. They don't come from nowhere, they come from players' starting stacks.

Before, all players entering a pot put in an equal amount, either in blinds, antes and/or bets. Until someone is all-in for an amount less than someone else.
Utilizing the Big Blind Ante creates some new scenarios that need to be realized and accounted for. Like if a player is short and cannot cover both the BB and the BBA, which is posted first?? According to TDA, BBA is posted first, which can create a situation in which a player, AT BEST, can only break even and not profit from a winning hand. That never exsisted before BBA came to be. But it is also a consequence of using this new format. As such, other things may need to change as well, such as if a player is at risk of being eliminated that player must be considered a shorter stack.

None of this is written in stone as of yet. I do not think it was brought up at the last TDA Summit last summer. But I have discussed it with reps from WPT and it is being forwarded to Matt Savage for review. I hope it is something that can be clarified, one way or the other.

compuease

This is a great thread with some interesting but conflicting ideas.. Hopefully it gets sorted out and everyone operates under the same rules. I don't get to play enough tournaments of a decent size anymore to really matter to me but I can sure see where it does to those who do.

13CARDS

Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

Can there be an arguement against this??

studog

Hm. I read back over the thread, and I see I didn't read this post carefully enough:

13CARDS;417102 wroteIf you removed Player 3 from the scenario and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

I... agree. Heads up, P1 posts the BB (12,000), pays the BBA (12,000) into the pot and now has 48,000. P1's shove can only net twice their bet amount (stack 48,000 + BB 12,000 = 60,000) if P2 calls. So yes, a player with a shorter starting stack could eliminate a player with a larger starting stack if they are heads-up. This is surprising and counter-intuitive.

However, the BBA has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is P1's stack. If P1 and P2 are knocked out during the same hand by P3, P2 is still out before P1. It doesn't matter that P2 potentially could have knocked out P1 if they'd been heads-up, that's not relevant when it's not heads-up.

The nuance is that antes are not counted as part of one's bet, they are dead money. Blinds are counted as part of one's bet. To that end, I was wrong when I said "There's no fundamental difference (beyond who pays how much) between SB+BB, SB+BB+Antes-from-everyone, SB+BB+BBA, any other arrangement." There is a fundamental difference between blinds and antes; blinds count towards your bet, antes do not.

In a balanced ante situation where everyone antes the same amount, the effect of not being able to count your ante as part of your bet is negated because your ante is already matched due to the balanced situation.

13CARDS

studog;417116 wroteHowever, the BBA has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is P1's stack. If P1 and P2 are knocked out during the same hand by P3, P2 is still out before P1. It doesn't matter that P2 potentially could have knocked out P1 if they'd been heads-up, that's not relevant when it's not heads-up.

If there are bets and raises and calls each street, with all 3 players, and the all-ins were all after the river, would you count the ante as part of Player 1's stack?? Wouldn't there be a sidepot for Player 2 and Player 3? Doesn't the player in the sidepot get eliminated after the person in the main pot in every other scenario??

studog

13CARDS;417113 wroteUtilizing the Big Blind Ante creates some new scenarios that need to be realized and accounted for. Like if a player is short and cannot cover both the BB and the BBA, which is posted first?? According to TDA, BBA is posted first, which can create a situation in which a player, AT BEST, can only break even and not profit from a winning hand.

Indeed, I am wrong about the fundamental difference between antes and blinds. It's not the BBA ante specifically that's the problem though, it's any unbalanced ante. I've played with a Button Ante before, it would have the same issue.

I was wondering about posting order, thanks.

In a balanced ante situation, what happens if a player is short? 6 players, antes are 100,000 and one player only has 40,000 after a crippling cooler. Can the short player win all (5 x 100,000 + 40,000 =) 540,000 in antes? Or they can only win (6 x 40,000 =) 240,000 in matched-antes with the rest of the antes (5 x 60,000 =) 300,000 making a side pot? I am inclined to think the short player can will all 540,000 in antes, since antes are dead money that isn't part of one's bets that's already in the pot. This also is counter-intuitive, you can win more than you should be able to. This problem is solved by making the blind post before the ante.

13CARDS;417113 wroteAs such, other things may need to change as well, such as if a player is at risk of being eliminated that player must be considered a shorter stack.

In your original scenario P1 and P2 are at risk of elimination by P3. That's different than P1 at risk of elimination by P2. I disagree; risk of elimination does not confer a virtual status of "shorter stack". It just means risk of elimination.

13CARDS;417113 wroteNone of this is written in stone as of yet. I do not think it was brought up at the last TDA Summit last summer. But I have discussed it with reps from WPT and it is being forwarded to Matt Savage for review. I hope it is something that can be clarified, one way or the other.

Nifty. I didn't realise this was a new area of rules.

studog

13CARDS;417117 wroteIf there are bets and raises and calls each street, with all 3 players, and the all-ins were all after the river, would you count the ante as part of Player 1's stack??

Yes. The ante was always part of P1's starting stack, it's just not part of P1's betting.

13CARDS;417117 wroteWouldn't there be a sidepot for Player 2 and Player 3?

Yes, there is a side pot. So, yes also, if P2 wins the three-way all in, P2 eliminates P1, and doubles through P3. So the counter-intuitiveness of a shorter stack eliminating a larger stack is present all the time, not just in heads-up play. That's even more counter-intuitive.

13CARDS;417117 wroteDoesn't the player in the sidepot get eliminated after the person in the main pot in every other scenario??

As you said, new ways means having to account for new scenarios. IMHO the correct way to look at this is: the side pot elimination is and has always been merely a proxy for the real rule of elimination order: stack size. Now with an unbalanced ante, a shorter stack can eliminate a larger stack. That didn't used to be possible, but now is. Thus, we can no longer rely on side pot elimination as an accurate proxy for the real rule about elimination order and instead must always use the real rule, which is stack size. Which means, not only can a shorter stack eliminate a larger stack, a player eliminated in a side-pot isn't always out after a player eliminated in the main pot. A second counter-intuitive result.

Toronto Pimp

13CARDS;417115 wroteIs it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

Can there be an arguement against this??

it would make sense that the Ante is not counted in the player’s stack. Player would be left with 1,000.

agree.

hopefully someone brings this up at the TDA meeting this year.

Gottaget

Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

Can there be an arguement against this??

Respectfully, I am not seeing how this scenario is related to the scenario in the original post.

What needs to be defined clearly to solve the question in the OP is simply when does the hand start?

In the past this has been clearly defined as the first riffle. This has been accepted to clearly define when a new blind level should be introduced, if a player not at their seat for the first riffle can play their hand, or when the last hand ends and a players chance to object to the floor about the last hand closes. As @moose stated this should not be changed because of the introduction of the BBA.

In your original scenario I would expect the stack count at the start of the hand to include all chips in a players stack at the first riffle, before any blinds or antes are posted.

Gottaget

Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

Can there be an arguement against this??

Just to clarify why I don’t feel this is related to your OP and shouldn’t have any bearing on your decision. - This is a description of how many tournament chips would be awarded to the winner of the hand after all action is complete. Antes have never been included in a chip count after they are paid. The same would be true if player 3 eliminated players 1&2 in a three way all in.

Your OP question is not about that. It is asking how to determine finishing positions in the scenario where 2 players are eliminated during the same hand. Nobody is disputing that the answer to that question is whichever player had a larger stack at the beginning of the hand gets the higher position. As I said in my last post it’s really a simple question of when does the hand begin, before or after blinds/antes are posted? This answer to that is what is being disputed.

It has been established in the TDA rules that the start of the hand is at the first riffle, before blinds/antes are posted. This is supported by the other rules I mentioned above. It is your contention that this needs to be changed because of the introduction of the BBA. I believe that conflicts with current accepted practice and is unnecessary. Further, until the current accepted practice is changed by the TDA I don’t believe the ruling in the OP post is correct.

13CARDS

What if we work backwards.
Why was that rule even needed before?
What was it indicating?

I suggest it was explaining that the player with the larger stack gets the higher finish because that player was never at risk of elimination.

Maybe the rule should have always said:
""In the event of multiple Players being eliminated during the same hand when prizing is to be decided by the order of elimination, ...if both Players are on the same table, the Player not at risk of elimination by the other at the start of the hand would receive the largest prize."

That wording would cover both the old way (individual antes) and the new way (Big Blind Ante) and redefining the start of the hand would NOT be neccessary.

All of the posts about changing the start of the hand really made me look at this in other ways. Thank you to everyone that posted!!!!

Is that a better way to approach this???

Card Dead

13CARDS;417115 wroteIs it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

Can there be an arguement against this??

This.

Unlike the blinds, the BBA is considered dead money and therefore can not be part of a player’s stack. If it’s not part of a live stack, and can’t be used to keep you from being eliminated, how can it be used to enhance your finishing position?

And since the TDA has still yet to make a decision on this, it’s clearly not a simple answer.

For me, the problem is with the BBA itself. While it speeds up the game and simplifies the action, it adds more variance and ambiguity to a structure that already has enough of that. I’d much prefer to have traditional antes and a penalty to players who don’t post in a timely manner. But that’s a different discussion.

compuease

My head hurts reading all that you folks are discussing, please continue, I have lots of aspirin.

studog

13CARDS;417125 wroteI suggest it was explaining that the player with the larger stack gets the higher finish because that player was never at risk of elimination.

The player with the larger stack between the two players who both were just eliminated, "was never at risk of elimination"? That's self-contradictory. Ah, I see, you mean "was never at risk of elimination from the other eliminated player".

Consider this: if instead of the hand with the eliminations playing out, the tournament had to come to an immediate halt for whatever reason, how would you rank those players? By stack size, since the players are not eliminated. In this case, P2 is clearly ranked below P1.

I suggest that considering the starting stack size is a tie-breaking mechanism between players who would otherwise be tied. You could just have the rule be that the players tie for position and chop the combined prizes.

studog

Card Dead;417126 wroteUnlike the blinds, the BBA is considered dead money and therefore can not be part of a player’s stack. If it’s not part of a live stack, and can’t be used to keep you from being eliminated, how can it be used to enhance your finishing position?

I think that's incorrect. The unbalanced ante is not part of the player's betting capacity, but it didn't come from nowhere, it came from the players starting stack. Starting stack sizes are known fixed quantities at the start of the hand, and that's the point in time when tie-breaking is determined. Finishing positions are pre-calculated, if you will. Nothing is being enhanced later, it's already determined before the hand plays out, in case it's needed.

Card Dead;417126 wroteAnd since the TDA has still yet to make a decision on this, it’s clearly not a simple answer.

I read / skimmed the TDA 2019 rules v1.0 this morning. I didn't see a rule about tie-breaking when multiple players are busted out in the same hand. I might have missed it though.

Buzzzardd

This is the best topic on this forum in a long time.

Not sure who is right, but there is one thing that could happen if you start the hand after the ante is put in. Player is the BB. He puts his ante in. Since the hand has not started yet, he can get moved to a different table. Hw would have to leave his ante at his original table and not have a chance to win it back. Also, if he only has enough to pay the ante, but not the big blind, he would be eliminated without playing a hand. That definitely is not fair. Or he might get moved to a different table where he is BB again and has to post another ante. I am sure he would not be happy at all and I don’t think that would be fair.

I have no idea what the answer is, but everyone has made great points. I love the BB ante and am curious to find out what the TDA summit comes up with in their discussions.

DataMn

Buzzzardd;417130 wroteThis is the best topic on this forum in a long time.

Not sure who is right, but there is one thing that could happen if you start the hand after the ante is put in. Player is the BB. He puts his ante in. Since the hand has not started yet, he can get moved to a different table. Hw would have to leave his ante at his original table and not have a chance to win it back.

The order that is being debated is:

Ante starts the hand (in which case the player plays the rest of the hand)

or

First riffle, then Ante

Either way, I don't think your scenario would apply. There should be no reason for anyone to have any chips in the pot before the hand actually starts.

If for some reason someone does have to be moved right away instead of waiting for a new hand (director was busy/distracted etc.), then they were never in the Big Blind at the current table, and should not have to post anything.

Buzzzardd

13CARDS;417092 wroteHaving encountered this exact scenario in a weekly MTT, I suggest the start of the hand is AFTER the Big Blind Ante has been posted.

I was taking this too literally when I made my post.

moose

The discussion is moot and silly. The hand starts on the first riffle period. If the hand starts when the blinds and antes are posted then it would be possible for someone to avoid a change in levels by posting their blinds before the dealer starts the riffle.

This is often the case in home games where games are self dealt. Not the case in a professionally run casino tournament.

Can you break a table after the dealer has started a riffle? Can a player avoid playing one more hand before break by refusing to post his blinds if a dealer has started the riffle before the break starts? No because the hand starts on the riffle.

Has nothing whatsoever to do when the blinds are posted.

Any other discussion on what to do if multiple players bust is moot. It matters not who can take out who after the antes are posted. This is action that takes place after the hand has started.

Stacks are determined before the first riffle and not after.

The antes are posted after the hand has started.

trigs

Just curious what happens in the case of two decks being used or an automatic card shuffler? The riffle is then taking place before the last hand has finished.

« Previous Page Next Page »