C
capnkev
Rising Star
Bronze Level
The first time I played a hold 'em tournament, I was really more of a 7-card stud player. Fortunately, most of the other players were also less savvy than those who play today. There were only about 40 entrants and I managed to get to the final table, but I was running low on chips. I was able to squeak past the blinds a couple times while the medium stacks were getting eliminated and I ended up in 5th place which got me a few dollars back.
Then the tournaments started introducing blinds at the later levels. This made sense since it forced the small stacks to take more chances because they couldn't get "free" hands to wait for better cards.
The next phase that I ran across was dealer antes. This wasn't bad since the dealer (player) at least had position when having to pay the ante and it makes it easier for the dealer (card distributor) who would not have to bug each player for their ante. The one drawback, if you want to call it that, is there isn't always a player in the dealer's spot. i.e., when the small blind from the previous hand gets knocked out.
Now, they are moving to Big Blind antes.
I see two problems with this....
It defeats the original purpose of the ante. The short stacks go back to saying, "If I can survive the blinds, I get a bunch of free hands."
The other problem with this, and all single-player ante schemes, is that the single-player ante is static and tends to be equal to the big blind. This hurts even more when the table is not full. When anteing individually, if the ante is 100, if you have 8 players at the table, you would toss in 800 every time the deal goes around. if you are down to 5 players, you would only ante 500 for each orbit of the deal. In a one-player ante scenario you would ante 800 every orbit even if there are only 5 players. Additionally, if you are at a table with 5 players, then you are getting ante-penalized more that other tables which might have 6 or 7 players.
My thought is that the individual ante is the best option.
The next best would be the dealer ante, who would at least have position when forced to ante. And if there is no dealer, then there's no ante. Same thing happens when there's no small blind.
Thoughts?
Then the tournaments started introducing blinds at the later levels. This made sense since it forced the small stacks to take more chances because they couldn't get "free" hands to wait for better cards.
The next phase that I ran across was dealer antes. This wasn't bad since the dealer (player) at least had position when having to pay the ante and it makes it easier for the dealer (card distributor) who would not have to bug each player for their ante. The one drawback, if you want to call it that, is there isn't always a player in the dealer's spot. i.e., when the small blind from the previous hand gets knocked out.
Now, they are moving to Big Blind antes.
I see two problems with this....
It defeats the original purpose of the ante. The short stacks go back to saying, "If I can survive the blinds, I get a bunch of free hands."
The other problem with this, and all single-player ante schemes, is that the single-player ante is static and tends to be equal to the big blind. This hurts even more when the table is not full. When anteing individually, if the ante is 100, if you have 8 players at the table, you would toss in 800 every time the deal goes around. if you are down to 5 players, you would only ante 500 for each orbit of the deal. In a one-player ante scenario you would ante 800 every orbit even if there are only 5 players. Additionally, if you are at a table with 5 players, then you are getting ante-penalized more that other tables which might have 6 or 7 players.
My thought is that the individual ante is the best option.
The next best would be the dealer ante, who would at least have position when forced to ante. And if there is no dealer, then there's no ante. Same thing happens when there's no small blind.
Thoughts?