Aren’t turbo players supposed to be generally weak at deepstack?
Poker can (in some players views) be solved in a vacuum but it is not played or participated in one. We have a discrepancy in our understanding of certain changes to structures of our games which is partially caused by a vast majority of players that are less knowledgeable than the minority as well as different players making observations from or about different levels of perspective.
In specific regards to antes, the question should really be observed in relation to the overall profitability and sustainability of the game. Its typical that some regs might instantly suggest that lag regs (and/or regs that like to “steal) will benefit from the change more than tag regs.
One might inquire further into the overall implication of such a change with different perspectives and different considerations.
For example we might think about the different types of players and especially in relation to different playing styles vs their overall profitability (with respect to the average of the field). In other words can there be really profitable tag players vs really profitable lag players? What is the most profitable style in this regard?
Antes might cause the games to run quicker on average and so more games might run in a particular period, but on the other hand one wonders if this happens to cause a more profitable environment, and whether or not this might have implications on one’s variance (and whether these factors can be weighed).
There might be a hidden factor to the implications of antes, in that once antes are introduced from the beginning there is no longer the spread between those that do not play “pre-ante” well vs “post ante” (or vice versa). The shock of change alone, might cause those that are generally weaker and especially weaker in regard to antes changes, to begin learning about and discussing the implications of “antes” and their different structures.
There is a prevailing attitude that the changes are overall good for the professional player. One might then be inclined to thank Poker Stars (especially if no other unfavorable rake % or effective rake increases had recently been made). But then there is also the question of why such a favorable gift to the pros?
The other question is how many hands per game (and games played per yer), might this change effect, and what are the benefits when distributed among the winning players (ie with respect to their variance). If players already knew their own winrates (for example) then a change like this could seemingly be quantified.
What seems most clear to the author is that the conflict and discussion created by such a change, definitely shows a lack of consensus around the subject. Such lack of consensus is generally (and possibly) an evolution from an unsound basis point.
Finally we might ask if so many pro’s are so uncomfortable and less hyped-about non-antes spots, perhaps this is exactly where some true edge might lie. Structure changes are often proposed from various players and in forms but seemingly there is a limit on the “profitability” such a change might filter towards the more skilled players. What ever this limit is, it might be quite arbitrary and especially in relation to other types of “effective rake” changes.
One wonders if there is an ideal structure and especially in regards to an ideal rake %?…in regards to the player?…to the site? and to the Players AND the Sites (in some form of cooperative type setting).
(Edit: we should also begin to think about and quantify the available edge to be gained in relation to the amount of hands one generally will now play and would play pre antes changes, not forgetting to take into account some form of over all adjustment of the field)