Why No Dead Button?

[KipBond]

I was wondering... why do some casinos not want to have a "dead button"? Is this better for the players or for the house?

For instance, Winstar in OK:

If the SB gets knocked out, the next hand the button moves to the person to the left of that person (now the SB & the Button). Then there are 2 big blinds to the left of the button. After that hand, the button moves left, and that guy posts the SB, the person to his left also posts a SB, and the next person posts a BB. The following hand it "fixes itself" since the next button has posted both the SB & the BB.

This seems far too complicated -- would be much easier to just have a dead button. I'm not sure what they do when the BB gets knocked out. I guess there is no SB on the next hand.

[chillrob]

Dead button method is certainly easier, but it does give the advantage of last action to the same person twice in a row which is a negative, and it also makes for a small starting pot with only one blind.

[flafishy]

So I guess you can say that the way Winstar does it is indeed a better deal for the house, as they're much more likely to get max rake out of that hand than one where there is a dead button.

[Poshua]

As this has been described to me, it makes sense to have different policies for no limit (where blinds are small relative to the pot size, and last action is a greater strategic advantage) and limit (where the blind tends to be more significant compared to the average pot size, and last action is relatively less important). In no limit, you should use a policy that makes sure no player gets the button twice in a row; in limit, you should use a policy that makes sure no player gets to skip a blind.

[RR]

A couple notes on this. The forward moving button as seen in modern casinos was invented in California when the button had to pay money to the casino. It was important to the casino that there never be a dead button and it was important to the players that the same player never have it twice in a row.

Traditionally in NL and PL games the button moves each hand. It goes to the active player that is immediately after the player that just had the button and the players to the left of the button (clockwise for Rick) put up the blinds. There was never any posting of missed blinds and if someone left you might miss paying your blind that round.

[chillrob]

This does make some sense, but in the CA limit games I have played they do have a forward moving button but still no blinds are missed. There are different ways they handle it, and it depends who has left the game, but they solve it by having extra blinds.

[Rottersod]

I think it's good for the players and the house. The blinds are there to start action which is what players want and what casino's need when there is a drop/rake. Having 2 big blinds is good.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I favor the advancing button. It really isn't that difficult to understand if you just remember that everyone has to pay a big blind and a small blind on every orbit. I like it because it's unfair for the same guy to get last action two hands in a row like what happens with a dead button. The only decent argument I see against it is that you end up with people getting to post their small blind on the button instead of in first position, which definitely is a real advantage. In the end, though, it's really not that big of a deal.

[psandman]

I don't think a player getting the button two hands in a row is that big a deal either. After all he's getting the button for another hand, but ts a hand in which he was going to only have one player behind him anyway.

[pokerswami]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a player getting the button two hands in a row is that big a deal either. After all he's getting the button for another hand, but ts a hand in which he was going to only have one player behind him anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
I prefer the rule to have a dead small blind and a dead button.