Something I've been thinking about and maybe some fo the NL players can lend some thoughts. I think the show HSP has a great idea for a cash game they have a standard blind structure along with antes. What's the big allure to playing NL without blinds and antes?

According to (IIRC) TOP, poker starts with a battle for the antes/blinds, right? Well looking at a 1/2 NL game for the sake of an example PF there's $3 in the pot, someone who open raises 5x the BB is essentially risking $10 to win 3. Which seems like a fair amount of risk to take down a $3 pot isn't it?

In a tournament the benefits of entering a pot, stealing, etc are much more rewarding in when you compare the risks when the antes go into effect. The blinds and atnes combined make risking chips a better payoff when the pot is starting with several hundred or several thousand in chips already in it.

So wouln't it make more sense when playing NL ring games to have everyone ante as well? Essentially playing for a more worthwhiile starting pot in relation to the amount of $ you might potentially be putting out to win?

Just some rambling thoughs that have popped into my head. Thoughts? Input? Insults? Criticism?

It would slow down the game.

Now you have them playing with quarters. I ran poker games back when you did ante for Hold 'em. It just slows up the game. People argue about who did not ante. Since every casino you know of uses blinds for Hold 'em, either they are right or you are.