Progression of blinds

[slapdash]

In a tournament, if the SB gets knocked out, there are two ways of dealing with the blinds on the next hand.

(a) The button moves to whoever was BB from the last hand, and the player who was UTG misses a big blind, just posting a small blind on the next hand.

(b) There's a "dead button". UTG from the last hand posts the big blind and there is no small blind.

I think most sites use (b). But Pokerstars (who are generally one of my favourite sites) seem to use (a). This seems especially unfair (well, maybe not "unfair", as the rules are the same for everybody, but it introduces an unnecessary element of luck) in satellites with several qualifiers, where there are typically a lot of players hanging on by the skin of their teeth as it comes to the bubble, as missing a big blind can then be a big advantage. And I think Pokerstars run a lot more satellites like this than most sites.

Are there good arguments in favour of method (a) that I'm missing?

[Valiant23]

But Pokerstars (who are generally one of my favourite sites) seem to use (a)

Prima too.

If anyone can remember the delightful Pro19 this was a major point of contention for him. He said that Prima were dealing incorrectly but I didn't understand his point at the time.

When you're short stack and the big blind misses you its a hell of a boost.

[uhudazflo]

yes i think rule A can be a little unfair.. I actually stopped playing at a site last year as i felt i was on the wrong end of this situation far to much in some big tournies.

ii guess it evens itself out over a long period of time but it can be very frustrating when u miss out on qualifying or finishing in the money due to someone missing blinds.

im sure ive probably benefited sometimes by missing a blind tho.

i think rule B is much fairer as u know exactly who's posting what and when they are posting tho