Hi everyone-

I manage a home game poker league, which consists of a series of tournaments and the overall points winner after X months gets a cash prize to take to Vegas and choose WSOP events to play. It’s a gentleman’s agreement that the player will go play, and this last session, the winner decided he will not play this summer and keep the $. It was a 5.5k pkg.

We have a mix of players, some serious, some rec, and some who play just for the sake of playing. Majority of the players are mad at this person for bailing, but it it what it is.

We will be kicking off a new league this August, and am looking to change the prize to the following: Overall winner will receive a 5-6k package again, but I’m looking at the following change:

For simple math sake, let’s say the winner will get a 5k package. The winner would receive 3k up front to be used for Circuit or Rio WSOP events, Venetian, or Golden Nugget series. If the player uses all 3k of funds (or 95+% with a couple left from weird entry buyins, etc) they will get the other 2k in cash when they get back to cover for travel, and have a little spending cash in their pocket.

If the player decides he doesn’t want to play, the 2k will go back to the players in league in a final tournament to disperse the remaining funds.

Thoughts on what you all think. This seems like it will be a good incentive for player to actually go play, and avoid a complete disaster of winner keeping all funds and happening again.

Feedback appreciated!

I think I feel ya, in that people wanted a fun sweat (meaning rooting for someone), even if they weren't getting any money back if the guy binked a tourney. But this guy didn't even try and that feels slightly sad and dirty. Everyone wanted to "live the dream" through him, but like most dreams, it died stillborn.

But the fact is, no one was getting any money if he goes to Vegas and wins 10K, nor does anyone have to foot the bill if he spends it all on hookers and blow and catches gonorrhea. So I just don't see how anyone can justifiably be upset. No one in your group lost anything or was harmed in any way as a result of his decision.

As possible food for thought (depending on how hungry you are), when people go to the WSOP and play in the satellites, if they win they don't actually have to enter the WSOP. They can and often do sell the ticket (called a lammer). This also happens online, where if you win a satty to a specific MTT, depending on the site you can exchange it for general tourney credits, or even sell it to another player.

I bring this up b/c what games like yours do is essentially create a satellite tourney, where one lucky schlub gets to play in The Big Game. But in poker, the lucky guy sells out all the time, it's baked into the economy, basically.

Have a group discussion about whether the crew still wants to do this in the coming year. As sw_emigre posted it was just really his money fairly won! He might have had some good reason not to go OR he might be a dick, IDK. Anyway. See if folks want to take another shot at sending someone or if this has soured enough folks to end the concept. Lastly don't let this get out of hand, divide the group, fester, eventually cause folks to quit your game. Good home games are not as common as they once were. Good players don't grow on trees anymore! Good luck.

Whenever I've been involved with a discussion about 'sending the winner' to play a bigger tourney, it's always had a kickback to the group. Since it's never actually gotten off the ground, I'm not sure how others would react, or expect if the winner didn't play. I suppose getting equity back from the buy-in would be fair, treating it like they played and won exactly the buy-in back.

Yes, important to establish ground rules prior to the start. As long as everyone knows prior, they should accept it however it plays out.