Lately I've had a tournament at my house... super low buyin, 5 bucks. Thing is, several of players feel apathetic about the prize pool, so for the past few weeks I've added one extra thing: a "last longer" prop-bet/side pool...

For example, we have 12 players, but five of us want to play for "more". All 12 players pay the main buyin, so we get a $60 main prize pool. Now, for the five of us who want to play for more, we each pitch in $10 or $15 apiece into a separate "last longer" pool, with the person among us five who lasts the longest getting the entire thing. So even if these five players are the first five knocked out, theoretically the 7th place finisher could end up with a bigger score than the actual winner.

Sounds gimmicky, but it's worked super well so far. Only problem I've seen so far is perhaps that some players might find it insulting that we don't think the main pool is enough or something, but overall, everyone's been happy.

Are there any consequences or side effects in the play of a tournament with something like this added? I haven't seen any collusion issues, but obviously when we have two "last longer'ers" left one player is obviously egging on other participants to bust the other guy. In one game, I collected the last longer pool money after a hand I didn't even play. (THAT is a unique situation you don't see every day...)

If there are no problems, why isn't this more popular in home games with players that have different bankrolls? In a bigger tournament, would there be any good reason to split up the "last longer" prize pool so 1st/2nd/3rd get paid or would it be too complicated?

Why not just form two tables with separate stakes?

This seems like a great way to raise the stakes for those who want them higher, and keep it affordable for everyone else. I can't think of any issues this would cause. Let us know if you run into any problems with it.

If you had, say, 10 out of 12 join the last longer pool, would you consider paying more than top place?

There are obvious theoretical problems, I'd be interested to know if you encounter them in practice.

For example, suppose there is only one other "last longer" player left in the game, you have him covered, and he goes all in on a hand against you. Are you going to call based on your chances of winning the hand, and winning the last longer prize, or are you going to be more conservative because you're playing to win the main tournament?

Well, the last longer prop bet would definitely change the dynamics of the tournament, but given that most players don't want to play for more than $5, I don't think they'll care. Now, if the game was bigger, it could have some serious effects that people might be bothered about (i.e. playing differently with other LL players in the pot; folding when you might play hands, or vice versa, etc.). I'm not a SNG player, but I can imagine this changing things.

If no one cares, then sounds like a good way to split the stakes.

We played that for years at my place without problems, with slightly different stakes. We had a $20 buyin and a $5 side pot for who ever lasted the longest. Just recently we changed it to a bounty chip since most of the players were taking part and we wanted to spread the money around

I played in one of these. Felt like the small buyin players could bully the larger buyins because they have less to lose. This analysis might not be correct.

Because it's mostly recreational players and the thrill of having that many opponents to beat is a lot of fun. Also, sometimes we only have one table.

The buy-in doesn't seem high enough for play to get too affected, but I see the future of this game involving raised stakes, at least for the side pool. Didn't know if a last longer prop of, say, 8x the main buyin would change the dynamics of the game too much. Honestly, the twist in the "value" of the last-longer players has in fact added a fun aspect to the game. Just perhaps there could be spots where this would ruin the action.

Regarding CityFan's question - that's a really good point. How should we play? The players are definitely divided between "here to win it all", "here to make the most money", and "here just to have fun", so the answers for different players in my game would vary wildly.

I'm sure there are big strategy considerations. Chips are not=cash in most tournaments, but the value of chips would be especially abstract in this structure.

But does it matter? Since most of your players probably don't make any adjustment at all, it's probably fine. You aren't making the game "unfair" to anyone, you're just making it unusual. If people were smart, the small-stakes players might be able to heavily abuse the last-longer players, but I bet neither of them understands the equity considerations enough for that to happen often.

There are some extra opportunities for collusion, so keep an eye out for that. Some of your players probably won't be aware that certain things are improper, such as verbally or otherwise encouraging people to make certain plays.

If you decide to keep playing it this way, one way to avoid at least some of the issues with LL players and regular players is to have each player decide whether or not to be a LL player secretly (like, give each play an envelope with their name on it, have them add or not add their $$ to it in private, and then collect the envelopes and put them aside until the tourney is over.)

That way the only player you'd know for sure is in on it is you, and then people coulda meta-game the chit out of it.

I guess this wouldn't work if everyone already knew which players would participate, though.

I think this is fine.

While we played bar poker for roughly $0, we'd have all sorts of betting on the side -- paying $5 to each player still in when you bust out, etc.

It lets the gamblers gamble.

Pretty cool idea. Makes me wonder about a system where people could put any amount of money in their envelope, sort of a last longer bidding system. Hell to figure out at the end, though.

Nah, I think making the lowlimit/baller decision public is better, coz it encourages ppl to join the higher tier coz playing for more money seems more cool and more manly IYSWIM. You could also introduce a prize for the 2nd last player in the last longer pool, that way it won't be a winner take all crapshoot if more ppl start joining the game.

On another hand I'd probably make the buyins more even ($5 for low limit, $20 total for baller tier seems like a big jump)

because a 12 person tourney is way better than a 5 person and a 7 person tourney.

So what? How is that different than going after a bounty pro, in a bounty tourney?

You play to maximize. If that doesn't happen to include winning the tourney, +EV decision.

HEY! " Dontchabetalkinaboutmyplayers, Willis!"

Um... too soon?

Or too late?