There is a private raked poker game going with a jackpot drop of 1$ per hand. Every few months they play out a Rolex by hosting a sitngo tourney where the players get chips based on the hours played during that time.

Should the owners/hosts of this game be able to participate? They argue that they play poker with their own money and put the same money in the drop as everyone else.

Opinions? I'm also curious what you would think if it was a daily high-hand promotion or a bonus for a straight flush or something like that (a smaller amount, but happening more often).

Why do you think the host shouldn't be eligible

That sounds terrible. I'd absolutely want to play for the cash equivalent but if he's paying equal rake, then why not be eligible?

I personally am not even against it, i just fear that the weaker players will freak out if the owners win the rolex. It's a nice game, i like to play in it, i would hate to see it break

A similar thing i have seen in the past is players being very upset about the owner of a game playing with house money or getting chips without cash. Again i dont care as long as a i can cash out chips for money which never was a problem. Others have said something along the lines of playing against their own money.

Thanks for your opinions!

Whats terrible, the Rolex? There are always players in this game who will immediately take it off you for 90+% of the value if you rather have the money, so im fine with it. I'd prefer no jackpot, but the rec players seem to like it. I guess it's a nice brag to have won a rolex at poker, even if you lost 5x the value

I was being sarcastic because I've never seen anything like that in a home game lol. I just play with degens that wanna short buy $20

Of course he should be able to play.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

He is raking this game so I am guessing he doesn't want to see it break. So either he doesn't think it will upset too many players or he is prepared to do something to appease them.

I see no reason why not. If you willing to let them play at all then they should be eligible.

Now as for playing without paying thats a different story. I would make sure he is able to pay eventually if he loses...which seems to have not happened yet.

There was a Michigan home game where host played with players money and couldnt pay out at the end. Eventually he paid everyone back and the game keeps going to this day...so its all a matter of trust in the end. I assume everyone trusts your host or why play there

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

the two owners of the game always play with their own money and if they have to lend money, they alway lend cash. i advised them to do that, because ive heard of some home games where several people would play with house money and only 1 or 2 guys actually bought in for cash. this is obviously terrible and people hate it if they find out about it.

as far as the jackpot is concerned: the "problem" is that the more hours you play the more likely you are to win it. the game runs several days a week and with different formats (NLHE, PLO, different stakes). they play almost every time and will therefore have the best chance to win which might appear somewhat unfair.

also, its a nice advertisement for them if one of the guests can tell his buddies how he won that rolex playing poker.

i believe they decided not to play for it.

Do you really not see how this is nonsense. The owners of the game are the house. House money is there money. As long as they actually have the money on them to pay out it makes zero difference.

Player comes and tells owner he wants to borrow $500. What difference does it make if the owner gves him $500 in cash and then takes the cash from him and gives him the chips ... or just gives him the chips.

The only time playing on borrowed chips is a problem for otther players is if the house doesn't have the cash on hand to pay out if the borrowers lose to the other players.

Except you conveniently leave out the fact that the more hours you play the more you contribute to the jackpot fund. In other words yes they have a better chance of winning the raffle ...because they bought more tickets.....


This is a business decision not an ethical decision. Do you take offense if other businesses don;t act in a way which you think maximizes advertising value?