I play in a once a month 10 member home game. There is a point system with a year end pot paying out the top 4. There is also money thrown in to win in the monthly games. The issue is we rarely have 10 guys show up. To solve that issue we use subs who play for guys who cant make it so that they can still potentially get points towards the year end pot. These subs have nothing to do with the year end pot.

Now we have an issue with not being able to get enough subs when 2 or 3 guys cant make it.

I proposed that members who are out of the year end pot (eventually you become mathematically out with a few months left in the year) can play as subs for members who are still in the hunt for year end money, but cant make it to the game. Basically, a member is staking another member to sub for him. I think it benefits both parties and solves a problem.

Since this is unchartered territory I was wondering if anyone sees any way that this could be detrimental to the league or unfair?

Seems to be more complicated than necessary. No show, no points. Incentivizes regular players.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

That is too difficult to work unless everyone shows or anyone who plays is eligible for points.

No shows lose a point?

Or do it based on an average of games played?

It seems to me the problem derives from the way the winners get paid. If too much money is diverted to the year end prize pool, then anyone not able to participate for year end prize pool has little or no incentive to play.

We don't know the details about how the money gets divided between a monthly game and the year end prize pool. So it is hard to know how awful the distribution is. But I can easily imagine that the last game or two is played six handed. I also can see situations where the first player or two drops out before the half way point. I expect getting substitutes to play could be really difficult unless they get a seat for a significant discount that represents the money a regular player puts into the prize pool.

Hero's "solution" is not clear. How the games itself works is also unclear. But it is clear that a rational player who isn't going to participate in the year end pool shouldn't pay full price.

DrStrange

PS: On a tangent, this prize distribution could easily be construed as illegal gambling if the host(s) are not careful. This seems more theoretical than an actual risk unless the amounts of money are huge.

Why do you need 10 to play? No show=No points. When less than 10 show, less points are given out. I think in most of the point-distribution models I've seen posted here, there are more points awarded for winning games with more players.

Regarding end of season (EOS) payout. DrS nailed it, if I'm eliminated from winning any of the EOS payout, why am I going to play to contribute to it, unless it's a nominal amount? I think a solution is to change that EOS payout to an EOS game where starting stacks are altered to reflect points won.



No, I'm not allowing subs as a general rule. Exceptions may be made.

For the year end pot money is pooled at the beginning of the year from all 10 players. Then there is an entry fee for each game every month. Each month we play 2 games on the same day. Monthly entry fee is 10% per game of year end pot fee.

I agree its complicated and that causes problems. The reason for using subs is because we are all middle aged men with growing families and lives getting busier and busier. So, subs solves a problem.

I really appreciate the responses, but my question is still the same. Do you think members playing as subs for other members would be detrimental and how so?

The whole system described here sounds like more headache than its worth, and likely is a broken system to start with.

Why are you even having a year end prize if you can't even fill a monthly ten person game?

Allowing anyone to sub in and earn points for an absent player was a terrible idea that was guaranteed to cause a problem. The answer, as has been said, is if you don't show you don't earn points.

This incentivizes people to actually show each month, and rewards the people that actually do. If I played all 12 games but lost the year end prize to a guy that went to 6 and had 6 randos fill in while he watched pro wrestling PPVs half the year I would feel pretty cheated.

tl;dr versions: rethink your system for next year, it should be no play equals no points. But really, you should just dump the year end component entirely and play monthly games. You don't have the interest level from your players to make it worth the headache.

I thought about this a little bit and I'm going to give you a piece of advice: drop the league/point system altogether. My hosted game used to play tournament first each night and then cash. People always liked cash better, and when they busted they didn't have to sit around and wait. Plus, if people have to leave they aren't "stuck" for the whole time of the tournament. If your players are too busy with life obligations, then a cash game is easier to fit into their schedules. Cash is more fun and more flexible. Just my $.02


Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

I agree with dumping it, but one possible reform is that you accumulate points from your 8 best results. This allows 4 "free" absences, but still incentivizes showing up more than 8 times in order to drop your lowest score(s). For this reason, using an average is a bad idea, as it would encourage sitting out the last month or two to lock in the win.

But srsly, using randos to score points for missing regs is barking insane. And do NOT allow regs to in any way form a tag team/play for each other. No matter how innocent you think the idea is and how swell all your friends are, the odds of you making another post in 12 months about how this backfired are extremely high.

Agree with the other that this "points for attendance" seems like a bad way to try to insure that each monthly game has enough players.

I am puzzeled why such an elaborate system even exists for a "home game" that can't guarantee minimal attendance. BTW most home games have a few hard core regs and several "occasionals"! So your situation is not uncommon. My advice is to drop this structure and start playing cash games or single night Sit and gos with who ever shows up. Less confusion , less stress, more fun.

I am not trolling you here. I am a long time small stakes cash game host and this system seems too complicated and likely will lead to a bad result for your group.

I can join your group, then call in Daniel Negreanu to sub for me on occasion?

We have a league that uses a points for attendance system to ensure enough players in our monthly tournaments. However your points are used to generate a number of starting chips for a season-ending final tournament. If someone doesn’t reach the starting stack cap through attendance, then they can cap-off at a higher price.

It’s completely voluntary that any participant pays the league price alongside any regular-season buy-in, but if they don’t pay, they receive no attendance or performance points for that event.

We also tie being a league member to when you receive an invite to our game. League members get an extra 24 hour advance notice/RSVP period. That was huge for us filling up the league. Now we regularly have more interest than seats available for our tournaments. (Of course, I am still always recruiting, nonetheless, as your poker group will naturally atrophy over time).

I don't understand why the subs can't play regularly as "normal" members when you can't fill the table? Why not make it first come, first served? It seems fairer to the subs and can make them regulars instead of making them feel like 2nd rate citizens.