I need some help with a decision in a poker league I run. Our league just ended, top 2 play in tourney "X". One of them can't make it, but there is another tourney "Y" the following weekend he can make. Our league discussed it, and everyone is cool with them going to tourney "Y" except the guy in 3rd place who would have gone in place of the guy that couldn't make it. I feel as long as 8 of the 9 players are OK with it we should let them play in tourney "Y". I want to do what is best for the continued success of the league. Please share any opinions with me.

PS. I feel I deserve a KITN for overlooking this scenario.

Yep, you do.

You've actually overlooked two things. First, as you stated, you overlooked what to do if a player can't make the tourney. Most leagues are setup so that player three then attends in place of the player that can't make it. Sucks for player one, but if that's what is stipulated at the beginning of the league then you need to make plans to free up that date if you think you'll play well enough to win.

Second, if nothing like that was set up and you decide to put it to a vote you should have decided, and announced prior to the vote whether or not it was going to require a unanimous decision or just the majority. You should have been able to see ahead of time that, at a minimum, player three would object to moving the tourney so that player one could attend.

I think, as you've probably already figured out, you need to outline a very extensive set of rules for next season that cover multiple possible outcomes.

Is tourney Y equal to tourney X except by date?

Clearly you need to set a policy, but unless the change impacts 3rd place's league participation, I want to tell him to quit being a whiny twit, because I don't invite spoilsports to my league at all.

Sure he has a point, but he did come in 3rd in a 2-winner race. Trying to advance on a technicality does not speak well to his character. He's got a golden opportunity to be a good guy here, and those aren't the colors he's showing.

Obviously the league as a whole, or the organizer if necessary, needs to be able to make reasonable decisions when something unexpected comes up. You will not be held hostage by one selfish player's veto.

This is absolutely correct.

If, for example, I was awarding a single seat to WSOP Event #18, and nobody else from the group was going, but the winner could only attend Event #28, which is exactly the same format, I'd tell #3 to stop being a greedy sack who only cares about getting a prize for himself.

If the prize was for, say, the Main Event of the WSOP or the yearly State Championships, then I'd absolutely have figured this out before-hand.

Further, I'd always do what I could to work toward a solution that benefits the person who actually won where possible. As long as Player #2 was operating in good faith about the prize, I'd make sure he got what he deserved, and not rule-nit a prize to a player who did not earn it.

Tourney Y is a six max tourney, but that doesn't bother player in 2nd. I am more open to accommodate player in 2nd because we didn't know the date of tourney X until last month. However before 2nd place knew about tourney Y he was cool with 3rd taking his spot.

Can you expand on "cool with 3rd taking his spot"? It sounds like the idea that 3rd would be playing this tourney came up before 2nd place heard about this other tourney. In general I side with 2nd place about playing another tourney. I'm more sympathetic to 3rd though if he was told "2nd place can't make it, you get the prize" only to be told later "nevermind, we're taking your prize back from you".

If you guys already told 3 he was getting it because 2nd couldn't make it, and are renegging now, you're all jerks.

Or, rather, prone to making decisions without thinking about the repercussions of your actions.

Often we get caught doing something because we felt we needed to do something.

This is something.
We need to do something.
Therefore, we need to do this.

To my understanding 2nd and 3rd aggreed as long as X was the only tourney available 3rd would go, but when Y came to light the league (excluding 2nd,3rd, and myself) decided it was an option, and 2nd chose that option.

no matter my decision I'm gonna be a jerk, I just want to make the right decision.

I think because tourney Y wasn't known about (and you made plans around a secondary scenario for tourney X) you should just pretend that is still the case. Continually flip flopping would, I know for me at least, make me unsure about returning to your league next season because of this debacle.

You had a plan, with a backup plan where player three goes if necessary, and that's where you were at, so I think that's where you need to stay.

I agree with Palimax, that doing what you can to accommodate the actual winners is best, but at what cost? If your winner said he couldn't attend and you've already told player three he's going, even if on a technicality, are you really going to take that back now? I don't think that's right either.

Your league already had a decsions where as the third place player would take the place if one of the top two players couldn t make it. Why is your league discussing going to another tourney because one of the players couldn t make it?

As a general rule. Make a decision and be done. Don't waffle back and forth. You will lose their respect and trust. They need to know that the person in charge knows what he is doing. Going back and forth with your decisions is what will hurt your league.

Standing by your initial decision, if it's wrong, is bad.

Do the right thing, even if it means going back and telling people you were wrong.

"Guys, I'm sorry, but we're doing the wrong thing. I made a mistake, and we need to correct it."

The problem is that it was not in place. Once a date was set the only league member that said they couldn't make it was out of the running by then.

Do the remaining players get a share of the players tourney winnings? If so, I'd want both horses in the same race.

Also, in the example, it sounds like you've already told Player 3 that they're playing. They were the rules, you stuck with them. Now you're changing them and it sucks.

Not knowing the date of the tournament X is a big wildcard. Since the date ended up conflicting with #2s schedule, I'd say there should be a lot of leeway.

People here are putting words in your mouth about "reneging" on player 3 going. Was this agreed by everyone? just a possibility that was discussed? If at some point there was a clear "ok #3, you're going" and then that was taken away, you need a good reason. But if it was simply "crap, #2 can't make tournament X, maybe #3 will get to go, let's check some things", and especially if #2 was a good sport about it, I don't think that's a commitment to #3. I hate to punish #2 for being generous and reward #3 for the opposite.

I find it hard to believe that you are giving #3 that raw of a deal when all 8 disinterested parties are "ok" with #2 getting to play tournament Y.

I would agree with you, when you have a situation where you know you have screwed up. What I was talking about was when it comes to one of these "both sides have a logical point" scenerios. I would never encourage a snap decision. I would recommend to think about it. Ask some people outside of the group (like here on 2+2). Listen to both sides of the argument (just like a judge). And once you have a decision AFTER serious thought and discussion. That's it. It's done. I've heard both sides, this is my solution and that's it.

A quick break down and update.
1. 2nd can't make tourney X (no plan in place for this)
2. 2nd and 3rd discuss 3rd going in his place (no decision by the league was made in this matter).
3. Tourney Y (A 6 max tourney) is found that both 1st and 2nd can attend.
4. 3rd demands (in a not so nice way) since Y is a 6 max tourney he go to X. (IMO this is why 2nd wants to go to tourney Y at this point).
FF>>
1. I poll the league minus 2nd, 3rd and myself. They unamiously agree to 2nd going to tourney Y.
2. I decide to make a decision independent of the league for fear that 3rd's tirade influenced some votes.
3. Offer a 3rd option to 2nd & 3rd. They can BOTH go to tourney Z which is half the buy-in of tourney X or Y. 2nd says that would be ok, 3rd says no it has to be tourney X.
4. I have decided as someone previously stated to keep 2 horses in the same race, and alowed 1st to pick tourney X or Y.

My personal opinion: This 3rd place guy seems like he doesn't belong in your league. He seems quite intent to demand a place in a tournament that he bubbled out of.

As gedanken stated, since the date of the event wasn't know way in advance, then give the guy who earned the seat a little leeway.

I have questions for OP before I can answer your questions.
1. Is the 3rd place player worth all the fuss to keep him around for the next season?
2. How much is the buy-in for tournament X?
3. Are you profit-sharing?

Why do I ask these questions?
1. Are you all friends with the 3rd place guy? Is he an integral part of your group? Is he going to leave the group if you rule in favor of the 2nd place guy? Is it a huge problem if he does leave?
2. Can you have the league pay for half of their buy-ins and have them both pay the other half?
3. If you are profit-sharing, you can tweak the numbers to fit your situation. If you have the league pay for another full buy in, you cut the player's share in half and distribute more to the league.

Again, this 3rd place player seems awfully demanding. He's really angling the league and holding it hostage here. I don't like him very much.

I think we're mostly saying the same thing.

I'm only saying that decisions aren't irrevocable. There's no statue of limitations on doing the right thing.

I gave the ok for 1st and 2nd to go to tourney Y. After 3rd said no to the smaller tourney my decision was basically made for me.

Good for you. As the Commissioner, you have to do what's in the best interest of the league (that ruffles the fewest feathers). It looks like you did that. Is the 3rd place guy a douche, or is he just coming off like a douche?

this took me a few seconds to understand. You're saying his tirade was offensive enough that all the other players voted against him? And out of a deep-seated sense of fairness within yourself, you decided to act above the bickering and see if there was a justification for rewarding the whiner despite popular opinion and a superficial justice?

hoo ray for you, sir.

He is not a bad guy. As the saying goes his mouth starts moving before his brain is in gear. He is ok with the decision, and realizes he was an a**. I'm glad he pointed this out so it doesn't happen again, (this was my first year running the league), I just wish he would have done it a bit calmer. We are still friends, and I think thats whats important.
I want to thank everyone who chimed in. All of your advice helped a great deal.