A group of friends meet at a casino to play for the weekend.

After dinner a discussion about chopping any promo earned over weekend comes up.

All 5 players agree on a even split of any promotions received.

Player 1 plays a 25 hour session with a few breaks no longer than 10 minutes.

The other 4 players play about 15 hours of the 25 hours.

Player 1 goes broke after 25 hours and informs the group that he is leaving.

2 hours later one of the other players gets the big end of the bad beat jackpot. (around $150k)

Should Player 1 be entitled to any of it, or did he disqualify himself by leaving?

Opinions please

You didn’t post any requirements that group members had to meet in order to be eligible to get a share of the promotion.

In theory, player 1 didn’t have to play a single second after dinner and still would be entitled to his share. If that’s working out in practice, without anything in writing, is a totally different issue.

My opinion is that he played more than anyone else and should get a full share.

What would his buddies have said if he had hit the BBJ while they were sleeping, eating, etc (ie the missing 10 hours)? "You keep it all bro"?

Also, better talk to an accountant about filing the proper forms to the IRS so that the guy who hit the BBJ doesn't end up paying all the taxes.

given how you described the deal, everyone gets an equal share.

for future advice, best practice is to agree that everyone gets 1 share per hour they played. this avoids these disagreements and is fair to those who play more hours.

If anything he is entitled to a larger share, but an equal share is fair here.

OP, you're gonna be met with a string of replies indicating that they are waiting for the catch. There is nothing in your post that even hints at Player 1 disqualifying himself by leaving, aside from the fact that the question is being asked.

The catch is that people are greedy and want any excuse to welch on deals.

The agreement stated above was the entire conversation about the chop.

There were no other conditions discussed.

This was a real life scenario and the majority deemed that Player 1 disqualified himself by leaving.

Does anybody agree with that decision?

Full share as agreed.

Full share. As stated above, none of the players would be arguing that they didn't deserve a share if player 1 had won it while they were taking a break or otherwise not playing.

Full share.

LOL

Pay the man his money. Also this scenario is weird because the people involved are described as 'friends', I don't typically look for loopholes in order to screw my friends out of money and nor do the kind of people I associate with.

They say every man has his price, the price at which he would sell off his integrity. Apparently for your group of friends, that prices is $7,500. Of course he is still part of the original agreement. Using a loophole to cheat him of his share costs him $30K, but shows him the nature of his 'friends'. He actually got a bargain.

Deal is "over the weekend". Pay the man.

The guy could leave right after dinner without playing a single hand and would still be entitled to his share.

There is nothing here about only if you are playing when it hits or playing after it hits. He gets a full share.

After dinner a discussion about chopping any promo earned over weekend comes up. All 5 players agree on a even split of any promotions received.


Pretty simple spot here ... And don't give me the "Well, my work week technically runs from Sunday to Saturday" type of chatter. The 'weekend' starts Friday at 6 PM and runs until Sunday midnight for most of us ... which probably includes your group. GL

I guess we really don't know who are friends are until money gets involved.

If the guys didn’t want to share with him why make the agreement unless they were trying to freeroll him... I kinda hope the winner refuses to give the other “friends” their share and just splits with the guy who left for them being scumbags

Put it in writing. Two reasons.

1. You can put in more detail, such as how much someone needs to play to get a certain percentage of the split. Give everyone a copy.

2. Memories can fade, especially if there is a lot of detail in the agreement. You don't want this to happen:

"That wasn't the deal." "Yes it was!"

This

What a ****ty group of friends

Love this.

I think the responses so far miss the basis for cutting out the friend. Meet to play for the weekend may mean "traveled to a casino to play non-stop poker from fri-sunday, sleeping and eating optional" or "gamble for as many hours as our limited bankrolls allow." In part, it depends on the groups prior actions and mutual understanding. Without more details, it is hard to tell what the "play" expectations of the group were. Whoever wrote he would not have to play a single hand after dinner is showing the other extreme of an amorphous agreement. Some type of play was probably expected by each person.

Was the agreement for poker promos only? For example, if one of the friends is a hi roller and qualified for a free blackjack tournament and won it, does that promo get split?

I can see a basis for claiming that three days of poker playing was expected and leaving after day 1 was a breach of that agreement but i doubt that was the realistic expectation here. A 24 marathon session probably fulfilled any expectation of play by the group.

If the agreement was that 6 poker players agreed to split any poker promos because the bb was so high or they were paying hhs, shorting your friend out of his share is a ****ty move. If he was sleeping in his room after a 24 hour session or on a smoke break, would his dick friends be scheming to cut him out? What is he busted his bankroll and was contemplating an atm run when it hit? If so, he needs new friends.

The bad beat was nearly $380k & the room was also paying bonuses for High Hands (Straight Flush $500, Royal Flush $2k)

Obviously I am Player 1, and a little but hurt.

A little more information:

I manage a small poker room in the mid-west. (6 tables)
We usually have 1 - 2 games during the week and 2 - 3 games on the weekends.

Calling the other 4 players "Friends" is throwing that term around a little loosely. We rarely hang out outside of my poker room.

The other players were 4 of my top carded hour players. I had a lot of respect and trust in their integrity until this happened.

After player 5 hit the bad beat, they decided to give him 30% off the top to cover taxes. He tipped the dealer 8K (I manage a poker room and think this is excessive), leaving about $101k in the pool.

Player 5 said that since I left the deal had changed and wasn't going to chop anything. He finally decided to keep 51K and gave the other $17k each.

Now the real dilemma:

The week following this incident they all returned to my poker room like nothing had happened.

I have tried to argue my point but they stand by their decision.

All of me wants to ban them from the room, but it did not happen on our property that would not be the right move.

I have no idea what my next move should be.