If given the opportunity to win a title but significantly less money or winning significantly more money but not a title, which would you prefer? Put another way: is a title more important than the amount you win? I’m wondering if this is different between pros and amateurs as well.

Money is worth more to me than title. I don't hold much value in EPT trophy etc. It's not Stanley Cup or Super Bowl ring. No emotional value in bracelet or title.

Amateur answering here. What do you mean by "a title?" Some random EPT/WPT nobody cares about, and the choice of $100K instead of $500K? In that case, the money.

If we're specifically talking about the WSOP Main Event, and the money given up would be on top of an already life-changing amount (say, $4M/$5M instead of $8M), the title would be tempting. That's assuming that this was a deal with the devil kind of situation, and not some obvious deal that tainted the title in some way.

I want to be rich and anonymous. My option would be title had slight negative value and if I could get the money without it, that would be better.

i.e. I might pay a small amount to force the title on the other guy, but not a material amount.

Would obviously depend on the title. WSOP Main Event Champion yes I would prefer that title over winning potentially more money in some other tournament.

Amateur/micro grinder, the cash by a mile. Virtually nobody cares about poker titles outside the poker community, and nobody really cares much if you win small online tourney's within (I would imagine).

Can't buy a cheeseburger with a title.

Most poker players will come on here and say blah blah blah I only care about the money blah blah blah.

And the money is certainly important. But no mater what anyone admits, a big part of the popularity of tournaments is the glory aspect...winning trophies, getting on tv, getting on streams, articles, recognition, hendon stats, rankings and stuff like that. If no one cared about those things one bit, it would be better for most people to just play cash. But tournament poker has a special allure that cash just doesn’t have in the same way. It ain’t just about the money for most.

Im gonna prefer cash. Unless its something really cool, like a wsop bracelet or ept win or something.. In that case i could arrange something

Also let's not forget you can leverage titles into cash if they are big enough titles via sponsorship etc.

Tournaments are more fun, higher variance, less of a grind than cash IMO.

My play is very sporadic, but I prefer tournaments to cash.

I think i can with proof say that i prefer the cash over titles, last year , my first real year playing events , i chopped 3 handed or two handed in open events and both times I did not
want the title.

As a competitive rec player, I can without a doubt say that a winning a title in a Main Event, or winning prestigious side event (50k+) would mean a lot to me. I might even be willing to go slightly below an ICM chop if it meant getting the trophy.

The difference between winning 350k and 480k (whatever the numbers are) would mean little difference to my family in the grand scheme of things. They would be ecstatic either way. Winning a nice trophy would be proof of "making it" as a poker player to Non-Poker Players and would be pretty cool to keep at the house. I know bringing home a prestigious Main Event Winner trophy or a bracelet would make my son happy and he'd probably want to take a picture with the trophy/bracelet too. That's got a value that is extremely hard to quantify.

Edit: That being said, I don't think I would do a HU deal where I accepted less money than my competitor while acquiring the trophy. I'd be more inclined to play it out if I was the underdog from a chip perspective.

Poll fail. This should have been a public poll.

The trophy wouldn't mean much without having won it properly.

But if it's just a shortstack shove spot shorthanded, i might give up some $ to get the trophy in a chop.

For those wanting more specifics, this poll was inspired by this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...t-win-1704111/

i almost never play tournaments but almost want to win one just to smash the trophy.

With the exception of maybe winning the Main Event (which i could monetize) I would much rather find money in the street than win the same exact amount of money (when adjusting for taxes) in a tournament.

I would take zero pride in winning such a lottery, nor do i have a desire to be on tv, in the hendon mob and get some stupid article written about me in the cardplayer rag.

i totally agree with the guy who wants to be rich and anonymous.

i don't have this allure you mention but for a lot of people it really is just the chance to turn a small amount of money into a large amount of money. but for a lot of other people, you're right they want the "glory".

I play pretty much only cash games but I do have to say the rush/ satisfied feeling I've had when sweating & winning the final hand of a tourney HU and shipping is pretty great imo (the money is also nice ofc.)

Mike Leah didn't accept 'signifigantly less money' for the glory of the title, they did an even ICM chop. That's what people don't seem to be getting.

Why not both? Money is the most dominant factor in poker, it's why most of us play, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't want to tell people I won a major live poker tournament. People might not care, but to me (with the money that comes from winning) it's almost like the ultimate vindication for the time I spent playing/working on my game. Were talking about EPT, WPT, WSOP bracelet or like the Aussie Millions though, not the "X State Poker Championships" or "Aria Poker Classic".

Did he just so happen to be ahead in chips and the title was included? Weird that the other guy would accept this imo. Why not set aside 10k and play for it.

lol k.

Even chip chop icm plus mike got 15k his 4th title in 5 yrs, poy pts which could lead to more $ in terms of benefit + gave up whatever edge he had head up

rich and anonymous for the win, fame sucks dick