Let's say you were in a NCAA tourney or fantasy football or Texas hold em. Any kind of game where you're playing for prize money. If you are one of the final two top teams, do you think it's ok to get together and make a deal with the other guy to split the pot for 1st and 2nd place, instead of playing it out and having a winner and a loser.

 

I personally think splitting the pot is lame. My friend says I'm lame for thinking that. He says games for prizes are gambling and the point of gambling is to make money so cut a deal. I say these games are for winning and losing and yes, it is like gambling and the whole meaning behind the word gamble is to take a risk...there's not so much of a risk if you agree to just tie the guy you're playing against and split the pot. He counters that making that deal is winning cause you made more money. What do you guys think?

New bet. New Decision. Provided the other player would want to split the pot, I would weigh my new odds and make a decision accordingly. The object is to make money and if I thought I could make more with the split, I would, I would also reject the split if I felt I had the better position. But I certainly would not reject splitting in all situations.

I personally think splitting the pot is lame.

 

Dude, you never share your stash.

 

 

It depends on the difference between the prizes; maybe you agree to even out the differences somewhat based on who wins or give them improved odds

I like to split it 3 ways. For instance, if 1st get $500 and 2nd get $200, we'll split it $300 / $300 and play it out for the last $100. The you still have a winner.

Edited April 8, 200817 yr by mreye

It is lame to make a deal to split the pot unless whatever it is that is being wagered is taking too long. In my fantasy football league, we also do a survivor pool (pick one NFL winner each week - no repeats). I think the winner gets $50 or so. Not much, just another chance to win a few bucks. Two years ago, 7 of us went out in the first week. I can't remember the team, but basically the biggest favorite of the week lost its first game. 3 guys were left to play for the $50. One guy lost in week 7, and after week 9 the other two agreed to split the pot. I couldn't understand their logic. Was it too hard to pick one team each week for the rest of the season while they were submitting their line-ups?

 

If it's a card game, and the chips leader keeps changing, and everyone has pretty much had enough, fine, split the pot. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't be gambling at all.

As long as first and second place still puts you up money when the day ends play it out.

 

Whats the sense of going all the way if you don't finish?

 

The bigger the difference, the more I'd be thinking of splitting. When I was running the Men's Golf Assiciation events at my club we would add up the number of places we were paying and divide by that number, so the drops were not that big. For example $1,000 paid 5 ways would be

1+2+3+4+5=15 $1000/15 =$66 So the prize money would be $333, 264, 198, 132, 66. Less of an incentive to split. The events that use a different formula create a situation where it becomes more of an issue. I've also seen in some rules where agreements like that are against the rules of the event. Chess was like that, and guys would have these 20 move draws, shake hands, and leave. Disappointing for those that were hoping for an exciting game.

Part of gambling is hedging your bets and that's what you're doing when you split prizes.

 

Let me refraise that: Part of intelligent gambling is hedging your bets.

Part of gambling is hedging your bets and that's what you're doing when you split prizes.

 

Let me refraise that: Part of intelligent gambling is hedging your bets.

 

Like I said earlier, if a split is considered, it basically becomes a new bet

 

I could win X

I could win X+1/2

I could win Y

 

If I felt a big enough edge to play for the difference, I would. In the no repeat pool bet, I would look at what teams I had left, and their schedule, look at the other player's situation, and decide.

 

But never predetermine your strategy, never give away a tool, without some analysis.

The bigger the difference, the more I'd be thinking of splitting. When I was running the Men's Golf Assiciation events at my club we would add up the number of places we were paying and divide by that number, so the drops were not that big. For example $1,000 paid 5 ways would be

1+2+3+4+5=15 $1000/15 =$66 So the prize money would be $333, 264, 198, 132, 66. Less of an incentive to split. The events that use a different formula create a situation where it becomes more of an issue. I've also seen in some rules where agreements like that are against the rules of the event. Chess was like that, and guys would have these 20 move draws, shake hands, and leave. Disappointing for those that were hoping for an exciting game.

 

Did you just use "chess" and "exciting" in the same sentence?

Did you just use "chess" and "exciting" in the same sentence?

 

yes, I did.

 

Oops, no I did not. Technically it was two sentences

Edited April 8, 200817 yr by Texsox

Let's say you were in a NCAA tourney or fantasy football or Texas hold em. Any kind of game where you're playing for prize money. If you are one of the final two top teams, do you think it's ok to get together and make a deal with the other guy to split the pot for 1st and 2nd place, instead of playing it out and having a winner and a loser.

 

I personally think splitting the pot is lame. My friend says I'm lame for thinking that. He says games for prizes are gambling and the point of gambling is to make money so cut a deal. I say these games are for winning and losing and yes, it is like gambling and the whole meaning behind the word gamble is to take a risk...there's not so much of a risk if you agree to just tie the guy you're playing against and split the pot. He counters that making that deal is winning cause you made more money. What do you guys think?

I have actually split pots in poker tournaments a lot. Especially if they were winner take all tourneys. Depending on how much the buy in was both of us hated the idea of not winning anything that if a split is allowed I normally offer it.

I have actually split pots in poker tournaments a lot. Especially if they were winner take all tourneys. Depending on how much the buy in was both of us hated the idea of not winning anything that if a split is allowed I normally offer it.

 

that's why winner take all tournaments suck

that's why winner take all tournaments suck

 

Yep, and why pot splitting is so common. Second palce should at least cover entry and any expenses.

Yep, and why pot splitting is so common. Second palce should at least cover entry and any expenses.

I've never been in any tourney that didn't give 2nd place money. That would suck.

For reference to my question, I guess I should stipulate...most times the prize is a 70- 25 -5 kind of thing. Prize money is never more than a few hundred dollars.

 

The most recent example being the NCAA tourney. It was $224 - $80 - $16. $20 buy in. My friends father in law and me were gonna end up tied for 1st if Kansas won...with the tie breaker being the points. He told me to split it...and said his father in law said he would split it too. I told him to get bent. Especially since his father in law is fricken rich. I can't for the life of me think he is playing this stupid tournament for the money.

I've never been in any tourney that didn't give 2nd place money. That would suck.

For reference to my question, I guess I should stipulate...most times the prize is a 70- 25 -5 kind of thing. Prize money is never more than a few hundred dollars.

 

The most recent example being the NCAA tourney. It was $224 - $80 - $16. $20 buy in. My friends father in law and me were gonna end up tied for 1st if Kansas won...with the tie breaker being the points. He told me to split it...and said his father in law said he would split it too. I told him to get bent. Especially since his father in law is fricken rich. I can't for the life of me think he is playing this stupid tournament for the money.

 

Or maybe he didn't care about the money and thought he was helping you? BTW, Wouldn't 220, 80, 20 be a better split? Let the 3rd place guy get his money back. And I assume you received more than 1 team for your $20 or else I'd rather be the guy holding the pot, he was the real winner.

 

And btw, before telling him no, I would have looked at both predictions for the final score and decided if I like my chances better, and by how much. That's what I would have based my decision on. When you made that prediction, you did not know which teams would be palying, and how they would be playing, so reevaluating based on new and current information, would be the smart thing to do, IMHO. YMMV.

 

Did you win?

Or maybe he didn't care about the money and thought he was helping you? BTW, Wouldn't 220, 80, 20 be a better split? Let the 3rd place guy get his money back. And I assume you received more than 1 team for your $20 or else I'd rather be the guy holding the pot, he was the real winner.

I asked my friend that and he said no, he just wants to hedge his bets. I'm like it's a $70 dollar difference...his a f***in millionaire...are you kidding me?? I really wanted to beat him just for that....but I needed Kansas to score a few more points!!

 

220,80,20 does sound better...but we just did 70% 25% 5% and we settled on that before we knew how many people would join the tourney.

I am the guy holding the pot...I was hoping I wouldn't have to write the big check this year, but alas I do.

 

My score was 83-76

His was 78-71

Real Score was 75-68

 

 

Edited April 9, 200817 yr by Controlled Chaos

When I see a true millionaire doing something counter to my judgment, I sit up and notice and see if there is a lesson to be learned there.

I was in a poker tournament while in Vegas a few weeks back where the last 3 decided to split. Pissed me off because I came in 4th. It paid 4 places, so I got money, but after 30 minutes of everyone being too chicken-s*** to bet, I decided to go for it with the first hand that offered me any chance. It didn't work. Then after about 5 more minutes, the 3 remaining decided to split what was left. If I had known that could have been an option at the time, I would have held out longer. In general I don't have a problem with it if all parties agree, it just ticked me off in this one instance.

I was in a poker tournament while in Vegas a few weeks back where the last 3 decided to split. Pissed me off because I came in 4th. It paid 4 places, so I got money, but after 30 minutes of everyone being too chicken-s*** to bet, I decided to go for it with the first hand that offered me any chance. It didn't work. Then after about 5 more minutes, the 3 remaining decided to split what was left. If I had known that could have been an option at the time, I would have held out longer. In general I don't have a problem with it if all parties agree, it just ticked me off in this one instance.

I had that happen to me; they paid out to like 8 spots for a multi-table and we were down to the final 3 and pretty much as soon as I got knocked out in 3rd the other two split up the rest