I could have got few more hands but for the most part the turn and river were my friend. And I got to show even a 7 4 offsuit can win, but I\\\'m sure that will come back to bite me in the end. Karma is a bitch.

I maybe talking to deaf ears, but if we are not going to change the points to be split, I think the payouts should be set for the top two positions like 60/40. If you played in a casino tournament and played to the end 2nd still goes home with money when they play it out. So why should we be penalized money-wise for playing it out?

Considering a non-split is rare and 2nd usually always gets money anyway, then I would propose money back OR $10 at most if we are going to play it out... 1st place should get better than 2/3rds money. If not playing it out, then it is up to the discretion of the players still playing. If 1st place wants to give up some of the winnings then that is his/her choice to make.

I think if there is only one person that does not want to split when it comes down to the top two people and they lose all of there chips, they should get nothing, but the person that did want to split should get at least $5 dollars back (assuming that person loses it all). If original person that wanted to split then offers a split (when he/she gets ahead) and the other person declines, then both players get what they get, meaning all or nothing or if a split is finally agreed upon.

Why has playing it out become such a big thing lately? We have made rules to speed up play for the players that go out early (2 decks, 60 sec. time limit, blinds increasing faster). Heads up takes a lot of time and only 2 people are enjoying that time. I don\'t want to be pushed into losing my winnings (if I ever get in the top 2 again). I don\'t want to be made to play heads up. If both players agree on not spliting, then they should live with the outcome, all or nothing. If you were 2nd and you were going to get $ and you lose, then you gambled away your winnings.

Mac, if you are involved in a top two where the other person wants to play it out, they will most likely offer you a split when/if they get the majority chip. So you should still get some winnings or all of the winnings.

I agree with Mackenzie for the most part... we have always had it be winner take all. It would only be courtesy to change that, but not necessary. The part I disagree with is the contention that heads up takes a lot of time. I have been heads up in tourneys dozens of times and the longest it ever took was 10-15 minutes... That is not long considering our games only last about 2 hrs now.

The reason it is now becoming an issue is the changing of the point values this year. Now with the new point system there is a difference between 1st and 2nd normally between 3 and 4 points. Considering last year the difference was 1 point. Also, there was some misunderstanding of the rules on my part as I thought the points were equitable split based on the chip count. However that is not the case. In a 7 person game if one player is ahead 351 - 349 chips, the person with 351 chips is getting 3.5 points more than the person with 349 chips even though the difference is only 2 chips. In my opinion this is not fair. However, based upon the rules that is the way it is. From a point perspective, there is no down side for me playing it out to the end (or at least until I get the lead), because if I have 0 or 349 chips, I am still getting the same amount of points. The difference comes in the dollar pay off which is NOT equitable to the points. If I have 349 chips I can get half the dollars, but still get 2nd place points. If I have 351 chips I still get half the dollars, but 1st place points. So now if you have less than half the chips you must decide if you want to take the money and 2nd place points or go for broke and go for the 1st place points. It is not a decision you would have to make in tournament play as the places have set dollar amounts, but it is a decision we now have to make in our game.