Please help me with a NLHE home game...it's evolved into something weird.

I have to say that is one of the weirdest setups I've seen, so I would change a lot of it. But since you want a minimum amount of change, I guess the two things I would be most likely to change would be:

1) all buy-ins should be for the same relative amount of chips - if $50 gets you 1600, then $100 gets you 3200 (I personally would change from different sized buy-ins to one set amount, and then have optional rebuys or add-ons if a stack gets below a certain level - but that might be too much.

and

2) have a standard payout plan based on number of players. Maybe with 4 players winner take all; with 5 or 6 split 75/25; 6 or more 50/30/20 - the splits I'm saying are just me picking numbers, but giving you an idea.

That being said, I would also change a bunch of other things, but rather than suggest any, I think if I were you I would poll all the players and potential players and see what people like. Maybe the people who don't come back might let you know the reason, and what might induce them to return.

I have to agree with you that it's a very strange set of rules. The funny thing is that it was even stranger before I started playing. The guy that hosts the tournament basically made up rules as he went along. I guess I shouldn't have put in the caveat of keeping the changes to a minimum, because several of the players and I have been thinking of starting our own home game with rules more in line with the norm. If that happens then there'll likely be a total revamp of the rules. I do appreciate your feedback. The disparity between starting stacks is, in my opinion, the biggest reason players don't come back. Many players, especially the casual ones, only bring $50 to play. So, even if they are on-time they still only receive 2200 chips, as opposed to $150 buy-in getting 7900 chips. Gosh, that sounds so ridiculous when I think about it. Lol, the reason for that rational was that the host wanted to REALLY encourage players to buy-in for the $150...and to be on-time XD. But, like I said, it's evolved into a bit of a $hitshow. Thank you for your feedback, sir.

You have a couple issues here:
1) Because of the format of the game, most players on any given night leave empty-handed.
2) Because the chips do not directly correspond to dollars because of your unproportional buy-in structure, someone new to the game cannot be sure the game is fair (its hard to keep track of all the buy-ins).

Does the game have to necessarily be a tournament? Judging by the amounts you guys like to buy-in for ($50-$150), you could go for a NLHE cash game with 50cent/1 dollar blinds. Then when someone is done it is very easy to cash out and you will have more players cashing out more often and coming back to the game.

Ya, I really like what VBaces recommended for payouts. If more players win, then it makes sense that more people would play.

Hmmm...This might actually be a good solution. It would certainly address the issue of chip disparity between the buy-in amounts. A $150 buy-in would grant $150 in chips. And it would take care of the other issue I have with the early-arrival chip bonus. 500 extra chips per buy-in for being on-time is too much. It's funny, when I recommended a $500 chip bonus to players that show up before the tourney starts, he agreed, but made it 500 per buy-in, lol. But, in his defense, he learned to play poker in prison and doesn't have any experience playing tournaments online or in casino's/cardrooms. Anyway, I think I'll talk to him about doing a cash game next week. I sure appreciate the feedback<3

Here's the thing buddy. You aren't smart enough to reinvent the wheel. Your structure is incredibly complicated. The complication adds nothing of value, and just creates opportunities for confusion.

Why don't you just copy standard rules for normal tournaments. The game will be simpler, the rules will be clear. Everything will be more fair and transparent.

Thank you for the suggestion, MegaWhale. You definitely have a valid point, and it's something I've wanted to do. Unfortunately, I'm a guest at this home game. And to the host, it would seem like I'm trying to reinvent the wheel if I went scorched earth on the current structure. The current state of the game, as strange as it is, finishes in 4-5 hours no matter how many people show up. And the prize pool is usually around $600 on up to $1000 plus. So, there are some things this game does right. But, in the end, it is unsustainable. I get that. It's so confusing that most new or casual players get turned off and rarely play. I actually really liked AALegends idea of switching it up to a cash game with $50 or $100 buy-ins and rebuys. It'll solve all of the issues the current game has. Because, like you said, the current structure is incredibly complicated. The cash game should get the end result I'm after. A simple structure that'll be attractive to the new/casual players while still allowing for large prize pools.

It would also seem strange to new players to a cash game having 2 fixed buying options. Just have any buyin between 50-200bb (or match the biggest stack on table), and players can add on whenever they want. Cash games suit the usually more social nature of home games more anyway as you can always rebuy if you want and there's no pressure from blinds increasing.