Cash Game Am I wrong to ask a player to pay for their referral who didn't pay up? (2 Viewers)

[Highli99]

I agree with consensus on this.

My own group is closed to new members, but when we have allowed new players it was explained to referring players that they were financially responsible for the new players until trust was established. With that information the current member could decide whether to refer or not. Advance discussion was helpful and never had any issues.

Key here is that John didn't know he was on the hook in advance.

 

[markleteenie]

Mmmmm! I'm getting aroused...

LOL, I imagined Dave Chappelle saying that (from the Monica Lewinsky bit)

 

[JMC9389]

Going against the grain. I think it's fine to assume players are good for all debts and that all transactions will be handled by the end of the game. Isn't that called a gentleman's game? Or have I been watching too many movies?

How far does Fish live? I think you and your crew needs to pay Fish a visit to "convince" him to pay up.

IMO this works fine for microstakes if the debts cost about as much as the three course special at Applebee's, but for more "serious" money, which to me is anything $100 or more, I'd always collect up front.

No cash, no chips.

 

[Silver_Fiend]

1- its ultimately the hosts fault for allowing play without cash in hand.
2- John vouched for Fish. In some circles, that would result in getting a beat down. If John doesnt pay Fish's debt, John is out of the poker group.

 

[Chipnut]

Collect all money up front all the time. Friends or not, trustworthy or not. It’s gambling and people are always capable of doing something that goes against the expected norms. Problems like this will always be avoided with collecting up front.

 

[JustinInMN]

So how do you fix this now that everyone wants their money and save the game? Likely anything short of the host shelling out the debt will end if more players finding another group, but if you are all good friends and you ALL agreed on the payment structure, I personally think each player involved should eat an equal part.

I think this is the best hope for a resolution that doesn't completely screw the host. If I were @rjdev7 I would probably ask this of the club, especially if it's the players that prefer the settle up after method, then perhaps there's an argument they all have a hand in this.

But at a minimum, the lesson learned here is going forward, newbs at least need limits, probably best they pay 3 buy ins up front.

Going against the grain. I think it's fine to assume players are good for all debts and that all transactions will be handled by the end of the game. Isn't that called a gentleman's game? Or have I been watching too many movies?

That only works if you know who the gentlemen are. As soon as you make a mistake there, this is what happens.

 

[shorticus]

Did anyone ever stop to think, “man, we may want to have this guy pay out his losses before we keep extending him credit like this?”

You don’t know this guy, I’d not be approving add-ons like that if it got to a point where I’m hosting and I’m not comfortable paying out the money.

 

[Rhodeman77]

@MatB ran a club on Pokerrr2 for months on the honor system that we all paid up at the end of the week. As far as I know there was never a non payment issue thankfully.

My home game group play on pokernow.com (rake free) and at first we would all pre pay then the bank would pay out at the end of the night. Playing 3-4 nights a week can hit people’s $$$$ limits easy!

So we went to a pay after the game system. We have all known each other for years and new players aren’t a thing. But the banker also has the control of the game. If someone in our wider network wants play the banker may require they pay up front.

we had one player ghost the banker for a few days over $150 or so. The players that won that night were ready to all pitch in to cover ghosting player. Thankfully he finally paid up.

New players that are unknowns definitely should be paying upfront, or cut off after the first buy-in to limit exposure.

 

[Frogzilla]

This is a tough one. I’m in one of these games, with these procedures, and fairly decent stakes. The host has asked for referrals when the game pool is wavering, and if I refer someone that wants to pull this fish stunt I’m gonna be in a pickle and probably on the hook until I muscle the cash out of fish.

I’d let my judgment come down to how Fish was referred. “This Fish guy might be interested, I don’t really know him but plays a lot and is shit at cards” is a very different referral from “Fish would be great for the game, he’s a good dude”

 

[ArielVer18]

IMO this works fine for microstakes if the debts cost about as much as the three course special at Applebee's, but for more "serious" money, which to me is anything $100 or more, I'd always collect up front.

No cash, no chips.

this was my opinion too until I started playing in a couple completely cashless games where debts are settled at the end of the night. @JustinInMN is right; it depends on the players whether this works or not.

 

[Eloe2000]

Quite frankly I am not sure how a game like this operates. What was supposed to be the recourse in a situation like this? Was this honestly not discussed or even considered? Do the existing players not get concerned when some new person starts playing? Was there some intrinsic understanding that it was "your game" and you are the absolute bank? Or is it more of an understanding that it is a group game and you just setup the game up on the app? I am just surprised people would be willing to wager online with others who they don't even know with somewhat real stakes. I almost feel like I am missing some kind of context here.

When we play online we collect afterwards, but we have all been playing together once a week with each other for between 3-8 years. We started by collecting money up front because that just simply makes sense. It was a bit of a pain and we had enough comfort with each other that we eventually moved to settling up the next day but we made it 100% clear and agreed upon by everyone that they were responsible for those whom they invite. And even after that initial agreement, we make it clear again at the time anyone new joins.

If I were John I would feel some culpability and contrary to the majority here as host I would feel that John is somewhat culpable as well. At a bare minimum John should be working this guy to get whats owed. I feel like there is some intrinsic level of responsibility when one person invites someone else to a group. If I invited my buddy over to someone else's house and my buddy broke the television, I would feel some level of responsibility to get the problem resolved even if it wasn't me who was anyway directly involved.

 

[JustinInMN]

If I were John I would feel some culpability and contrary to the majority here as host I would feel that John is somewhat culpable as well.

I would agree with this, and as I said above, I would probably even offer to share the damage with the host. But if the host tells me I am going to be singled out to pay up front going forward, I would certainly consider that a breach of trust and I would quit the club and have no motivation to help. So "John" 's actions from that point forward, do make sense to me.

I do think "John" should shoulder some responsibility, but the host certainly mishandled the approach here.

 

[TheBigTater]

Did anyone ever stop to think, “man, we may want to have this guy pay out his losses before we keep extending him credit like this?”

You don’t know this guy, I’d not be approving add-ons like that if it got to a point where I’m hosting and I’m not comfortable paying out the money.

I would bet that everyone was seeing $$$ from the new fish and didn't think about if he was good for it until that time came.

Really IMO if everyone in the group was ok/agreed with letting the new unknown player play on credit then all members should be held responsible equally. If everyone wasn't in agreement ahead of time then it falls to the banker of the group.

 

[trigs]

People, even friends, can become really scummy when money is involved. I'm currently playing online with guys that I've been playing with for years now and we still all send money up front. Just safer for the game overall. As host, I'd want and expect money up front too. (That being said, I have let people etransfer me money during a live game I hosted and gave them chips before the money came through, but I did that knowing that I took all the responsibility and added my own cash into the bank to make sure everything was there.)

 

[inca911]

I would ask and expect John to be on the hook for his vouched player's first buy-in; however, it was the host that made decision to extend further credit to the new player by giving chips without either getting cash up front or getting John's continued approval in advance of each subsequent rebuy. Regardless of what happens next, it's likely this will kill the game (at least for Fish and John), without a new agreement and understanding on the rules of engagement for all participants.

 

[rjdev7]

One last point of evidence, that I neglected to share. Fish played once in the past, lost $700 and DID pay up. This is why I ultimately thought he was good for it when John brought them back.

Lesson learned though, I will collect payment for each buy in for new players moving forward. Thanks all!

 

[trigs]

Just a suggestion that may help: since you are all friends, and you all have played together for a long time, would your friends be okay with you (the host) just holding the money for them? Therefore, every pays up front so no more issues of this kind can happen, and you don't have to worry about transferring too much money that Venmo will pick up on it.

The cash game I'm playing online with my buddies, the host suggested that it's easier for him to just hold onto the cash until the next game. People can top up if needed, or ask to cash out their winnings occasionally, but otherwise, all the money is there and it uses much less transfers.

 

[Senzrock]

@rjdev7 use this unfortunate incident to strengthen your guidelines/rules for your online game. When we started our pandemic game a little over a year ago, we put a lot of time (maybe too much) into writing out several paragraphs (that turned into pages) of guidelines that were sent out to every player before they agreed to come on. I am happy to share this with you if interested, but basically "anyone who brings someone new in, will be financially responsible for them flaking on payment" -- this does at least two things (1) outlines clearly who is at fault in case this happens but also (2) allows anyone bringing someone new on, to think carefully before they do this because they know they are on the hook.

Terrible situation, but I think most of us have probably experienced some version of it before.

 

[Hammer517]

My 2 cents: first of all. It doesn't sound like many of the folks who casually say "they should all collect the money up front for everyone" have tried this for anything but microstakes. Try doing things with a .5/$1 NL game or higher and you'll encounter a whole host of other issues. Helping help co-host a neighborhood group that went online during Covid we found this out the hard way. Several people got perma-banned from Cash app, and venmo. Once you try and fail at this, then you'll inevitably come around to 1 of 2 options which consist of either the settle up after (gentleman's game) approach or having someone act as the permanent banker that holds people's money. Both of these are less than ideal and require a significant amount of trust.

All this being said, if I were the host, I would personally cover the loss and work on my end to recoup it from the Fish. Depending on the stakes, once he was down about 2-3 BIs I probably would have reached out to John (his reference) to confirm or had him pay up first before extending him more.

Unless you cover the losses, I imagine everyone is going have to pay up front going forward. And if that's the case, I don't imagine John is coming back due to the lack of trust on whether he'll be held accountable for the fish's loss.

 

[Senzrock]

We have an active online game where we use an algorithm to settle up payments every Monday morning weekly. No holding or advanced payments or anything. Just trust, via a buddy system, where everyone is accountable to the people they bring in, and we have stop loss at -$1500 balance and we offer to have losing players play their balance over time if they are in a tight spot. We have never ever had anyone not pay up and have had several hundred k exchange hands in an organized and friendly manor.

 

[Senzrock]

Another site I know, that does suffer occasional loses because they are a little more relaxed, handles this situation in the following way:

-They look at who won the night the fish lost all the money.
-They redistribute based on that, but spread out the loses over every player so it balances out a bit.

It's not ideal but it's one way to do it. Another way is to chop up the loses amongst the big winners across the site. Maybe a combo of both.

 

[BNM]

Am I the only one who is amused at this? This group went around looking for a fish with deep pockets to bring into their game, and then when the sucker refuses to pay they turn on the guy closest to him? If you’re all working together to bring in a fish, I am not surprised the guy felt like he was cheated. Seems like everyone got what they deserved here.

 

[AK Chip]

Am I the only one who is amused at this? This group went around looking for a fish with deep pockets to bring into their game, and then when the sucker refuses to pay they turn on the guy closest to him? If you’re all working together to bring in a fish, I am not surprised the guy felt like he was cheated. Seems like everyone got what they deserved here.

Was thinking this exact thing. Player that lost is responsible for his own debt but should be pissed as hell that he was invited to what sounds like a bunch of guys that probably play soft against each other and prey on the new guy.

 

[Eloe2000]

Am I the only one who is amused at this? This group went around looking for a fish with deep pockets to bring into their game, and then when the sucker refuses to pay they turn on the guy closest to him? If you’re all working together to bring in a fish, I am not surprised the guy felt like he was cheated. Seems like everyone got what they deserved here.

I fully admit I skipped that incredibly important part and it absolutely changes my response. John is not responsible and I agree that it sounds like they may have gotten what they deserved.

 

[ConsensualPresidency]

-

 

[Rhodeman77]

Pretty much every game above $100 buy-in needs to be actively recruiting players, especially when they are playing several times per week or the game will slowly die.

I have found myself invited into games like this many times. Often times these games are very closed off and are full of mediocre players that all just trade their money back and forth with whoever gets lucky catching cards that week being the big winner.

Once they start trying to find new players they will often find actual good players that speed up the demise of their game.

 

[JustinInMN]

It doesn't sound like many of the folks who casually say "they should all collect the money up front for everyone" have tried this for anything but microstakes.

This is a big reason I would never run one of these sites. I get it's tough, and difficult to track a deepish pool.

But I participated in a couple that were doing 0.50-1 and up using venmo and it didn't seem to be an issue. I left my money on account with them, I trust the individuals involved.

 

[Rhodeman77]

This is a big reason I would never run one of these sites. I get it's tough, and difficult to track a deepish pool.

But I participated in a couple that were doing 0.50-1 and up using venmo and it didn't seem to be an issue. I left my money on account with them, I trust the individuals involved.

just find a semi professional alcoholic in Dallas to hold $40k for a group of internet poker friends.

Hey @CraigT78, know anyone like that?

 

[FordPickup92]

Don't play online. Play live, when somebody goes $800 in the hole and tries to leave without payment you bitch slap them right back into their chair.

*real note, John should not be responsible for fish debt, but there definitely needs to be a COMMUNAL change in the requirements of the pay in/pay out structure. Unfortunately I dont think fish is ever going to pay, and John is probably very unhappy. Hopefully the wounds will heal as will the friendship, but this sounds like a tough lesson learned for the host. However, I would keep a public notice amongst your friends that if anyone comes across fish else where they let you know so you can maybe get in touch with him. I would also warn any other local online hosts of this person's actions.

 

[TKEUofM]

Always collect money up front.