Dr Lecterr
Two Pair
I don’t allow anyone going on the books. Even players who I know 100% have plenty of money. With that said.... the cashier is on the hook. He stopped the game and confirmed $200 owed. It’s over at that point
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Cashier situation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 200 Motels
- Start date
moose
4 of a Kind
Letting people loan each other money is the fastest way to kill a cash game.
I don't get all the comments about writing down loans. Does the US not possess a modern banking system? If someone is out of cash they can e-transfer the cash to my account or they have to go find an ATM. No loans.
I don't get all the comments about writing down loans. Does the US not possess a modern banking system? If someone is out of cash they can e-transfer the cash to my account or they have to go find an ATM. No loans.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
Totally agree.
I've accepted PayPal and Venmo at my games (and immediately added the requisite cash to the bank), but I've never booked anyone and I never will.
Cash or instant funds, or go home. My name ain't Grama or Teddy KGB...
I'll respectfully disagree here. I've found that once a player leaves for the ATM he ain't coming back. 50% of my players walk to the game, and there isn't an ATM close enough to walk to. Also, of I can't trust a neighbor to stop by the next day with $100 - then should I trust them in the first place? While I prefer PayPal some guys don't do it and would much rather make it right the next day - it's also an excuse to recap and have a beer
Holy crap Justsomedude! How refreshing to hear something like that. I work in a large government department in Australia. My area of expertise is security, Audit, Governance and IT Security. to me integrity is something you have or you don't. There is no matter of degree,
well played
at my home game i take the responsibility to be the bank. If im TD my opinion is that i run the game Period. If we play a dealer choice cashie same thing applies.
I've been burnt but that's due to sloppy practice. All my fault and i took it on the chin. Now I run it differently. Ive never been short since then.
the important message is:
Chips are cash. Take the responsibility seriously.
as for the question who is responsible I can only answer for my game and if the same thing happened here id wear it.
as ofor loaning money to people to gamble... That is something I've seen both sides of borrower and lender. Both i refuse to do again. at best they are very awkward at worst they are friendship breakers...
I just don't do either.
I've been burnt but that's due to sloppy practice. All my fault and i took it on the chin. Now I run it differently. Ive never been short since then.
the important message is:
Chips are cash. Take the responsibility seriously.
as for the question who is responsible I can only answer for my game and if the same thing happened here id wear it.
as ofor loaning money to people to gamble... That is something I've seen both sides of borrower and lender. Both i refuse to do again. at best they are very awkward at worst they are friendship breakers...
I just don't do either.
I agree with Craig! Loans don't kill games. Players not paying loans back may kill that player being in the game though. If the game is dependent on all players staying (generally, I don't mean on a specific night), then loans can be a bad idea. A player leaving and coming back on a night might be disruptive. If it doesn't leave enough players to play, what happens while the player goes to the ATM? By the time he gets back, maybe someone else leaves and you still don't have enough for a game.
I've heard of players going to the ATM and coming back, but I've heard of them not coming back more often. It's been years since I played cash and most lower stakes games have at least one player with cash who will loan money. In the old days, a player who was short could write a check.
Every group I've ever played with has a "gold standard" rule (my name for it). For cash games where rules are written (as they should be), that is a written rule. You don't get chips until there is cash in the kitty to cover those chips. The "bank" doesn't make loans because there is not bank, only a banker. Players can loan money, but those loans are owed back to the player. The host can loan money, but that loan is owed back to the host.
Players who know each other make loans, and I've not personally been in a game that I knew of where a player stiffed another. The very few times I've loaned a player money, I got paid back at the agreed time.
My general experience is that the vast majority poker players are honest and will pay back loans.
I don't have a problem with loans per se. However, the "game" shouldn't make a loan. It's not fair to ask players generally to take that risk. If 8 are playing, and one gets a loan from the game, what happens at the end of the game? Do those ahead take proportionally less? Do those behind pay proportionally more? If the game makes a loan, it's really each individual player making a loan. Some players are not comfortable making loans, or will only make loans to specific players. But if the game makes a loan, then you are asking players who had no say in the matter to put their money at risk. The game making a loan forces them to participate. That's not right.
If a loan is necessary, a specific person should make the loan. That is a private transaction between players and it's their business.
I've heard of players going to the ATM and coming back, but I've heard of them not coming back more often. It's been years since I played cash and most lower stakes games have at least one player with cash who will loan money. In the old days, a player who was short could write a check.
Every group I've ever played with has a "gold standard" rule (my name for it). For cash games where rules are written (as they should be), that is a written rule. You don't get chips until there is cash in the kitty to cover those chips. The "bank" doesn't make loans because there is not bank, only a banker. Players can loan money, but those loans are owed back to the player. The host can loan money, but that loan is owed back to the host.
Players who know each other make loans, and I've not personally been in a game that I knew of where a player stiffed another. The very few times I've loaned a player money, I got paid back at the agreed time.
My general experience is that the vast majority poker players are honest and will pay back loans.
I don't have a problem with loans per se. However, the "game" shouldn't make a loan. It's not fair to ask players generally to take that risk. If 8 are playing, and one gets a loan from the game, what happens at the end of the game? Do those ahead take proportionally less? Do those behind pay proportionally more? If the game makes a loan, it's really each individual player making a loan. Some players are not comfortable making loans, or will only make loans to specific players. But if the game makes a loan, then you are asking players who had no say in the matter to put their money at risk. The game making a loan forces them to participate. That's not right.
If a loan is necessary, a specific person should make the loan. That is a private transaction between players and it's their business.
Last edited:
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
I played a cash game last week that had an interesting marker structure. They used nondenom chips, and the blue represented -100. So if you ran out of cash and wanted to buy in 200, you grab 2 blues and 8 greens.
Settled on venmo after the game.
Settled on venmo after the game.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
Although @Kyle and @pokerplayingpisces were just telling me that I should be Grama or KGB for Halloween this year.
Ha! Like you’d remember a banking error that happened in the nineties?
bentax1978
4 of a Kind
I remember every detail of the two banking errors we had from 2008-2013 when I was hosting weekly. Granted that was only 5-10 years ago, but I am pretty confident I'll still remember them 20 years from now. One of them was figured out and resolved the next morning, the other one remains unsolved to this day (and I'm still out $200 since I was the host/banker).
I also have $300 worth of loans that were never repaid to the house. It was to someone I implicitly trusted, and someone who was a regular at my game for several years. Turns out that he had some issues going on that none of us were aware of, had a bit of a mental breakdown, and ended up in jail for the better part of a year. He pretty much disappeared after that.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Cash or instant funds, or go home. My name ain't Grama or Teddy KGB...
Gorilla math.
GenghisKhan
Full House
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
- Messages
- 2,897
- Reaction score
- 4,705
Bank pays, and bans rebuys when you're out of cash.
At all our games, the HOST is the banker.
Your place, your chips, your rules, your responsibility.
At my place the very few times over 2 decades I've been short I paid it out with no question. Even when the big winners would offer to each pay a portion.
We're all close friends, but I'd feel bad leaving anybody short even if they offer to help.
Lose one of my chips on the floor though, and you better not come back up until you find it.
At all our games, the HOST is the banker.
Your place, your chips, your rules, your responsibility.
At my place the very few times over 2 decades I've been short I paid it out with no question. Even when the big winners would offer to each pay a portion.
We're all close friends, but I'd feel bad leaving anybody short even if they offer to help.
Lose one of my chips on the floor though, and you better not come back up until you find it.
Hey, sonny-boy, we're talking 1890s here.
bsdunbar1
4 of a Kind
I agree, if guys leave it is easier to call it a night and not return.
As the banker I am personally fronting a player the cash, the cash goes into the bank for the night so all payouts add up.
100% my call if i allow it or not, and/or who I front $$ to. Most of my guys have played for years and it's pretty standard that you square up - IN CASH - the next week.
I don't want PayPal or Venmo because I need the Cash to replace what was fronted.
Nothing wrong with hard line rules, depends on the group.
Same for me - except that a new player who wants cash must PayPal me from the table. Guys I know I have no problem squaring up the next day or so. If I lose a player/friend over $200 so be it, but with my group it's highly unlikely someone is going to skip out on a few hundred bucks. It's not uncommon to front a few late night re-buy-in's per game. Often these players will win a few pots, pay me back and then go home. I may change my tune in the event I get burned, but with my group I don't see it happening anytime soon.
I always bank when I host, and I have one rule about players who don't have the cash to rebuy: Cash in cash out 100%. There is no book in my game.
That said, I trust the majority of players in my casual low stakes home games enough to loan them a buy-in out of my pocket if they're short. I've lost count of the times I've done so over my ten year history with the group, and to date I've never been stiffed.
That said, I trust the majority of players in my casual low stakes home games enough to loan them a buy-in out of my pocket if they're short. I've lost count of the times I've done so over my ten year history with the group, and to date I've never been stiffed.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
I've had to float loans twice. I don't really like it, but sometimes with friends you do what you need to do.
One paid me back the next time I saw him (it was the days before e-banking was common), the other paid via PayPal on the spot. In both cases the money went in the till from my pocket.
I also strongly advocate a 2-headed banker. Mrs Zombie collects the money and gets a count. I count the chips and recount the money. It slows things down a bit, but we like our wine, so it really is the smart thing to do.
One paid me back the next time I saw him (it was the days before e-banking was common), the other paid via PayPal on the spot. In both cases the money went in the till from my pocket.
I also strongly advocate a 2-headed banker. Mrs Zombie collects the money and gets a count. I count the chips and recount the money. It slows things down a bit, but we like our wine, so it really is the smart thing to do.
This is what I was thinking. If it's not written down, it didn't happen.
Even among friends, a signature isn't that outlandish to ask for.... especially if people have been drinking.
Nex
Flush
The problem with putting markers in is the cashing out part at the end of the night. The bank is short of money and usually I think everyone wants all their chips cashed out, so naturally there will be a point where someone gives some chips back and all the money from the bank is already gone. I don't think anyone would accept that marker as a replacement for actual cash paid out because it'd then be on them to get the debtor to cough up their money, so you'd then have to resort to paying extra money out of your own pocket anyway - which you might not have at hand.
So if you decide to borrow people money, why not put the money out of your pocket into the bank immediately and put the marker into your wallet instead? This way, if you find out you don't have enough spare cash ready, you can avoid a problematic situation at the end of the night before it even can arise.
So if you decide to borrow people money, why not put the money out of your pocket into the bank immediately and put the marker into your wallet instead? This way, if you find out you don't have enough spare cash ready, you can avoid a problematic situation at the end of the night before it even can arise.
I like @DrStrange suggestion of paying the bank for its services, as all real banks do the same. Most places I've been to the host acts as the bank, but on numerous occasions since people know I do math well then I have to bank. Honestly, I hate being put in this spot as what's the upside for me. My bank has never been ahead, and been behind a few times. When it was behind no one ever volunteered to help eat the loss it was just assumed I would. Usually due to a new 20/100 bill that gets stuck. My players used to laugh when I would crumple and ruin every new bill that came through as best as I could, but even still sometimes they get stuck together and you don't realize it.
As far as lending money to players at the table I hated doing it and still do with certain people. It all depends on how well I know you and know your financial situation. I've now been stiffed twice for amounts between $500-1000 and as a result am out two very good friends (or what I would've called friends) because of how they have handled their responsibility. On the other end of the spectrum, I've done some business with some poker friends that have resulted in moving significant sums of money (5 digits+) as both a borrower and lender without a hitch, so who knows. Just depends on the person I suppose. Either way I hate being screwed out of cash, but hate even more that a person just doesn't own up to their responsibility.
As far as lending money to players at the table I hated doing it and still do with certain people. It all depends on how well I know you and know your financial situation. I've now been stiffed twice for amounts between $500-1000 and as a result am out two very good friends (or what I would've called friends) because of how they have handled their responsibility. On the other end of the spectrum, I've done some business with some poker friends that have resulted in moving significant sums of money (5 digits+) as both a borrower and lender without a hitch, so who knows. Just depends on the person I suppose. Either way I hate being screwed out of cash, but hate even more that a person just doesn't own up to their responsibility.
How can you prevent people from loaning each other money? For example, player A goes broke...player A then proceeds to ask for a loan from player B. How could I tell them what to do? It is none of my business.
As banker all I care about is making the bank square. If people want to loan each other money and bicker about it later that is their beef.
My favorite is when people get mad when you won't lend them money. This is always a good sign to let you know that you indeed made the right call.
Nex
Flush
Was it really ever the question here if you would allow money borrowing at your games in general?
As I understood it, the question was if the house/bank (i.e. you yourself) should do it or not.
And yes, if other people decide to borrow people money... that's their own business. They take the risk, nothing to care about for you. As long as this doesn't lead to collusion between those two people, why would you disallow it? I wouldn't ever lend money out to people for gambling, but I don't see any reason why I would want to prevent other players from lending people money as long as everyone keeps playing fair.
As I understood it, the question was if the house/bank (i.e. you yourself) should do it or not.
And yes, if other people decide to borrow people money... that's their own business. They take the risk, nothing to care about for you. As long as this doesn't lead to collusion between those two people, why would you disallow it? I wouldn't ever lend money out to people for gambling, but I don't see any reason why I would want to prevent other players from lending people money as long as everyone keeps playing fair.
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
moose
4 of a Kind
You control the bank. If you have a no loans policy simply don't allow someone to rebuy on borrowed money.
It does save arguments if you don't allow loans. Also you won't have someone not show up because they owe other players money. You also won't be asked to adjudicate if someone buys in at a later game but still owes someone money. You won't have any accusations of collusion between players that are on a loan.
Loans are just a bad idea all around. If they can't come with enough money to play the game then they shouldn't be there.
OP
OP
200 Motels
Flush
The folks in the OP settled last night. No Cash showed up and when they bought in, they got $100 and paid $50 to cashier and said "it's more than anyone else would get". Which I think is a fair solution knowing it was very likely their $100 missing and cashier didn't track it properly. Compromise.
In my view, loans are good for our game.
We play friendly enough stakes that the loan might max out at $200, typically it's $50 or $100. I keep a float so I can pay out loans that same night in cash, and typically before the game has completely wrapped up I've got an e-transfer for the amount in my email. If I don't really know the person I might ask that they e-transfer me ahead of time, but for the most part I'm comfortable letting players play on credit and settling at the end.
It's my opinion that it's on me to cover any errors in the bank, however. I'm the only one handing out buy ins, dealing with cash and paying out at the end of the game. I'd be embarassed to ask the winning players to cover it.
We play friendly enough stakes that the loan might max out at $200, typically it's $50 or $100. I keep a float so I can pay out loans that same night in cash, and typically before the game has completely wrapped up I've got an e-transfer for the amount in my email. If I don't really know the person I might ask that they e-transfer me ahead of time, but for the most part I'm comfortable letting players play on credit and settling at the end.
It's my opinion that it's on me to cover any errors in the bank, however. I'm the only one handing out buy ins, dealing with cash and paying out at the end of the game. I'd be embarassed to ask the winning players to cover it.
I think that the issue with putting any of it on the player is that, how do you know it's his $100 that's short? I don't know how you could say he has anything to do with it. The bank remembers loaning him $200, and after a full table count the totals confirm that. So either the short happened sometime between that count and the last man that cashed out, or the bank made multiple mistakes that night. Unless you can show that someone reached in the bank and stole it, the person who is handing out chips for cash and cash for chips is the one who made the error, and therefore responsible for it. My guess is that this PLO rainman they got to be the bank is better with numbers in his head than cash in his hand.
I'd like permission to use this in future circus games, please.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.