Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (7 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

I hear you loud and clear on this one. I was just trying to relate to @DrStrange 's point that banking is a no win proposition in an unranked game, but it's an necessary job and one that requires high skill as you point out.

I haven't never had a banking error in the past 6 years of hosting. Closest I came was being a dollar high and realizing I was short one chip in the bank. Sure enough, when I went to take my table apart for storage, I found an uncashed dollar chip stuck under the rail in my spot.

This is a good example of where it balances out. An off-balance bank isn't always a shortage; sometimes it's an overage. In fact, if your banking practices are solid, you should seldom have any discrepancies, and most of them should be overages—almost universally from people misplacing chips.

That's what you gain from being a good banker. You get the forgotten money.

But I am reminded of one of the first "bigger games" (in my opinion six years ago anyway, but it was 25¢-50¢ 60 max) I hosted. I was still in the set up a vinyl octagon table in my living room stage of hosting. We ended up with about $800 in the room as memory serves and I was just pocketing the buy ins. It became warm in the house so I took off my hoodie during a quick break. As we were getting close to breaking the game, I realized I didn't know where the bankroll was for the game. The players were a mix of friends, and other people from other games, so i didn't think anyone would have stolen it, but I couldn't dismiss that thought either.

I knew I had the money in my casino bankroll, so without saying a word to anyone, I paid everyone out of that and would figure it out later. My rep as a host mattered more in that moment.

So everyone left, and I started search everywhere I had been to see if I had dropped it somewhere. I then decided to change for bed, and sure enough, I found the money in my back pocket all along. I must have moved it there when I changed out of my sweatshirt as I was making an effort to keep the game money separate from my buy in money.

But how much damage would I have done if I accused players of stealing with no basis? I was prepared to eat that $800 as a lesson and it's valuable to my reputation, even if none of those players are on PCF.

It also wasn't long after that I acquired my present day "poker cabinet."

Point is, hosting may be a no-win job, but it's important not to put things on your players. The host in the original post does not have a shred of that integrity and it needs to be made known.

The way you handled the runaway purse was exemplary. You messed up, shielded your players from the results, and sorted it out without having to impose on anyone. It sucks that it happened, but you made the right call.

 

[glynn]

I often bank in my game, and we play for fairly large stakes. We are all friends. I wouldn’t bank if I was being asked to take all of the risk. And I wouldn’t expect others banking to take all of the risk. Although I agree that the banker bears primary responsibility, players have some responsibility as well, at least to verify a cash out. We all share in shortages, which are few and far between, and that’s our preference.

I don't know if anyone noticed that this ties directly into the house fee conversation that happened earlier in the thread.

If you are taking a fee, then you can more confidently (and be expected to) assume more risk because:

 

[ekricket]

didn’t we learn anything from Boscoe?

Go to BL’s wife and let her know what’s going on. Boscoes shit got straitened out in a hurry when his fiance got involved.

 

[JustinInMN]

didn’t we learn anything from Boscoe?

Go to BL’s wife and let her know what’s going on. Boscoes shit got straitened out in a hurry when his fiance got involved.

/Thread !

 

[Coyote]

The morale of the story is (after having read 7 out of 10 pages):
-Don't play at casino-level stakes in homes. Play just a little bit lower. NOT for that kind of money.
-Never offer any credit (let alone at an interest rate) in home games. Cash only. No electronic crap. No ATM is far enough.
Actually, these two are exactly the criteria for Greek Police to NOT raid home games.

 

[BGinGA]

Went back and re-read the OP, edited below for brevity:

I was recently invited to a new home game. I casually know the host, but we aren’t friends really.

The game is a mix of cash and electronic payments, but mostly electronic. Debts are settled up at the end of the game to reduce the amount of transactions.

The game got deep, and 1 particular player kept rebuying for $1k at a time and losing it fast

we get to the end of the night and it is time to settle up.

The Big Loser (BL) pulls the host aside and tells him he doesn’t have the money to pay what he lost. BL is a pretty regular player in the game apparently

The host pays out the smaller stacks from the cash/payments he does have but myself and the other big winner are both told we will have to wait until the BL pays up to get paid! We got our initial buy-ins back and a portion of our profit

It has now been over a month and no money still.

What is the best way to handle this? What responsibility does the host have?

I have not played in the game since then and messages with the host get the same reply that he is still waiting to get the money from the BL.

So, what do I do???

The host has made it very clear that OP isn't getting paid until after BL pays his debt to the game. This changes the entire "home game" dynamic imo, because it essentially now means that BL owes you, not the game.

Since that's the case, OP is totally justified in contacting BL directly and having a discussion: attempting to collect the money that BL owes him, or to speed up the game repayment process, or to negotiate an installment payment plan.

OP is also justified in continuing to attend the game (even if not playing) to ensure that BL is not being allowed to play further without first paying off his previous debt to the game (and thus to OP). I can't fathom that the host would actually let him play again before first settling up, but who knows. And I would find out.

I'm also curious if BL paid anything toward his buy-ins that night -- or did he just stiff the game for the entire amount he lost?

There's no way I'm just sitting back silently at home after over a month of no action towards getting paid and doing nothing.

 

[JustinInMN]

The host has made it very clear that OP isn't getting paid until after BL pays his debt to the game. This changes the entire "home game" dynamic imo, because it essentially now means that BL owes you, not the game.

Since that's the case, OP is totally justified in contacting BL directly and having a discussion: attempting to collect the money that BL owes him, or to speed up the game repayment process, or to negotiate an installment payment plan.

Agree with most of it, but I don't think it's an either/or here. The host is trying to get away with deflecting responsibility for his credit decision, and has decided to turn the OP into the debt collector. He shouldn't get away with that. OP is surely justified in contacting the BL for sure, but he should not stop hounding the host for action either. But given how scummy the host has been on this, I know there isn't much to be expected.

At some point, if there is no action on this, OP needs to use his influence to get both host and player blacklisted from as many games as possible.

 

[BGinGA]

Agree with most of it, but I don't think it's an either/or here. The host is trying to get away with deflecting responsibility for his credit decision, and has decided to turn the OP into the debt collector. He shouldn't get away with that. OP is surely justified in contacting the BL for sure, but he should not stop hounding the host for action either. But given how scummy the host has been on this, I know there isn't much to be expected.

At some point, if there is no action on this, OP needs to use his influence to get both host and player blacklisted from as many games as possible.

Based on my re-read, it doesn't seem like the host was really "issuing credit" to BL in any way beyond what was considered 'normal' for this game for all players (pay for your game funding actions at end-of-game). I suspect the host fully expected BL to settle up at the end of the game as usual (unless this was some type of scam). BL is the primary 'at fault' person here, imo.

Gotta wonder if BL disclosed privately to the host "I cannot pay" and then exited, or stuck around to actually see players get shorted at cash-out. Scumbag either way.

The host had several options -- spread the shortage across all winners, target just the biggest winners, insist that BL present IOUs to the players who were shorted, etc. I think he chose unwisely, but that doesn't necessarily make him a villain -- by far the greatest responsibility and blame falls on BL.

 

[JustinInMN]

Based on my re-read, it doesn't seem like the host was really "issuing credit" to BL in any way beyond what was considered 'normal' for this game for all players (pay for your game funding actions at end-of-game). I suspect the host fully expected BL to settle up at the end of the game as usual (unless this was some type of scam). BL is the primary 'at fault' person here, imo.

So I think the issue in question is whether or not this is a "personal" loan between host and player or if this is a "game function" as you put it. My opinions are clearly formed with the former assumption.

Even under the latter assumption, the host did create this culture and does need to bear at least some responsibility when issues come up. The host's attitude of appointing @Rhodeman77 the collector and wiping his hands of it is awful and why I am making him out as a villain as well, even if I would agree BL does bear the most blame. I don't want it lost that the host is shirking his duty to the game by outsourcing the collection responsibility to @Rhodeman77.

Also, if it is a "game culture" thing, then the expectation of spreading the loss makes a lot more sense than picking and choosing who gets made whole and who gets completely stiffed.

Gotta wonder if BL disclosed privately to the host "I cannot pay" and then exited, or stuck around to actually see players get shorted at cash-out. Scumbag either way.

I share this curiosity.

 

[gopherblue]

I often bank in my game, and we play for fairly large stakes. We are all friends. I wouldn’t bank if I was being asked to take all of the risk. And I wouldn’t expect others banking to take all of the risk. Although I agree that the banker bears primary responsibility, players have some responsibility as well, at least to verify a cash out. We all share in shortages, which are few and far between, and that’s our preference.

Hmph. I don’t think you fully understand the scenario the OP has discussed: this isn’t about a short bank due to a cash out snafu. This is about a host letting a player go deep on credit, and that player lost a large amount, and then skipped on reimbursing the host, who is basically telling the OP “oh well.”

The host is on the hook here, and tbh, he should be persona non grata at any game until he makes good. Frankly, if this was a PCFer who did this, I know the pitchforks would be out in force, and that guy would be a pariah here, even if he was a fish.

 

[Hornet]

Hmph. I don’t think you fully understand the scenario the OP has discussed: this isn’t about a short bank due to a cash out snafu. This is about a host letting a player go deep on credit, and that player lost a large amount, and then skipped on reimbursing the host, who is basically telling the OP “oh well.”

The host is on the hook here, and tbh, he should be persona non grata at any game until he makes good. Frankly, if this was a PCFer who did this, I know the pitchforks would be out in force, and that guy would be a pariah here, even if he was a fish.

I was not attempting to address the scenario in the OP. I was just responding to @Jimulacrum’s specific post about banking.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

 

[Rhodeman77]

My local online game plays much like the game in the OP. We play most nights and the losers Venmo the banker who then pays everyone out. To assume if someone didn’t pay that night it is the banker’s responsibility solely to cover the shortage would be wrong. But we are also very selective in who let into the game to protect it/us. The core group often text about players if they go on long losing streaks or have multiple big losses in a short time frame. We reach out to them to gauge if they are potentially playing above their means. We have removed some player for extended time to protect everyone.

How much due diligence has the host done to make sure his players aren’t in debt to other games? Have players been slower to pay recently or paying as soon as the game breaks?

How much personal info does host keep on his players in general?

All of the players in a game like this are putting a lot of faith in the host to only allow players that have the ability to pay into the game.

 

[JustinInMN]

My local online game plays much like the game in the OP. We play most nights and the losers Venmo the banker who then pays everyone out. To assume if someone didn’t pay that night it is the banker’s responsibility solely to cover the shortage would be wrong.

So given this, I can understand why the group wouldn't want to make it the bankers sole responsibility. But that the same time, I think it's clear the banker has SOME responsibility that he is trying to shirk. And at worst, if this is a group culture thing, he still arbitrarily assigned out the responsibility to individuals to settle up instead of sharing the hit among the group.

So yes, I still think both host and BL have made blacklist-able offenses. Host is easier to redeem, he should be making an effort to contact the BL at a minimum. He also should have distributed the loss across the group, that seems plain to me now if the culture is that everyone understand the settle up expectation, then everyone should share in the responsibility if someone welches. That mistake should me motivating him more to make you whole but it appears to have done the opposite.

BL's only path to redemption is to pay in full.

You are in a space still where you can turn up the heat a bit and see how they respond before going scorched earth, but you are a past a space where you can just hope they make good without you having to squeak a bit.

 

[TomC727]

You are in a space still where you can turn up the heat a bit and see how they respond before going scorched earth, but you are a past a space where you can just hope they make good without you having to squeak a bit.

This right here is the 100% truth. I can't read the OP's mind, and I'm curious if he has been contacting BL and Host every few days or weekly or every other week, or maybe a month later. Not sure, but after a month of nothing, I'd be lighting the torch and getting ready for scorched earth.

 

[Frogzilla]

My local online game plays much like the game in the OP. We play most nights and the losers Venmo the banker who then pays everyone out. To assume if someone didn’t pay that night it is the banker’s responsibility solely to cover the shortage would be wrong. But we are also very selective in who let into the game to protect it/us. The core group often text about players if they go on long losing streaks or have multiple big losses in a short time frame. We reach out to them to gauge if they are potentially playing above their means. We have removed some player for extended time to protect everyone.

How much due diligence has the host done to make sure his players aren’t in debt to other games? Have players been slower to pay recently or paying as soon as the game breaks?

How much personal info does host keep on his players in general?

All of the players in a game like this are putting a lot of faith in the host to only allow players that have the ability to pay into the game.

We do the exact same. Losers pay winners. Everyone is assumed to be good for it. Way too much on the table for anyone to actually bank. Slow pays (like a week-ish) due to Venmo/zelle limits are normal, only once in years has someone been delinquent and they (to my surprise) eventually made good. After like two months, go figure. And in that two months the stiffed winner got the big D, so perhaps he made out ahead not having to split that.

 

[MrCatPants]

And in that two months the stiffed winner got the big D, so perhaps he made out ahead not having to split that.

Divorce was like the 6th word I came to. That took a bit.

 

[Trihonda]

While I think @BGinGA has valid points that the host is not the primary villain... However, for the host to lay all the responsibility to collect the debt on the OP is scummy. The host invited BL to the game. The host should have some responsibility for inviting solid players, and NOT turning certain players into debt collectors... The host made the decision to short certain players rather than spread the losses around.

 

[Frogzilla]

I’m really curious how the host cashed himself out. If he completely ate his cashout im much more sympathetic

 

[BPTDirector]

BL should be banned from play until he pays up. To me the host is suspect as well, he extended the fraudulent credit. He has a responsibility in this too.

 

[grantc54]

TLDR, if Sopranos taught me anything time to take a big.

 

[onerand]

Adam,

We also had losers pay winners during pandemic era mavens/app degen days. Same reasons you shared. And a live game is also run like such a collective, where host just provides the means and everyone understands, that's fine.

But that's not your situation. Here the host is the casino. If he gives credit, its his responsibility to honor it if someone won't or can't pay. Host owes you the money, not the guy who lost.

These are very difficult spots. But if you have not spoken with the host to tell him that he owes you the money, that its his obligation to pay you, I think you should. If he balks, then he's not running an honest game.

R

 

[onerand]

I should add, and here I am posting twice in one month, one possible solution is, if you're owed 5k, host covers your initial buy in for next 5 sessions.

Ability to pay may not be issue, but shared bank account with wife is. This softens it out.

I would also want to come again to see of BL is playing. Would want to know. I guess you could find out from your friend who plays also. If he is playing but not making you whole, many others like him have come before.

R

 

[upNdown]

Thought more about this and a couple additional factors that might influence best approach

-what % of BL’s buy in did he pay (buying in for 20 but only able to cover 12 is different and shows different intent than walking on the full 20)

-how inebriated was BL during the last rebuys

-how did BL eventually get cut off

- what % of your winnings were you paid (you win 10 but only paid 6…yes you’re owed 10, but it’s really easy to rationalize that you were never winning 10 if BL was cutoff, and no one has much sympathy for someone beating a game for 6. Different than winning 10 but only paid 1-2)

-the host is playing, ya? How much did he cash himself out?

Still interested to see these answers. @Rhodeman77 ?

 

[Lunettesman]

What has the other player who didn't get his cash done?

 

[krafticus]

I should add, and here I am posting twice in one month, one possible solution is, if you're owed 5k, host covers your initial buy in for next 5 sessions.

Ability to pay may not be issue, but shared bank account with wife is. This softens it out.

I would also want to come again to see of BL is playing. Would want to know. I guess you could find out from your friend who plays also. If he is playing but not making you whole, many others like him have come before.

R

Having the cost cover a buy-in is all good, until he’s up big again and doesn’t get paid….again

 

[onerand]

Mark, as the great Tom Sowell said many times: there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

R

 

[bergs]

This is a great thread if it made Roman a suddenly prolific poster.

 

[DeeVee8]

Sounds like its time to go shopping around the hosts house.

 

[Taghkanic]

I don’t know if that’s entirely true. Hero reports that the custom of this game is to settle up everything at the end of the night. It seems likely that host assumed the guy would pay up at the end of the night. So he probably didn’t actually choose to make a loan; the host and the game got stiffed.



I’ve seen a couple of people take this angle and it seems a little crazy to me. He did nothing of the sort. He didn’t pay the two biggest winners. Seems like a normal decision to me (once you get past the unforgivable fact that the host couldbt/wouldnt pay everybody.)



Without defending the host, I can get on board with some of what the Dr. is saying. People replying here saying “theft” and suggesting violence violence and/or taking collateral - I think they’re wrong. You don’t have to be one extreme or the other. The host screwed up and he should try to get the money to make good. And he’s a shit-host. But unless this is a pattern with this host or this was some sort of insidious plan (and there’s zero evidence for either) then what’s the point of beating up the host? He had good intentions, he put on a good game, and it didn’t work out. And again, assuming Hero got back at least his buy-in, he hasn’t actually lost anything - he just simply hasn’t been paid money that was never there.

Completely disagree.

It is the host’s responsibility to know his players. And to protect his guests from someone he and he alone allowed into the game, who he allowed to play far above his means.

If he misjudged the tilted player, he needs to be responsible for that mistake. Passing it off onto unsuspecting guests is really dirty pool.

I would never go back to this game even if the host makes good, plus interest.