Oh, shit! It’s Judge Car Parts!
-
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!
Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (32 Viewers)
- Thread starter Rhodeman77
- Start date
Oh, shit! It’s Judge Car Parts!
bergs
Royal Flush
Technically it’s Jury Foreman Mister Car Parts
MrCatPants
Full House
Ive never won an election for foreman in my whole life @Jonesey07
@DrStrange might be willing to be devils advocate?
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
One thing I've learned over my career and advice to defense counsel: get paid up front.
Good. I’m not sure I could make myself refer to a junkyard owning cat in pants as “your honor.”
BarrieJ3
Royal Flush
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 13,234
- Reaction score
- 28,384
- Location
- 129 West 81st Street, Apartment 5B
Where are the car parts?
Daniel Albarran
Two Pair
Host pays.
NEVER take credit. This is what breaks home games.
NEVER take credit. This is what breaks home games.
From the description, that isn't the real problem.. the problem is they didn't actually extend credit since they didn't cover the debt.If all accounts are true, the problem (sadly) is that @Goldfish trusted his players enough to extend credit, and didn't take a rake to cover it.
Unfortunately, extending credit pretty much means that you have to take a rake. Otherwise we get nasty situations like these
They just let a buddy play for free and shorted other players.
edit..
Last edited:
grandmeme
3 of a Kind
You are right, it wasn't credit - more like a freeroll. This thread helps me remember why I don't host anything above micro stakes or 1/1 anymore lol
Host has the responsibility of the being the bank. How did he get to continue to run games without paying out previous debts over the last two years?
In cases like these, if its clear that you're just getting the run around. I like to go with the 'Reverse Big Store'.
"It doesn't matter if we win, just as long as the casino loses"
This is why I wouldn't invite people to my home I don't trust. Now the wronged knows where the host lives. Should they ever want a little payback, they know where to find him. I'm not alluding to violence or any serious crimes, but I wouldn't be opposed to a little vandalism should opportunity arise. I may not get my money back, but you sure as hell don't get to keep it.
In cases like these, if its clear that you're just getting the run around. I like to go with the 'Reverse Big Store'.
"It doesn't matter if we win, just as long as the casino loses"
This is why I wouldn't invite people to my home I don't trust. Now the wronged knows where the host lives. Should they ever want a little payback, they know where to find him. I'm not alluding to violence or any serious crimes, but I wouldn't be opposed to a little vandalism should opportunity arise. I may not get my money back, but you sure as hell don't get to keep it.
I wasn’t going to post, but now I feel compelled to do so. The OP is close to 100%, probably leaving a few facts out and including others for effect. My understanding was that everyone was going to pay or get paid when the session concluded, which is how it worked the prior time I played in the game (and lost). There was no “swindling” or side deal where the host got paid but I didn’t. In fact, I am pretty sure the host went out of pocket for a certain amount. And the real villain in this story is the “Big Loser”. But I am out of town and have no means to follow up with the Big Loser or anyone else for that matter.
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Don't derail this thread with your facts man, c'mon.
I don’t think a rake is necessary, so long as you honor the loan. Aside from the game, he lent money to players to buy into his game. When you play a game, you expect to be paid for the chips you cash in. By granting these loans, the host needs to act as the guarantor to ensure the game is made whole. Else, why take loans in the first place?Unfortunately, extending credit pretty much means that you have to take a rake. Otherwise we get nasty situations like these
Bluegrass Poker
Flush
Swindle is probably too harsh but it’s more than misaligned etiquette as well. Much more IMO.
Bluegrass Poker
Flush
Anyone else scrolling through the whole thread now to see if any of the parties commented before being named. Or is it just me.
OP
OP
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
Wrong Big Loser, we know you lost weight you sexy bitch, no need to body shame the rest of us fat asses
You are perfect the way you are, my little cinnamon bun....Wrong Big Loser, we know you lost weight you sexy bitch, no need to body shame the rest of us fat asses
elemeno
Two Pair
Those Animal House chips sure are pretty, but they are worthless if there isn’t money backing them.
Sell some chips. Make your players whole.
Sell some chips. Make your players whole.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Also to my knowledge, no one at the godfather club has a 4-figure line of credit let alone 5-figures
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
If a big loser in my .25/.50 app game decided not to pay up one week, this is how i would propose resolving it. Possibly refined for hands played to be more precise. We are extremely selectiveo about who plays so we don't get freerolled though. Hasn't been an issue but always could be.
Kain8
Flush
Seeing that further drama escalation isn't happening because the big loser isn't a PCFer to be named as well:
Wow, okay, I am just catching up on this.
First, the facts - Yes, @Hornet and @Headhunter13 came to my house to play in a game with folks I regularly play with. The regulars I play with are all credit players (I don't want cash at my house for obvious reasons). No, this game was not raked. Yes, the expectation is that all accounts are squared up immediately after the game. Yes, one of the long-standing regulars went bad (only the second time in all my years of hosting). None of my regular guys expected me to cover but did expect that I distribute the collected losses pro rata to the winners (as I am not the house, just the host). Because I paid all the collected losses to David and Jay and refused to claw it back, I came out of pocket to bring everyone else up to the percentage that they got paid. I am still attempting to collect the remaining amount owed (and have not declared that debt uncollectible), and have told both David and Jay I would cover if I can’t get the money, which essentially means that I will need to pay all the winners from that night, which as noted below is not the norm.
Second, context is important to this issue. The world of micro/small stakes home games where credit is atypical is vastly different than the world of higher stakes home games where credit is a must or is the norm. I think many of those that have responded here dwell in the land of lower stakes games where credit is way out of the norm and not expected or routinely provided by the host. I can see in those types of situations that players would raise an eyebrow when the host extends credit. However, at higher stakes home games, paying in cash as players go, or by electronic means for each buy-in (creating a lot of back and forth transactions) simply is not realistic. Credit is a must and is the norm. Players at these games typically square up at the end of the night and often the host connects winners and losers to minimize transactions. Realistically speaking, the worlds of low stakes and higher stakes are vastly different, and experiences simply do not translate. Simply put, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Third, higher stakes home games, because they are not casinos, run on an inherently flawed system, fraught with risk (which increases as the stakes increase). In light of these inherent flaws, generally speaking, players attending home games assume many of the risks of the game they are attending. In the home game circuit there are obvious risks/disadvantages with raked games as they are mostly illegal, tend to be more widely publicized so the risk of security issues is higher, have a much wider pool of players (which increases credit risks), and, because the host is trying to keep the game going at all costs, the line up quality may suffer. The expected upside of a raked game is that the house generally is guarantying the game (and credit issues are dealt with by the house on the back end). In a raked game, I agree that the host is 100% responsible for paying out winners that night (or shortly thereafter – at least before the next game) and ultimately guarantying payment. That is the primary point of a rake - to protect the house from slow pay or bad debt and to compensate the house for extending credit that may take some time to recover or which may ultimately go bad.
Non-raked home games are different – with different upsides and risk. The biggest upside is that closed non-raked home game many times have the best action/line ups. In those games, everyone wants (and benefits) from the action players playing up to their net worth as opposed to what is in their pocket that night. While these games tend to be tightly closed and only have known/trusted/vetted players with A credit, there are times when someone slow pays or even goes bad.
In my experience, in games where credit is the norm and no rake is taken, the host is not responsible for the slow debt/bad debt. It is shared equally among the winners for that night. Yes, this system is flawed. Yes, it is a crappy situation. Yes, the host should take the lead to deal with the situation (to facilitate payment from the nonpaying loser). Yes, many times, the host gets paid last if a winner that night. Yes, the slow payer/no payer does not play until he/she pays and could lose his/her right to play on credit going forward. However, IMO, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the host to be held unilaterally responsible for this debt and have to cover the bad debt. The host would have to be insane to take on all the risk (guarantying all the players), especially without protecting him/herself through profit/revenue from the game. If that was the case why on earth would anyone host? They wouldn’t, plain and simple. Having people over for a poker game, and guarantying all the money on the table (especially without charging for the risk taken) would be a nightmare. No reasonable person would do it.
Moreover, players can’t have it both ways - no rake, but a guaranty by the host. That is simply unreasonable and not fair. At least around my area, players attending non-raked games understand that credit issues are a risk but are happy to take that risk given the significant potential upside (playing in an awesome line up). Typically, a complete default doesn’t happen because that person would essentially be bounced out of the game and others in the area (or he would lose his/her credit status and be on a posting basis). With that said, defaults can and do happen from time to time.
Bottom line, this is a very crappy situation for me. On the one hand, none of my regulars feels like I am responsible for covering this bad debt, and in fact, feel like I have already gone above and beyond by coming out of pocket to bring everyone up to the level that David and Jay were paid. On the other hand, I personally feel like because David and Jay are not regulars (essentially guests), I should pay them if I cannot collect the money, which in turn means I need to pay all winners in full. I have been told that payment will be coming for some time now and I have been patiently waiting. As I said above, I already told David and Jay I would cover them – which means I will need to pay all winners from that night. Welcome to the horrors of hosting.
First, the facts - Yes, @Hornet and @Headhunter13 came to my house to play in a game with folks I regularly play with. The regulars I play with are all credit players (I don't want cash at my house for obvious reasons). No, this game was not raked. Yes, the expectation is that all accounts are squared up immediately after the game. Yes, one of the long-standing regulars went bad (only the second time in all my years of hosting). None of my regular guys expected me to cover but did expect that I distribute the collected losses pro rata to the winners (as I am not the house, just the host). Because I paid all the collected losses to David and Jay and refused to claw it back, I came out of pocket to bring everyone else up to the percentage that they got paid. I am still attempting to collect the remaining amount owed (and have not declared that debt uncollectible), and have told both David and Jay I would cover if I can’t get the money, which essentially means that I will need to pay all the winners from that night, which as noted below is not the norm.
Second, context is important to this issue. The world of micro/small stakes home games where credit is atypical is vastly different than the world of higher stakes home games where credit is a must or is the norm. I think many of those that have responded here dwell in the land of lower stakes games where credit is way out of the norm and not expected or routinely provided by the host. I can see in those types of situations that players would raise an eyebrow when the host extends credit. However, at higher stakes home games, paying in cash as players go, or by electronic means for each buy-in (creating a lot of back and forth transactions) simply is not realistic. Credit is a must and is the norm. Players at these games typically square up at the end of the night and often the host connects winners and losers to minimize transactions. Realistically speaking, the worlds of low stakes and higher stakes are vastly different, and experiences simply do not translate. Simply put, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Third, higher stakes home games, because they are not casinos, run on an inherently flawed system, fraught with risk (which increases as the stakes increase). In light of these inherent flaws, generally speaking, players attending home games assume many of the risks of the game they are attending. In the home game circuit there are obvious risks/disadvantages with raked games as they are mostly illegal, tend to be more widely publicized so the risk of security issues is higher, have a much wider pool of players (which increases credit risks), and, because the host is trying to keep the game going at all costs, the line up quality may suffer. The expected upside of a raked game is that the house generally is guarantying the game (and credit issues are dealt with by the house on the back end). In a raked game, I agree that the host is 100% responsible for paying out winners that night (or shortly thereafter – at least before the next game) and ultimately guarantying payment. That is the primary point of a rake - to protect the house from slow pay or bad debt and to compensate the house for extending credit that may take some time to recover or which may ultimately go bad.
Non-raked home games are different – with different upsides and risk. The biggest upside is that closed non-raked home game many times have the best action/line ups. In those games, everyone wants (and benefits) from the action players playing up to their net worth as opposed to what is in their pocket that night. While these games tend to be tightly closed and only have known/trusted/vetted players with A credit, there are times when someone slow pays or even goes bad.
In my experience, in games where credit is the norm and no rake is taken, the host is not responsible for the slow debt/bad debt. It is shared equally among the winners for that night. Yes, this system is flawed. Yes, it is a crappy situation. Yes, the host should take the lead to deal with the situation (to facilitate payment from the nonpaying loser). Yes, many times, the host gets paid last if a winner that night. Yes, the slow payer/no payer does not play until he/she pays and could lose his/her right to play on credit going forward. However, IMO, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the host to be held unilaterally responsible for this debt and have to cover the bad debt. The host would have to be insane to take on all the risk (guarantying all the players), especially without protecting him/herself through profit/revenue from the game. If that was the case why on earth would anyone host? They wouldn’t, plain and simple. Having people over for a poker game, and guarantying all the money on the table (especially without charging for the risk taken) would be a nightmare. No reasonable person would do it.
Moreover, players can’t have it both ways - no rake, but a guaranty by the host. That is simply unreasonable and not fair. At least around my area, players attending non-raked games understand that credit issues are a risk but are happy to take that risk given the significant potential upside (playing in an awesome line up). Typically, a complete default doesn’t happen because that person would essentially be bounced out of the game and others in the area (or he would lose his/her credit status and be on a posting basis). With that said, defaults can and do happen from time to time.
Bottom line, this is a very crappy situation for me. On the one hand, none of my regulars feels like I am responsible for covering this bad debt, and in fact, feel like I have already gone above and beyond by coming out of pocket to bring everyone up to the level that David and Jay were paid. On the other hand, I personally feel like because David and Jay are not regulars (essentially guests), I should pay them if I cannot collect the money, which in turn means I need to pay all winners in full. I have been told that payment will be coming for some time now and I have been patiently waiting. As I said above, I already told David and Jay I would cover them – which means I will need to pay all winners from that night. Welcome to the horrors of hosting.
Strong opening statement by the defendant!
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.
Similar threads
