Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (32 Viewers)

[Josh Kifer]

Strong opening statement by the defendant!

But I didn't see one animated gif... So -2 points.....

 

[LeCoq]

Let's hear the Prosecutors rebuttal

 

[CraigT78]

Please rise - the Court of the First PCF Judicial Circuit, Hosting Edition, is now in session, the Questionably Sane Bergs presiding.

Everyone but the jury may be seated.

Our jury today consists of @MatB, @Chippy McChiperson, @krafticus, @CraigT78, @MrCatPants, and @BarrieJ3. Thank you for your service in this matter, please be seated.

Who is representing the plaintiff and the defendant in this matter?

I cannot attend jury service as I have an appointment to donate plasma for an upcoming meetup. Can I get a deferred summons?

 

[BarrieJ3]

Per bird law, any suggestion or ruling must come with animated gif. +15 points to @Josh Kifer who is not plaintiff or defendant, but somehow is still winning the proceedings? Both goldfish and hornet may end up having to pay him out in the end.

I vote that we cut all the chips in half, and give half to the defendant and half to the plantiff.

 

[WedgeRock]

players can’t have it both ways - no rake, but a guaranty by the host.

Did the players, particularly the new, out-of-town players, extend credit to big loser? And if that is the norm, was it explained to the new, out-of-town players before the game? Did anyone have the power to refuse credit to the Big Loser?

have told both David and Jay I would cover if I can’t get the money,

When? It's been two years, right? When is the last time you made.contact with Big Loser to ask for the money *HE* owes?

 

[BarrieJ3]

(Joking aside, it seems pretty simple. Both parties very well known chippers, its a sucky situation, hopefully it get resolves sooner rather than later, all parties think the same one individual is at fault, and like every other thing that comes up we all learn a mistake to not make - ensuring that everyone knows credit is credit and having a plan in place beforehand - fwiw I like the group absorbing/sharing the losses equally if it's all known friends as it's what I've done as an attendee at lower stakes, and would be happy to do at higher stakes)

 

[gopherblue]

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.

Has the defaulting player been back to your game since then?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

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.

At what point do you honor your commitment and pay David and Jay in full? It’s been 2 years already.

 

[Kain8]

One way to deal with a dodgy big loser player:

 

[Goldfish]

Has the defaulting player been back to your game since then?

No, of course not. Life time ban.

 

[Rhodeman77]

So now we all know the risks of playing at the Animal House, but we're the guest's made aware before they attended?

I would say they didn’t know how the game was run at all. @Hornet said he and Jay both brought, and bought in with cash, while @Goldfish says his game is a completely credit based game. So there was definitely a lack of communication from host to guest players.

 

[upNdown]

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?

I’ve said this for years. Fortunately I play for quarters, so I can afford to make up any shortages, which I choose to do. But when it has happened as a guest, I’m fine with splitting up the loss.
As for high stakes, credit-extending, play up to your net worth games, I can appreciate the distinction and I’m glad that’s not my thing.

 

[Timmah]

If the non regulars knew about the credit system rules in advance, then they share in the lost payments. However, if they were not aware of the credit system rules, they should be made whole. If I go to cash out $3000 and the host says here’s $1500, not everyone paid up. I’d be pissed.

 

[Trihonda]

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.

Your arguments are flawed, and understandably biased. You chose to host a game. You chose to provide an environment where you float chips to players on credit. But you don’t want to accept the risks. You want it both ways, but players can’t have it both ways? They have no control, as you are the host…by choice.

The “nightmare” is easily avoidable.

1- If you decide to take credit, you accept the risk. The players can’t be responsible for your decision to lend people money, nor should they be on the hook when he defaults. So a player could veto your continuing to lend money to the loser?

2- You can decide to not take credit, or you limit credit. Or take collateral. The fact that you really want to host and you “need” to take credit at higher stakes is immaterial. You are choosing to do this. No one is forcing you to run a game or take credit.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Since everyone is interacting and it doesn’t feel like a pitchfork moment which is cool, was curious @Goldfish.

It looks like you gave the winnings on hand to the guests, and then also paid out of pocket up to that amount to others as well? Am I reading it right that it seemed like it was really just 1-2 giant losing people vs mostly winners?

And second question, do you guys have any room/table limits on stop losses? I’ve always preferred a credit environment, but am curious as to what rules friends would put in place with eachother.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

No, of course not. Life time ban.

Is he playing in other games in the area?

 

[buffalojim]

 

[Goldfish]

At what point do you honor your commitment and pay David and Jay in full? It’s been 2 years already.

First, it’s not a commitment. I am not obligated to pay as I noted above. Second, I have been waiting patiently for loser’s business partner to pay, but to no avail. If she tells me to pound sand, I will pay them along with everyone else. Again, under no obligation, but I think under the circumstances, it’s the right thing to do.

 

[Eriks]

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.

Imo this response/explanation reads fairly ok a couple of weeks after the fact, not so much a couple of years (!)

Playing ”in an awesome line-up” is supposed to outweigh potentially giving opponents a freeroll of one’s money?

 

[JustinInMN]

I do truly appreciate the alternate perspective here...

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.

I am really trying to appreciate this because I probably am one of the players you describe that won't do credit for any game I am hosting and I have never had more than $2000 in a room when I host. Frankly if I had the means to play higher on the regular, it would probably never be in a home game like this. So I am trying to get my head around this culture being different.

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 flaw that I can see is that it is unclear at best who is making the credit decisions and who is responsible. Is everyone on the hook for the credit decisions of one person? Does anyone other than the host have the ability to say "no" once red flags go up? You are already acknowledging that a number of hosts (and I would say PCF hosts are far better than average) posting here just don't get the culture. So even if I acknowledge that, you have to understand that knowledge gap probably goes beyond this thread and with new players to your game, which you do need to keep the pool full.

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 do really appreciate your perspective, but at the same time, it's been 2 years and the BL hasn't even given anything to show some good faith or acknowledgement of the issue? I get if he got in so deep it's like he's trying to "eat the elephant," but it feels like he should have at the very least been making at least occasional payments in that time to show good faith.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Your arguments are flawed, and understandably biased. You chose to host a game. You chose to provide an environment where you float chips to players on credit. But you don’t want to accept the risks. You want it both ways, but players can’t have it both ways? They have no control, as you are the host…by choice.

The “nightmare” is easily avoidable.

1- If you decide to take credit, you accept the risk. The players can’t be responsible for your decision to lend people money, nor should they be on the hook when he defaults. So a player could veto your continuing to lend money to the loser?

2- You can decide to not take credit, or you limit credit. Or take collateral. The fact that you really want to host and you “need” to take credit at higher stakes is immaterial. You are choosing to do this. No one is forcing you to run a game or take credit.

Kinda a question for everyone.

Obviously the guests deserve to be paid and hopefully are soon.

BUT - what if a group of friends/aquintences played together and settled up once a month or so, and played at say 2 different locations, or 4? Who is responsible?

Or, we jump online.

What I’m saying is, IF a game is truly friends and such, why does the location of the gambling matter if they all chose to participate.

Again, this example doesn’t work because the guests didn’t know it was credit. But to say you can’t have it both ways is wrong to me, because then you could never have a higher stakes, no take home game.

 

[softchewy]

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

First, it’s not a commitment. I am not obligated to pay as I noted above. Second, I have been waiting patiently for loser’s business partner to pay, but to no avail. If she tells me to pound sand, I will pay them along with everyone else. Again, under no obligation, but I think under the circumstances, it’s the right thing to do.

You said you told David and Jay you’d pay them if the big loser didn’t. To me that’s a commitment, but I’m not a lawyer.

 

[Goldfish]

Is he playing in other games in the area?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[MatB]

 

[wootaki]

Interesting dynamic. If the majority of the group is in support of the Host, they seem to have an understanding as friends. Maybe even sympathetic to the BL's financial woes. I think the issue is encouraging guys playing up to their net worth. Might not be your $1/$2 home game but if you're playing with mortgage money that's a different mindset

 

[Goldfish]

You said you told David and Jay you’d pay them if the big loser didn’t. To me that’s a commitment, but I’m not a lawyer.

Not committed in the sense that I am obligated to pay by virtue of being the host. Committed to pay on my own accord, just because …..

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Not committed in the sense that I am obligated to pay by virtue of being the host. Committed to pay on my own accord, just because …..

Yes, that’s what I was getting at. I never said you were committed as a host, although if you’re extending that much credit maybe you should be committed.

Also, why is BL’s business partner under any obligation to pay anything? That makes absolutely zero sense, if I was the business partner I’d tell you to eff off. And if you promised to pay Jay and David regardless, why not just pay them now, instead of waiting for this business partner to pay? If she does pay, great, you’re made whole. And if she doesn’t, you’ve honored your word. Either way, your reputation will be intact, and you might be even more incentivized to collect the money.

 

[upNdown]

You said you told David and Jay you’d pay them if the big loser didn’t. To me that’s a commitment, but I’m not a lawyer.

That’s a great question for a first year law school contracts class. Generally a promise without consideration (think quid pro quo) is not enforceable.
One of the few exceptions to this is if the promise has been made to repay a debt - then the promise is enforceable.
But in this case it brings us back to the original issue - does the host owe a debt to these guests?

 

[Rhodeman77]

Also, as a the host of an all credit game that has a “very tight invite list” how often are you checking the financial stability of players? Has this person been a slow pay in the past? Does him being an action player cloud your judgement as to if they should be on the list at all? Players in that game are putting faith in you that you have only allowed players that can afford it to be in the game.

We understand you aren’t raking the game, but you organize it, there is responsibility to make sure that the players in it are financially viable to pay debts. I’m guessing when @Windwalker goes to a big game they don’t just take his word for it that he is good for $100k.

Asking players to show an account with a balance to cover what they could potentially buy-in for isn’t crazy. The initial game in Molly’s Game required players to show proof of funds after the first cash buy-in to get into the game, and that game was much bigger than yours.

I made a player in my locals online game show proof of funds to be able to continue to play in our group because of how much he lost over 6 months (over $30k at that point).