Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (47 Viewers)

[ontheriver51]

Shitty situation, but it is definitely up to the host to square you up out of his own pocket. He made a deal to loan the guy some money and it's on him to pay people out. HE is the one that should be waiting on the BL to make HIM whole- not the other players (you)

 

[JustinInMN]

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

This is a very good point.

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 …..

So I think I can understand why you feel stuck here. You and your regulars understand your culture. The new players didn't. If the regulars understand the culture, they should be glad to share the haircut with you. But if I am reading between the lines correctly (and please tell me right away if I haven't) is that no one is sharing the loss except for whatever you did out of pocket for @Hornet and @Headhunter13. (And on an aside, this is a pretty big detail left out of the original post.)

Most of your defense about why you haven't paid is because of the culture of the game is such that everyone assumes some risk, but in practice it seems like the new players that justifiably would understand the culture the least, have lost nearly everything, and you @Goldfish, have been the only person to even try and make them partially whole. That doesn't sound like a fair sharing of risk to me given how you describe the culture. Which leaves me with this conclusion:

Either...
1) The culture of the game is such that asking a few of the other regs to contribute to the same level shouldn't be a big ask and maybe now is the time to do so
or 2) the culture you describe isn't as uniformly assumed as presented, even among your regs.

So I hope there can be some resolution, even if @Hornet and @Headhunter13 don't get to 100% whole, there needs to be some movement somewhere since it's been 2 years.

 

[allforcharity]

Let's keep this simple.

"The defendant pleads 'guilty'."

 

[JustinInMN]

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.

Wonder if "business partner" is a euphemism for spouse/significant other/life partner. You know, like the Boscoe situation .

 

[Anthony Martino]

I still feel the same, the Host should pay. It does not matter if it is 25c/25c game or a 10/20$ game. If you give people chips you as a bank are saying that these chips are now at face value in the game. You as a host must be able to change them back to money when requested. It does not care for me as a player if you got paid for the chips in cash, transfer, sexual favor, loan, exchange of goods or what else that is another transaction. If I win chips you are responsible for giving me cash for said chips. Other is just stealing.

I'm here for the sexual favors

 

[JustinInMN]

I'm here for the sexual favors

 

[Kain8]

I'm here for the sexual favors

Giving heads-up poker a whole new meaning.

 

[ValueTown]

Not a fan of digital payments for this reason. Cash game = cash.

If rebuys are electronic, then they get made at rebuy. Is 4 or 5 transactions really breaking the system?

Sounds irresponsible of both the host and BL. They in collusion?

 

[Rhodeman77]

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.

The business partner also plays in the game I was told.

 

[dpeks13]

The "I feel bad but there's nothing I can do about it" defense is disappointing.
Sorry to @Hornet and @Headhunter13 you both got hosed.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I'm here for the sexual favors

Giving heads-up poker a whole new meaning.

$20 and I go from gold fish to blow fish.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

$20 and I go from gold fish to blow fish.

$20 is $20 dollars.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Not a fan of the completely cashless game. I like the idea of players bringing at least some cash to show they actually have access to some!

And saying what is the benefit of hosting if the host is responsible for any shortfall, well the host gets to create the exact game environment they want. The mix of games, stakes, bomb pots, sit down game, and most importantly controls the invite list!

Those are all very valuable things to have control of as host and should go a long way to increasing the hosts potential for profit.

I host for many of those same reasons. I don’t rake and am often extending credit, sometimes I have $5k loaned out for a game. But I know my players very well and I have cut some of them off as well. Especially when they are drinking.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

Man, I’m just a little low stakes player who can’t possibly understand how these big money games play. And I guess that’s true because I think it’s complete BS that the host says he’s going to pay but for 2 years hasn’t paid shit.

Pay or don’t pay but make a decision.

 

[Hornet]

But I know my players very well and I have cut some of them off as well. Especially when they are drinking.

No reason to out @CraigT78

 

[TheJestyr]

Video has since been made private.

Post in thread 'UPDATE!!! OFFICIAL Schroedinger's cat (Windwalker's mystery box) free roll/box opening'
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...box-free-roll-box-opening.121591/post-2519834

I’ll un-privatize it, I figured everyone who wanted to see it already watched it, but obviously I was wrong!

 

[Jimulacrum]

It's not that what you're saying here doesn't make sense, but here are the major problems.

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.

Problem #1: Extending credit as a convenience measure to keep the game going smoothly is reasonable. Personally, I'm opposed to this, but I understand why you feel the need to do it for a high-stakes game. However, you're explicitly saying the point of extending credit to "action players" is to take them for all they've got, and therein lies the real problem.

This is a big gamble, because (a) you don't know the action player's net worth, i.e., you may be extending well beyond it or even giving credit to someone who's totally dry, and (b) you're inevitably going to run into defaults. With the attitude you've displayed here, I'm surprised you haven't had more defaults than just one or two. Action junkies have a tendency to overextend themselves. This is extremely high-risk credit with no interest or other way to cover the risk.

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.

What you're describing here is a sort of mutual agreement that the winning players will eat the deadbeat's shortage. The problem here isn't so much the arrangement itself, which TBH I do find a little sketchy,* but the fact that the affected players were not made aware of it or asked to agree to it.

You can't expect people to eat the cost of such an "agreement" at the 25th hour without ever having actually agreed to it, or even being informed of it. At that point it's not an agreement but an imposition.

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.

I get that it's a crappy situation for you, but you did it to yourself. Clearly it's not a game only among trusted friends, as you have two players who were new and weren't even apprised of the rules, and another player who borrowed a pile of money and chose to screw everyone. There is a lot of risk here, and pretending it was minimal or nonexistent is what bought you this situation. You rolled the dice until you lost, and now you expect sympathy when it's really your players who got screwed out of their winnings—and had no idea about this fatally flawed credit arrangement—who deserve the sympathy.

Spoiler: *

The reason I find it sketchy is because it creates an opening for desperate people to do desperate things, with essentially no built-in prevention and no real way for the victims to get whole.

 

[kirchhausen]

No reason to out @CraigT78

Fake action will pass out before the money runs out.

 

[bergs]

You are perfect the way you are, my little cinnamon bun....

Don’t make me jealous my precious kumquat.

 

[Anthony Martino]

View attachment 1393152

Don't they mean sandwiches?

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.

I mean, what is the longest you intend to wait for this magical money to appear? I think 2 years is WAY too long. 4-6 months maybe. But at this point you're just being dicked around with by the "business partner" and the losing player, or you're dicking around guests who played in your game (and who from the response you made, had zero knowledge that this is how your game operated)

When do you intend to make them whole? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? How long do you expect this to drag on for?

 

[Goldfish]

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.

Business partner plays in the local poker circles and originally vouched for BL. I hold her responsible and have bounced her from the game as well. Plus she has the best chance of getting money from BL.

BL loser is more incentivized to pay when he owes multiple people in the community. Easy to avoid debt if only owe 1 person. I lose leverage if it’s just me that is owed.

 

[elemeno]

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.

This is so well written.

If we’re talking etiquette/morality, it’s simple - the guests had no say in any credit decisions, so they shouldn’t suffer in the event of a default.

 

[bergs]

I'm here for the sexual favors

Bailiff - remand this gnome to a lawn of your choosing.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Business partner plays in the local poker circles and originally vouched for BL. I hold her responsible and have bounced her from the game as well. Plus she has the best chance of getting money from BL.

BL loser is more incentivized to pay when he owes multiple people in the community. Easy to avoid debt if only owe 1 person. I lose leverage if it’s just me that is owed.

Yet we're two years in, so it doesn't seem BL loser is incentivized at all. Perhaps a campaign of bad reviews on their "business" will help?

 

[Anthony Martino]

Bailiff - remand this gnome to a lawn of your choosing.

Oooh yeah, put those cuffs on me and lemme roll around in the grass!

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Business partner plays in the local poker circles and originally vouched for BL. I hold her responsible and have bounced her from the game as well. Plus she has the best chance of getting money from BL.

BL loser is more incentivized to pay when he owes multiple people in the community. Easy to avoid debt if only owe 1 person. I lose leverage if it’s just me that is owed.

What leverage lol it's been 2 years. Plus they don't need to know that you've made David and Jay whole, and there's nothing stopping you from continuing to seek repayment if you do. All I know is I've been scammed before a couple times, and it's always one excuse after another. Waiting for a business partner to pay seems like waiting for pigs to fly, or hell to freeze over.

 

[merkong]

Your Honor I move to be allowed to discuss selling off the debt to a party with varied options of making collection.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Don’t make me jealous my precious kumquat.

You will always be my little honey baked ham.....

 

[bergs]

What compelling event are you banking on (pun intended) to prompt BL or BLBP (Big Loser Business Partner) to suddenly decide to pay?

I don’t see one from my (granted, limited) perspective. The loss had to be big enough to feel substantial for BL and for BLBP not to want to assume the debt themselves. In my experience from being around MA/CT degens that couldn’t pay their bookie after they ran up a tab, it’s far from the only debt they have and it’s almost impossible for them to pay up. What happens? The book tries to get them to partial pay to at least mitigate their loss (often promising the ability to continue betting, though it’s often a lie designed to compel collection). Then the book has to kick the full amount upstairs if they laid off action upstream.

Sure, that’s a sports wagering analogy, but the fact is that I don’t think anyone has a reasonable confidence interval that this is going to get paid by BL or BLBP. Basically you have to make the 2 players whole and you can continue your own collection efforts unabated, or you’re essentially having to stiff them.

Shitty situation all around. This is why I’ve never extended over $2K credit to anyone at my games back east (which typically had $8-12K on the table) and even then only two 2 specific players that I knew had the income and history of paying their debts (never had a problem with either, both very accommodating). It’s always why I’ll never play bigger than a $500 reg buyin outside a legitimate casino property.

 

[bergs]

Your Honor I move to be allowed to discuss selling off the debt to a party with varied options of making collection.

You’re proposing to the court that you take illegal action to collect a debt? You’ll be found in contempt if so and sentenced to 100 months sitting behind Matt B at meetups after he’s had beans.