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.
.
