Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (4 Viewers)

[bergs]

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

Thank you, my juicy navel orange.

 

[JustinInMN]

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?

For the amount they are doing, it's probably going to red flag venmo/paypal, etc...

 

[BarrieJ3]

Okay, settle down...settle down.

As via true bird law, since the first post on the 20th page of the thread started with the letter "t", we automatically go into a do or die heads up scarney battle.

As leading candidate, Kifer was first to select his champion and went with a magical come to life sock puppet. Hornet and Goldfish were left to pick from the jury, and with Craig indisposed, Chippy to close to the topic, and CatPants working at his new auto business, they were stuck with me.

Long story short, the magical sock puppet won, and now all proceeds and debt are owned/owed to Kifer.

PCF Court hath Spoken!

 

[merkong]

Your Honor, I’m merely requesting that an intermediary be considered, I know an individual, Knuckles, that has acted in this capacity before. Your rebuke and condemnation of my having to sit even in the same room as Matt B would be enough to keep me from upsetting the court.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Okay, settle down...settle down.

As via true bird law, since the first post on the 20th page of the thread started with the letter "t", we automatically go into a do or die heads up scarney battle.

As leading candidate, Kifer was first to select his champion and went with a magical come to life sock puppet. Hornet and Goldfish were left to pick from the jury, and with Craig indisposed, Chippy to close to the topic, and CatPants working at his new auto business, they were stuck with me.

Long story short, the magical sock puppet won, and now all proceeds and debt are owned/owed to Kifer.

PCF Court hath Spoken!

View attachment 1393316
View attachment 1393317

I like how this is playing out .....

 

[Kain8]

Okay, settle down...settle down.

As via true bird law, since the first post on the 20th page of the thread started with the letter "t", we automatically go into a do or die heads up scarney battle.

As leading candidate, Kifer was first to select his champion and went with a magical come to life sock puppet. Hornet and Goldfish were left to pick from the jury, and with Craig indisposed, Chippy to close to the topic, and CatPants working at his new auto business, they were stuck with me.

Long story short, the magical sock puppet won, and now all proceeds and debt are owned/owed to Kifer.

PCF Court hath Spoken!

View attachment 1393316
View attachment 1393317

 

[JustinInMN]

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


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.


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.


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.

I wonder if I live in a state where I can marry this post?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

No need to Kifer this thread guys, plenty of action here

 

[Goldfish]

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.

This game should never have been an issue. Never in a million years would I think that particular game would have any payment issues. I certainly was flat footed in this situation. Anyway, I appreciate all the insight and perspectives, and as I said above, I plan cover the bad debt. Sucks for me, but lesson learned for sure.

 

[Jimulacrum]

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.

Leverage is when you actually have a way to hold the person to paying, not spend two years hoping and asking nicely.

You have no leverage here at all. If you had leverage, you'd have collected something more than false promises by now.

From the look of it, BL freerolled his credit hoping to win, but planning to burn everyone and abandon the game if he lost. Now he's in the part of the scam where he keeps lying to you about making good until you give up. And you're riding that out, hoping the players you left holding the bag give up too.

This is what you get extending large amounts of credit to people who are reckless enough to borrow up to their net worth for gambling.

EDIT: I posted this right before I saw Goldfish's reply saying he intends to cover BL's scam. Good. It does suck, and on some level I do feel bad for you, but it's a lesser evil than the players who got roped into this having to eat it.

 

[Josh Kifer]

No need to Kifer this thread guys, plenty of action here

I've been staying out way more than normal..... Give me a little credit.

 

[Rieguy]

I just don't understand how anyone besides alcoholics and/or drug addicts can owe other individuals vast sums of money for extended periods of time and go about their life normally. I hate owing five bucks to someone, much less however much this amount in question is (which is obviously quite high). It's honestly really gross to me, especially having the audacity to knowingly sit down and play beyond your means in a home game. I would have the exact same sentiment if someone did this with chips, since they're basically interchangeable in these discussions on PCF. Also, I don't think adding interest is out of the question at all when someone owes money for over two years. 5% per annum minimum.

Edit - This is obviously aimed at the originally offending party, not Goldy, but wanted to clarify just in case.

 

[wootaki]

Has BL and BLBP been cut out of the group entirely? Outside the game? He just hasnt been around for 2 years at all?

Host has been taking it on the chin, albeit for just a few hours, but I think everyone's just skeptical because of the 2 year timeframe.

If you think you can actually get BL to pay eventually, there should probably be some juice attached as well. I know host would disagree since he doesnt necessarily feel responsible for BL, but I think that would help reputation. If its in the 4-5 figures, that money couldve been sitting in an high yield savings account at the very least. When you vouch for someone you have to eat the cost, imo when hosting you're vouching for everyone that steps through the door.

 

[CraigT78]

No reason to out @CraigT78

 

[WedgeRock]

I feel bad for @Goldfish. I think it's pretty clear (even @Hornet would agree) that he didn't intend to cheat anyone; he never expected to have to absorb BL's losses. I don't see a reason to ban BL or BLBP, just don't extend them credit (prepay and once your prepay is exhausted, that's a night). Banning them removes them from your circle and makes it harder to collect. Just don't pay them any winnings (certainly not BL) until BL's debt is squared.

I disagree with you that you are not obligated to square everyone up. You are the host. Winners get paid or the game dies. I'm glad to hear you are doing the right thing, eventually.

I also feel bad for @Hornet and @Headhunter13. @Hornet said he played previously, lost, and paid his loss on the spot. An expectation to get paid winnings on the spot was reasonable. Waiting two years to make this right is unacceptable.

(A gif for all those who stopped reading, but are still perusing the thread for lols and derails.)

 

[doublebooyah85]

I just don't understand how anyone besides alcoholics and/or drug addicts can owe other individuals vast sums of money for extended periods of time and go about their life normally. I hate owing five bucks to someone, much less however much this amount in question is (which is obviously quite high). It's honestly really gross to me, especially having the audacity to knowingly sit down and play beyond your means in a home game. I would have the exact same sentiment if someone did this with chips, since they're basically interchangeable in these discussions on PCF. Also, I don't think adding interest is out of the question at all when someone owes money for over two years. 5% per annum minimum.

Edit - This is obviously aimed at the originally offending party, not Goldy, but wanted to clarify just in case.

Well just like some can’t understand why an alcoholic can stop after 1 drink, some can’t stop themselves from gambling and are in denial.

 

[chippitydoodah]

This game should never have been an issue. Never in a million years would I think that particular game would have any payment issues. I certainly was flat footed in this situation. Anyway, I appreciate all the insight and perspectives, and as I said above, I plan cover the bad debt. Sucks for me, but lesson learned for sure.

Would you consider putting the payment in a Small Flat Rate Box and then do a reveal when you actually mail it?

 

[Jimulacrum]

I feel bad for @Goldfish. I think it's pretty clear (even @Hornet would agree) that he didn't intend to cheat anyone; he never expected to have to absorb BL's losses. I don't see a reason to ban BL or BLBP, just don't extend them credit (prepay and once your prepay is exhausted, that's a night). Banning them removes them from your circle and makes it harder to collect. Just don't pay them any winnings (certainly not BL) until BL's debt is squared.

I am taking this to mean BL and BLBP should be allowed back in the game even with OP's debt still outstanding, just that they would have to prepay their buy-ins.

1. If they have money to play, they have money to pay. Letting them lose more and more in the game while they still owe is a bad look.
2. Are they really going to prepay buy-ins knowing their winnings will be confiscated until they've paid their debts? Can't think of anyone who'd voluntarily do this. If this is the setup, maybe let them buy in but don't tell them you're taking it to pay the debt until they have a winning session. But then probably don't expect them to ever come back.
3. Trust is still a problem. BL knowingly borrowed himself into a hole he knew he couldn't pay and then went fugitive for two years when he failed to win his way out of it. This is how a conman (i.e., a "confidence man," one who scams people by abusing their trust) operates. Sorry to break it to you if this guy is your friend or whatever, but it is what it is, and it's silly to pretend this was some honest mistake and the guy can ever be trusted again. I wouldn't let him borrow a pair of scissors.

 

[gopherblue]

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.

Got it! So…volume?

 

[BPTDirector]

BL is a douche and feels no remorse for ruining your rep. He needs to learn the hard lesson. What a dick.

 

[Trihonda]

The mix of games, stakes, bomb pots, sit down game, and mot is the benefit of hosting if the host is responsible for any shorts and most importantly controls the invite list!

I disagree slightly.. while invite list is important to a game in general, as for a relevance to THIS situation, I think it's more important that the host controls the chips (who gets them).

 

[JustinInMN]

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?

You know the longer I think about it, this could be the leverage @Goldfish needs if PCF wants to do him a solid. The threat of 100 bad reviews suddenly appearing on the non-paying players business pages might prove motivating.

Online havoc is pretty much a PCF specialty. I would be in for some negative reviews if it would make a difference.

We can debate what @Goldfish could or could not have done, but the losing player and partner are the true villains here.

 

[Tonysquander]

You know the longer I think about it, this could be the leverage @Goldfish needs if PCF wants to do him a solid. The threat of 100 bad reviews suddenly appearing on the non-paying players business pages might prove motivating.

Online havoc is pretty much a PCF specialty. I would be in for some negative reviews if it would make a difference.

We can debate what @Goldfish could or could not have done, but the losing player and partner are the true villains here.

Business disparagement for harassment purposes could expose the reviewer to liability and they might end up paying for the shortfall via lawsuit. Maybe a lose/win/win situation…lol

 

[doublebooyah85]

Yeah don’t spam the business. We don’t need eyes on this site for revenge etc.

I would have a talk with business partner and ask how often profit distributions occur.

 

[Frogzilla]

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.

My highish stakes game runs exactly like this….losers settle with winners afterwards. Host isn’t extending credit as much as the game is handling the buy-ins after the fact.

This isnt the right audience to arbitrate this. The overwhelming consensus was everyone brings cash, right? 100% absurd.

My suggestion is the winners short-term are shorted their fraction of the shortage. 50% of winning means you win 50% of the bad debt. Long term, I dunno, try to collect, probably end up settling, I dunno. If BL situation is empathetic I might just chalk it up to costs of the game, if not, I’d collect aggressively. Shitty spot.

Alternate perspective (not really how I feel but much more palatable): BL freerolled you all and lost. Better than freerolling and winning?

 

[Gunnar]

I have been harsh to @Goldfish I admit. I hope he will make this right and I hope he gets paid. Two years is a hell of a time and both BL and Goldfish can count them self lucky this happened to what seems amazingly patient individuals. I know a lot of people that would have gotten a lot more angry and stupid when they are wronged.

 

[Coyote]

Skata is a litteral meaning in Greek for "explosion waste", meaning shit.
TLDR.
I understand you 're playing for too much money in homes, including hard-to-calculate crap games, and lending money, without cash being present.

So, my humble 2 cents would be:
-Play for less money
-Avoid complex games, including bomb pots, crap bombs etc
-Never lend any player unless you have the cash to put into the bank and the player has been with you since first grade elementary school.
-Never accept any bank payment other than paper (cash).

 

[Goldfish]

My highish stakes game runs exactly like this….losers settle with winners afterwards. Host isn’t extending credit as much as the game is handling the buy-ins after the fact.

This isnt the right audience to arbitrate this. The overwhelming consensus was everyone brings cash, right? 100% absurd.

My suggestion is the winners short-term are shorted their fraction of the shortage. 50% of winning means you win 50% of the bad debt. Long term, I dunno, try to collect, probably end up settling, I dunno. If BL situation is empathetic I might just chalk it up to costs of the game, if not, I’d collect aggressively. Shitty spot.

Alternate perspective (not really how I feel but much more palatable): BL freerolled you all and lost. Better than freerolling and winning?

I appreciate this post…… As I said in my post context is important. But, whatever, everyone can put the pitchforks away, as I said from the start I am covering this debt.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I appreciate this post…… As I said in my post context is important. But, whatever, everyone can put the pitchforks away, as I said from the start I am covering this debt.

This is in the top 2 of least pitchforky responses from the community I've ever seen, but I've only been here for 6 years on and off.

Everyone has either been joking or pretty balanced, outside of maybe 1-2 chippers who weren't aware of the thread up to that point. If nothing else, it probably speaks to a certain amount of respect for longstanding members like Rhodeman or Hornet (potentially you?) to keep this whole thread pretty dang tame.

 

[merkong]

Wait, what?