Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (80 Viewers)

[BarrieJ3]

My assumption always was if a game is robbed the host owes nothing but is suspect #1

Wow, that makes sense. I’m so naive concerning poker I never would’ve thought of that (host being suspect #1).

 

[doublebooyah85]

I feel special to get ganged up on. I just asked what lots of people were wondering.

And IMO, when they all shared their business on a public forum they can’t claim it’s none of our business.

It’s a fair question to ask after 2 years! If it was 2 weeks or 2 months then probably not a fair question. But the host or house or whatever he calls his participation in the game said he was making them whole, so what is so awful about asking when?

Oh, for the record, this was posted in the Home Game General forum which means the topics aren’t limited to poker chips.

But yall have fun.

“They” all didn’t share their information. OP did. Originally kept it vague for good debate and made it known for “protection” of the community. Not for us to confront others debts.

No need to feel special. It’s a long thread with lots of opinions. That’s all! Booyah buddy!

 

[elemeno]

What goldfish and frog are implying no one is extending credit. It’s a square up game afterwards. Invite only. The only reason that’s it’s complicated is the out of towners won big and didn’t know the locals as well. BL probably taking advantage of that. Usually everyone knows each other very well. It’s a small occurrence, just like a game getting robbed, inherit risk w high stakes game, but unusual nonetheless.

So in this instance, proper etiquette would be to split the loss of BL pro rata?

 

[bergs]

This isn't a poker chips issue. Frankly, it's none of our business.

Yes, because we stay STRICTLY on topic of poker chips in ALL threads. That’s us, all poker chips, all the time.

 

[bergs]

Ooooooooo interesting.

I wonder what’s everyone’s take - a game gets robbed, all cash is taken.

Who is responsible if anyone? Does whoever owns the house we’re playing at have to make all players whole?

Completely different scenario. Everyone likely gets robbed - the money for buyins and the money in your pocket. Hard to expect the host to make up for everyone’s losses in that scenario. Way different than the host making an autonomous decision to extend credit to an individual player.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Completely different scenario. Everyone likely gets robbed - the money for buyins and the money in your pocket. Hard to expect the host to make up for everyone’s losses in that scenario. Way different than the host making an autonomous decision to extend credit to an individual player.

Just curious. Wasn’t sure if it was a consensus thing or a gray area.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Wow, that makes sense. I’m so naive concerning poker I never would’ve thought of that (host being suspect #1).

It’s definitely been some movie plots (maybe Killing Them Softly?) and the two games I know got robbed the host ended up being complicit and the other was the dealer.

Honestly why I’ve stopped playing raked games. Def not because I’m on a downswing.

 

[doublebooyah85]

It’s definitely been some movie plots (maybe Killing Them Softly?) and the two games I know got robbed the host ended up being complicit and the other was the dealer.

Also I feel like I’ve seen it in a tv series too. Maybe a Sopranos episode? Or a boardwalk empire episode?

 

[BarrieJ3]

It’s definitely been some movie plots (maybe Killing Them Softly?) and the two games I know got robbed the host ended up being complicit and the other was the dealer.

I’ve never played larger stakes, but I feel like it’d be nice to settle in at something like 2/5 PLO and 1/1 up to 2/4 circus.

Anything beyond that, and I just don’t think I’d be comfortable for a multitude of reasons, 1 of which being that it starts to bring in all these various possible downsides. If I for some reason one day needed/wanted to play beyond that, it’d have to be casino for me.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Yes, because we stay STRICTLY on topic of poker chips in ALL threads. That’s us, all poker chips, all the time.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Wow what a fucko

Do you mean fuckoo?

 

[bergs]

Do you mean fuckoo?

Fucko and fuckaroo are the only two reasonable variations. Accept no substitutes.

 

[BPTDirector]

My kudos to you for covering the debt. This is a rough screwing to take. Especially if making fwo players while obligated you to making everyone whole.

I would suggest next time not giving chips out until you have received electronic payment into at least an escrow type account. Then only issue chips in the amount transferred.

The situation sucks ass but life sometimes sticks it in your ass.

 

[CraigT78]

Oh God, if we're needing character references to play, I am proper fucked.

 

[MrCatPants]

Do you mean fuckoo?

No.

 

[CraigT78]

No.

@Schmendr1ck why did you give him a updoots? That wasn't worthy of anything but silence.

 

[ChipMonster]

This seems like a shitty situation for everyone involved and I don’t believe BL has any intention on paying off their debt given that it has been 2 years and it doesn’t seem like they are even making periodic payments towards the debt.

Yes, I’ve only played in small cash games where everyone buys in with cash on hand and understand that dynamics need to change with higher stakes but this scenario seems extremely reckless and it was only a matter of time before shit hit the fan. Was the guy intoxicated? Was he over served? Was he being talked into rebuying? Did he even understand that he was rebuying? I’m not condoning anything, but it’s possible from his point of view that he feels like he was the one being taken advantage of? Honest question but did he even understand or was in the mental mindset to know that he was rebuying at these levels? It’s pretty shitty if he was purposely overserved to the point people knew they could take advantage of them. Doesn’t sound like this was the situation but just curious.

From OP’s original statement

“The game got deep, and 1 particular player kept rebuying for $1k at a time and losing it faster than the host could get the next rebuy”

I don’t know how many times he ended up rebuying and what his total dent is but there should be at least a set structure in place for them to settle up at intervals to safeguard the game (every 2 buy-ins or something at least into some type of escrow). It seems like he kept losing and at some point decided to chase his losses to try to recoup and would’ve been happy winning but didn’t care if he lost because it turned into imaginary money at some point.

Again, I’m naive to the high stakes world but I couldn’t imagine not having some type of collateral guarantee or agreement in place to secure the loan when getting into the several thousand dollar range. It should either be people so wealthy that several thousand is a drop in the bucket, or people that can back up their assets and have some type of security in place. I get that it becomes a shady gray area legally but I’m sure that there are creative “contracts” one can use…

2 years later, if BL hasn’t yet, BL will never pay off the debt. There is no incentive for him to do so and no repercussions if he doesn’t.

 

[Dbxela]

Why was there an assertion that a 5/5(1000) game causes more of a problem for instant bank transfers than a smaller game?

Is this a US thing with a low limit on the transfer size? Elsewhere the game would have to be 10x this size before e-banking got trickier.

 

[glynn]

there should be at least a set structure in place for them to settle up at intervals to safeguard the game

This seems extremely reasonable. Certainly a mechanism like the above would drastically cut the risk and give players peace of mind as the big loser buys in for the twentieth time.

 

[JustinInMN]

Why was there an assertion that a 5/5(1000) game causes more of a problem for instant bank transfers than a smaller game?

Is this a US thing with a low limit on the transfer size? Elsewhere the game would have to be 10x this size before e-banking got trickier.

Yup, our revenue service tends to take more notice of such transfers. Probably can't say too much more than that without crossing the no-politics outside the politics forum rule.

 

[ChipMonster]

Why was there an assertion that a 5/5(1000) game causes more of a problem for instant bank transfers than a smaller game?

Is this a US thing with a low limit on the transfer size? Elsewhere the game would have to be 10x this size before e-banking got trickier.

It’s not a limit on transfers necessarily, but the flags it can raise that will be the same issues across most of the world - anti drug, anti money laundering, anti terrorist, anti tax evasion, etc. I forget the thresholds that banks will report but this is a quick way to get onto lists…

 

[Highli99]

Another use case for crypto

 

[JustinInMN]

Another use case for crypto

Some brilliant poster brought this up back on post #181 ...

For those asking, an example of how crypto would work is below:

1. Host buys a Ledger hardware wallet ($~80)
2. Host sets up numerous wallets on the Ledger. I'd do individual player banks and a game bank.
3. Players fund their accounts by sending USDC (stable coins) directly to their player bank controlled by the host. The blockchain is transparent so they can see their balance even tho the host controls it
4. At buy in time, the host moves funds out of each players bank and into the game account
5. At cash out time, the host moves funds from the game account to the player’s bank
6. After all cashouts, the game bank should have zero balance
7. Players can leave funds in their bank or request a withdrawal back to their own wallet

The above is basically how casino games work except using crypto stable coins instead of fiat Currency.

The nice part about blockchain is that you can send whatever you want without a third party asking questions. No more pay pal accounts frozen or bank accounts closed.

You can choose which stable coin you want but I'd lean towards something Solana related due to the speed of transfers and the low (basically free) gas charges. For example moving. $10k might cost you a penny, but probably less.

 

[WedgeRock]

as I am not the house, just the host

What does this mean?

I assumed it was just a way of saying, "I'm not obligated to cover the loss."

No one is going to keep 50 grand in cash at a private home game

I think the bigger meetups have more cash than this... But it's not all in the house bank at one time.

There are risks to a cashless game just as there are risks to a true cash game.

And a risk ton pre-pay games (risking that after you pay the host, the game will go.)

 

[Headhunter13]

Update: Debts have been paid in full by Goldfish.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Update: Debts have been paid in full by Goldfish.

That’s awesome, great to hear

 

[doublebooyah85]

Update: Debts have been paid in full.

Time to buy some chips!

 

[chippitydoodah]

There goes the Oasis chip sale money

 

[Budha]

The only reason that’s it’s complicated is the out of towners won big and didn’t know the locals as well. BL probably taking advantage of that.

^^This

 

[chippitydoodah]

PCF vs @Goldfish

Poor goldfish