-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rhodeman77
- Start date
- Status
USDT and USDC are stablecoins that equal $1. Current market caps of 119 B and 36 B respctively
Moxie Mike
Full House
Came here to say this. For example, SOL is up 4% in the last 24 hours and can swing down as much or more in the same time period. How do you reconcile the fact that SOL can very possibly be worth more or less a few hours after the game starts?
Granted - in a small stakes games the actual amount in USD is negligible... but in a game where people are sitting with $2k+, it becomes more significant.
Jimulacrum
Full House
Ahh, okay, I'm behind the curve on this stuff now. That would make sense, then.
I would use USDC, which is a stable coin on the etherium network. The value doesn't fluctuate but you can store it on a cold wallet just like any other crypto.
My game is invite only thru 9 golden tickets I've snuck into 9 wachamacallit bars. I take them on a tour of my shop with Audrey doing songs and dances between each room.....
I love Whachamacallit bars. I'm lucky I can't pop into any corner store in my area of Canada to get it otherwise I'd be easily 400 pounds or more heavy.
I'd like to commend @Goldfish
He's taken all this with the utmost restraint. He's listened to strangers rip him and his game apart without once telling everyone to fuck off. He's explained how this upper echelon of gambling operates and still he hears rebuttals. He closed the topic by making good on the debt and still the debates continue. I can't say I'd have taken all of this with the understand he has, but hopefully seeing how he has, I can one day be as patient as him after witnessing his composure.
He's taken all this with the utmost restraint. He's listened to strangers rip him and his game apart without once telling everyone to fuck off. He's explained how this upper echelon of gambling operates and still he hears rebuttals. He closed the topic by making good on the debt and still the debates continue. I can't say I'd have taken all of this with the understand he has, but hopefully seeing how he has, I can one day be as patient as him after witnessing his composure.
Last edited:
I wanted to comment on the OP a while ago, but completely forgot. And now that the story has taken a turn, I wanted to shed some light on the mid to high stakes private cash games. I'll start with the fine print first: I don't know any of the participants in this discussion beyond chipping transactions that I've done over the years, and I am not commenting on who is right or wrong and what should have been done. It seems as if the situation has been resolved to a large extent, and that's great.
I'll start by saying that there is a lot of misconception in this thread. Lots of comments about how a cluster^%$# these mid to high stakes game are and how this mess could have been avoided. Also lots of ideas about how to run these games, manage the money flow, bank, credit, etc. Although many of the ideas aren't wrong, they are just not 'workable' and almost never used in mid to high stakes games. At least not the ones I've played.
@Goldfish addressed many of them by highlighting that there is a vast difference between lower stakes games and mid (to specially high) stakes games. The stakes mentioned in OP is smaller than what we play, but it's close enough so that the environments are somewhat comparable.
Similar to lower stake game, there are obviously two types of privates games: raked and non-raked. For raked games, depending on the size and players (and the game runners), the cap can be incredibly high: $50/hand cap is considered to be 'low' and the normal for higher stakes games is a few hundred dollars per hand (that is the case in NYC and most of the major markets). Some bigger games can have an uncapped rake, usually 10% and are at discretion of the game runner ($5K chip from a $100K pot, for example). In such obscenely raked games, the rake is sufficiently high that would compensate everyone even if a player stiffs the game. And it happens somewhat frequently, and running a big sheet for a long period of time for certain players is not uncommon. I won't go into more details, as it's not really applicable to the subject of this thread/OP.
The non-raked mid to high stake private games are a completely different animal. Given the amount of money each player starts with, the number of buy-ins (especially if it's an action game with a couple of loose players), as well as credit worthiness of players, it is not inconceivable to see 10,000 BBs on the table by the end of the night. Some of these private games run more than once a week. Nearly all the suggestion for how the accounting of these games can be handled by cash, paying for chips as you go, sending money electronically every time someone rebuys, putting a cap on rebuys, using crypto, etc., are non-workable. For the majority of the games I know, players know each other extremely well. And that is to be expected given the stakes involved. There is always a sheet. Anyone gets stacked or wants to add, simply asks for more chips. The entire game gets settled at the end of the night or the next day. If someone asks for more chips, no one would say 'send Venmo/PayPal before you can get more chips'. Typically most if not all of the players know each other quite well. And if there is a new players, he has been vouched for by a player at that table (and somewhat vetted by the host).
In these games, given the large sums being transferred, some might slow pay (due mainly to transfer limits), but pretty much all transfers are done within 24 hours. In the 10-15 years I have been involved, we've never had a payment issue in our live game (I have heard of plenty of stories of other games getting stiffed: by a famous Hollywood producer, some west coast rich dude, some pretending to be a rich dude, bunch of trust funders, and even one where lawyers got involved). But this is a 'risk' that anyone who plays in non-raked private games takes. A risk they know or should know.
Another issue that was brought up in the thread is whether it's the 'host's' responsibility to tell new players about how these private games are run. There is no simple answer. There are lots of nuances in private games that many may or may not know about: string bets aren't treated the same as casinos; single chip rule may or may not apply...lots of table talk/banter even during hands where most grinders/regs would flip out given how much money is in each pot, etc.). It's usually because the majority of the players are friends who like to get together once or twice a week to drink, eat, watch a game, play some poker and spend some time away from stresses of work/life...it's not a 'grinders' world. It's usually a very different environment. Most new players who get introduced to our game ask beforehand about the 'rules' (how the payment works, do they need to/should bring cash (no), is there a rake (no), how much do the dealers/hostesses/others get paid, are there any particular house rules, etc.).
And perhaps the biggest issue raised in OP: who pays (in these games) if someone stiffs. Although our game has never had a payment issue, we have a well-established and agreed upon rule: in case it ever happens, the winners of that particular game pay ratably based on their winnings. I know many have argued in this thread that the 'host/house' is/should be responsible for all losses, the reality is that if a host were to compensate the group for $50K or $100K if one person happens to decide to stiff the game, all non-raked private/by-invite-only games would cease to exist. Different games around town have their own way of handling this. But the loss pretty much never gets transferred to the 'host'.
We can get into the semantics of 'host' vs 'house'. In all of the mid to high stakes games I know, there is an understanding that anyone who is hosting these games is doing it as a 'favor' to the group, as they are not getting compensated in rake or any other means for the environment they provide, or the amount of time they spend managing the game/group. Moreover, there are many occasions where one person is sending out the invites and manages the sheet, but the game is actually 'hosted' at another player's apartment/house. The definition of house/host gets very blurry. But again, I go back to the nature of these high stake private games and @Goldfish's post: it's a tight group of players, an invite-only game, non-raked, nearly all run on (temporary/during game) credit. For home/private games, credit is the lifeblood of the high stake games (short term/during game credit for non-raked games, longer credit cycle in raked games). Without it, everyone would be playing significantly smaller stakes.
P.S. We played a $5/$5 game recently to accommodate some players who wanted us to 'lower the temperature a little' for a game or two... after a few rounds, it became $5/$5/$10/$20, then an hour later it was $5/$5/$10/$20/$40/$60, and by midnight it was $5/$5/$10/$25/$50/$100 game. Hard to explain (especially to new players), except to say the game plays a lot bigger than the blinds would suggest.
Just shedding some lights on the nature of high stake private games that I know of...and I sincerely hope @Goldfish can collect from the BL.
I'll start by saying that there is a lot of misconception in this thread. Lots of comments about how a cluster^%$# these mid to high stakes game are and how this mess could have been avoided. Also lots of ideas about how to run these games, manage the money flow, bank, credit, etc. Although many of the ideas aren't wrong, they are just not 'workable' and almost never used in mid to high stakes games. At least not the ones I've played.
@Goldfish addressed many of them by highlighting that there is a vast difference between lower stakes games and mid (to specially high) stakes games. The stakes mentioned in OP is smaller than what we play, but it's close enough so that the environments are somewhat comparable.
Similar to lower stake game, there are obviously two types of privates games: raked and non-raked. For raked games, depending on the size and players (and the game runners), the cap can be incredibly high: $50/hand cap is considered to be 'low' and the normal for higher stakes games is a few hundred dollars per hand (that is the case in NYC and most of the major markets). Some bigger games can have an uncapped rake, usually 10% and are at discretion of the game runner ($5K chip from a $100K pot, for example). In such obscenely raked games, the rake is sufficiently high that would compensate everyone even if a player stiffs the game. And it happens somewhat frequently, and running a big sheet for a long period of time for certain players is not uncommon. I won't go into more details, as it's not really applicable to the subject of this thread/OP.
The non-raked mid to high stake private games are a completely different animal. Given the amount of money each player starts with, the number of buy-ins (especially if it's an action game with a couple of loose players), as well as credit worthiness of players, it is not inconceivable to see 10,000 BBs on the table by the end of the night. Some of these private games run more than once a week. Nearly all the suggestion for how the accounting of these games can be handled by cash, paying for chips as you go, sending money electronically every time someone rebuys, putting a cap on rebuys, using crypto, etc., are non-workable. For the majority of the games I know, players know each other extremely well. And that is to be expected given the stakes involved. There is always a sheet. Anyone gets stacked or wants to add, simply asks for more chips. The entire game gets settled at the end of the night or the next day. If someone asks for more chips, no one would say 'send Venmo/PayPal before you can get more chips'. Typically most if not all of the players know each other quite well. And if there is a new players, he has been vouched for by a player at that table (and somewhat vetted by the host).
In these games, given the large sums being transferred, some might slow pay (due mainly to transfer limits), but pretty much all transfers are done within 24 hours. In the 10-15 years I have been involved, we've never had a payment issue in our live game (I have heard of plenty of stories of other games getting stiffed: by a famous Hollywood producer, some west coast rich dude, some pretending to be a rich dude, bunch of trust funders, and even one where lawyers got involved). But this is a 'risk' that anyone who plays in non-raked private games takes. A risk they know or should know.
Another issue that was brought up in the thread is whether it's the 'host's' responsibility to tell new players about how these private games are run. There is no simple answer. There are lots of nuances in private games that many may or may not know about: string bets aren't treated the same as casinos; single chip rule may or may not apply...lots of table talk/banter even during hands where most grinders/regs would flip out given how much money is in each pot, etc.). It's usually because the majority of the players are friends who like to get together once or twice a week to drink, eat, watch a game, play some poker and spend some time away from stresses of work/life...it's not a 'grinders' world. It's usually a very different environment. Most new players who get introduced to our game ask beforehand about the 'rules' (how the payment works, do they need to/should bring cash (no), is there a rake (no), how much do the dealers/hostesses/others get paid, are there any particular house rules, etc.).
And perhaps the biggest issue raised in OP: who pays (in these games) if someone stiffs. Although our game has never had a payment issue, we have a well-established and agreed upon rule: in case it ever happens, the winners of that particular game pay ratably based on their winnings. I know many have argued in this thread that the 'host/house' is/should be responsible for all losses, the reality is that if a host were to compensate the group for $50K or $100K if one person happens to decide to stiff the game, all non-raked private/by-invite-only games would cease to exist. Different games around town have their own way of handling this. But the loss pretty much never gets transferred to the 'host'.
We can get into the semantics of 'host' vs 'house'. In all of the mid to high stakes games I know, there is an understanding that anyone who is hosting these games is doing it as a 'favor' to the group, as they are not getting compensated in rake or any other means for the environment they provide, or the amount of time they spend managing the game/group. Moreover, there are many occasions where one person is sending out the invites and manages the sheet, but the game is actually 'hosted' at another player's apartment/house. The definition of house/host gets very blurry. But again, I go back to the nature of these high stake private games and @Goldfish's post: it's a tight group of players, an invite-only game, non-raked, nearly all run on (temporary/during game) credit. For home/private games, credit is the lifeblood of the high stake games (short term/during game credit for non-raked games, longer credit cycle in raked games). Without it, everyone would be playing significantly smaller stakes.
P.S. We played a $5/$5 game recently to accommodate some players who wanted us to 'lower the temperature a little' for a game or two... after a few rounds, it became $5/$5/$10/$20, then an hour later it was $5/$5/$10/$20/$40/$60, and by midnight it was $5/$5/$10/$25/$50/$100 game. Hard to explain (especially to new players), except to say the game plays a lot bigger than the blinds would suggest.
Just shedding some lights on the nature of high stake private games that I know of...and I sincerely hope @Goldfish can collect from the BL.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
There is nothing wrong with this understanding or anything else a group can come up with that's fair.
And I get it, if this is truly the custom and is understood by all, prorating the winners is a fine, acceptable answer.
But by all narratives here, the big winners were not aware, and the smaller winners didn't kick anything back when this came to light. So as much as one would want to argue there's a custom here, it's plain the issue at the very least is that it wasn't widely understood. And @Goldfish is left holding the bag.
ChipMonster
3 of a Kind
elemeno
Two Pair
Yeah, if it’s common for winners to absorb the loss pro rata, I wonder why this wasn’t done quickly instead of letting the whole thing drag on for 2 years? One thing I can think of is that only the out of towners won?
That 'custom' is for our game and many others that I know. It's not a universal rule across all high stakes games. I know a big game in NYC where player A has to send money to player B (big $$$ via wire). Player A disappears or refuses. Player B is left to collect on his own. Lawyers get involved
As far as I know, in high stakes games, hosts are almost never left to hold the bag. Hosts are going out of their way to provide a valuable service for free in un-raked games. No one in such a tight-knit group, that plays every week, expects them to 1-host the game at their house, 2- provide food, drinks, hostess services, be responsible for the depreciation on the equipments, chips, provide free cards, dealer, shuffler, keep and maintain the ledger all night, and the list goes on and on.... and if a player stiffs, to make the game whole. But, given that the host inevitably knows all the players..and usually quite well...they players do expect him to make his best effort in case there is suddenly a dead beat in the game. And after a while (and depending on the size of the debt/circumstances...this could be days, weeks or months)... an amicable solution needs to (and will) be found.
In non-raked private games, these things happen rarely. Most hosts deal with this once every few years, if at all. Non payments are more common in poorly managed private raked games. In rare situations that this happens, we still have hopes to collect...these are sizable numbers and if we know/knew someone to be good for it, the hope is that they will pay at some point.
drdr
Straight
This was the solution I had in mind. In order to play must be invited and must deposit a bond as insurance against non payment of losses.
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
What a tremendous post, thanks for pulling back the curtain for us.
So in the situation that happened here, how long would you typically wait before you considered the debt uncollectable?
First, thanks to all the supportive PMs, texts and whatsapps. Much appreciated.
Second, given that Adam's OP and some of the responses are factually off base, I note the following:
This was not a $5/$5 PLO game with a $1k buyin. Rather, it was a mixed game (similar to what is played at meet ups), except with action players who routinely play in high stakes poker games and on credit. This is a relatively close nit group and hard to get to play with. There was no cash at this game (except for I guess whatever Jay and David brought). Nobody paid during the course of the game. Given the size of the game, compared to what these players usually play in, there was no reason to believe that any of these guys would not pay or have a problem paying. Buy-in patterns did not seem out of the ordinary for these guys. As expected, and discussed before the game, it was splashy.
As I noted previously, David and Jay received ALL the collected losses from that night. The other winners wanted me to claw back those funds and distribute to all the winners, pro rata. As I did not want to do that, I came out of pocket to pay the other winners the same percentage that David and Jay received. As explained previously, and not to belabor the point, this was already above and beyond what is expected of a host of a non-raked game when dealing with the prospect of non-payment.
I continued to attempt to collect the debt from BL and communicated periodically with David and Jay about status and actions taken. At no time during any of those communications did either David or Jay request that I cover BL or convey that they expected that I cover. Rather, it was me that eventually offered to cover the debt if it was deemed not collectable.
At DiD, I told Jay that I would take care of the debt the week after my return from the meet up (at that time, not knowing about this thread applying to that night). This was not because I was obligated to do so (as I discussed previously), but because they were essentially my guests and it was becoming clear that I was not going to collect any time soon. As noted above, both were paid this week.
Neither Adam, Jay nor David ever let me know that this thread was about the game that night (until Adam let everyone know) - notwithstanding that we had communications about this thread after its original posting and continued conversations about the pending debt. They kept that a secret for some reason. Not sure why the need for covert action or why they felt the need to make this a PCF issue as the lines of communication were always open, but I guess they have their reasons.
As noted above, David and Jay have been paid in full. Rest assured this will never happen again as, for among other reasons, I will be hosting only .25/.50 going forward and demanding 3 forms of ID, a credit report and certified financial statements before any credit issued. Thank you all for your comments and thoughts.
Second, given that Adam's OP and some of the responses are factually off base, I note the following:
This was not a $5/$5 PLO game with a $1k buyin. Rather, it was a mixed game (similar to what is played at meet ups), except with action players who routinely play in high stakes poker games and on credit. This is a relatively close nit group and hard to get to play with. There was no cash at this game (except for I guess whatever Jay and David brought). Nobody paid during the course of the game. Given the size of the game, compared to what these players usually play in, there was no reason to believe that any of these guys would not pay or have a problem paying. Buy-in patterns did not seem out of the ordinary for these guys. As expected, and discussed before the game, it was splashy.
As I noted previously, David and Jay received ALL the collected losses from that night. The other winners wanted me to claw back those funds and distribute to all the winners, pro rata. As I did not want to do that, I came out of pocket to pay the other winners the same percentage that David and Jay received. As explained previously, and not to belabor the point, this was already above and beyond what is expected of a host of a non-raked game when dealing with the prospect of non-payment.
I continued to attempt to collect the debt from BL and communicated periodically with David and Jay about status and actions taken. At no time during any of those communications did either David or Jay request that I cover BL or convey that they expected that I cover. Rather, it was me that eventually offered to cover the debt if it was deemed not collectable.
At DiD, I told Jay that I would take care of the debt the week after my return from the meet up (at that time, not knowing about this thread applying to that night). This was not because I was obligated to do so (as I discussed previously), but because they were essentially my guests and it was becoming clear that I was not going to collect any time soon. As noted above, both were paid this week.
Neither Adam, Jay nor David ever let me know that this thread was about the game that night (until Adam let everyone know) - notwithstanding that we had communications about this thread after its original posting and continued conversations about the pending debt. They kept that a secret for some reason. Not sure why the need for covert action or why they felt the need to make this a PCF issue as the lines of communication were always open, but I guess they have their reasons.
As noted above, David and Jay have been paid in full. Rest assured this will never happen again as, for among other reasons, I will be hosting only .25/.50 going forward and demanding 3 forms of ID, a credit report and certified financial statements before any credit issued. Thank you all for your comments and thoughts.
I’m not going to get into specifics, and I’ll just say that there are multiple perspectives to every story.
I’m donating the money I received from Jon to the American Cancer Society. At least some good can come of this mess.
I’m donating the money I received from Jon to the American Cancer Society. At least some good can come of this mess.
Munchies11
Sitting Out
Pay before you play rule it’s that simple !!!
Than host records buy in amounts every time someone buys in. Usually works for us. Always still a pain in the ass though at the end but hey what can you do least the money is there
Than host records buy in amounts every time someone buys in. Usually works for us. Always still a pain in the ass though at the end but hey what can you do least the money is there
LeLe
4 of a Kind
My guess the reason is probably the waiting of 2 years
There is a joke here about forgetting to make this right for two years and the memory of a Goldfish waiting to be made.
But I want to praise Goldfish for making this right and I take back what harsh words I have said. It takes a big back to take all this criticism with honour and calm responses. Paying them back is was a good move.
But I want to praise Goldfish for making this right and I take back what harsh words I have said. It takes a big back to take all this criticism with honour and calm responses. Paying them back is was a good move.
I used to host low stakes. Now I host medium stakes. The only difference is that most players buy in with $100 bills instead of $20s.
Same amount of paper. Same security precautions.
Where I live the people who might theoretically rob me would think a $900 was a big score. Making it $9,000 doesn't really change anything. Such criminals are desperate (typically heroin addicts) and (typically) very stupid.
In other words... If I thought armed robbery were a real concern, I wouldn't host any stakes of any size.
But I have a difficult-to-find and forbidding location; lots of cameras; players who could handle themselves in a tense situation; a trooper barracks not far away; and a game whose time, place and very existence are only known to a few people whose contacts are in my address book.
Realistically I'm more likely to get mugged in a parking lot than at my home. Sure, anything could happen. But in the universe of risks I tolerate, my game getting robbed is very low on the list.
Every time I get in my car (which is roughly 20+ times a week) I have a real chance of dying, given the idiotic ways other people drive. We can drive defensively but this is still by far the most dangerous thing most of us do. Hosting 20 games a year does not come close, risk-wise.
Same amount of paper. Same security precautions.
Where I live the people who might theoretically rob me would think a $900 was a big score. Making it $9,000 doesn't really change anything. Such criminals are desperate (typically heroin addicts) and (typically) very stupid.
In other words... If I thought armed robbery were a real concern, I wouldn't host any stakes of any size.
But I have a difficult-to-find and forbidding location; lots of cameras; players who could handle themselves in a tense situation; a trooper barracks not far away; and a game whose time, place and very existence are only known to a few people whose contacts are in my address book.
Realistically I'm more likely to get mugged in a parking lot than at my home. Sure, anything could happen. But in the universe of risks I tolerate, my game getting robbed is very low on the list.
Every time I get in my car (which is roughly 20+ times a week) I have a real chance of dying, given the idiotic ways other people drive. We can drive defensively but this is still by far the most dangerous thing most of us do. Hosting 20 games a year does not come close, risk-wise.
Last edited:
Since host is getting commendation I will also point out that the two winners have been pretty quiet about the whole situation. My guess is these are three dudes that don't have a problem with each other personally and the two winners don't necessarily want to throw salt on names or burn bridges unnecessarily but 2 years is just too long. Can't say I agree with the way they went about it because of its passive nature, but they got the results they wanted and deserved. Shame though cause they probably get along quite well but because of BL and the roundabout method of collecting, the relationship is most likely soured. Lines of communication always being open is probably the reason why they went this route though. Its not ducking and dodging but its stalling. Your'e just told, "i'm on it, I'll get you paid" for 2 years, at some point patience will run out. Seems for most 2 years is 18 months too long. I think I was the first to acknowledge Host had been taking it on chin, but the winners deserve some props for having been that patient as well and not stirring the pot any further. They just wanted their money. If anything I think its a little sad that all it took was a little internet forum drama lol
Last edited:
From the recent posts, one can speculate that there is more to the story than we've heard. Also, there are details that are missing. They, plus context, are important before one can can judge or jump to conclusions. You can PM me and we can talk more... I prefer not to discuss these things publicly. And I would add this: IMO, this should have never made it to PCF. This is a private game and what went on in that game is between the players/host. And if anyone thinks this helped the payers get paid, thus it was the right thing to post it here...then they don't realize how much EV is likely lost thinking short term vs. long term, when it comes to these juicy private games.
Oopma doompa doompa de doo, I'm a bernadoodle Gimmie something to chew ....
One of my early posts in this thread said that it is always on the host/banker to cover losses in this situation. In my context (small stakes unraked home games that are cash in cash out), I still believe that. But after reading this thread, I completely understand why that doesn't - and shouldn't - apply to all games.
It seems like there are two important things that a host should always do: have a well-defined policy for settling up between players and dealing with no-pays, and communicate that policy to the group - especially to new players. And if you're a new player in a game like this, protect yourself and always find out what the policy is up front.
It seems like there are two important things that a host should always do: have a well-defined policy for settling up between players and dealing with no-pays, and communicate that policy to the group - especially to new players. And if you're a new player in a game like this, protect yourself and always find out what the policy is up front.
Yeah, I was about to say something similar. Whether or not people think this should have been posted, it's certainly raised some issues worth discussing.
I wonder if we as players should be asking these questions at a new game. I would have always assumed that if I buy my chips with cash, I'm going to be paid cash at the end of the night - that always seemed standard automatic to me. But maybe not.
In all aspects the three most affected by this fiasco have been very good about not getting into name calling or pointing fingers at each other. One thing that cannot be overlooked though is BL, whoever he is, is a major liability to have around for this particular type of situation and can no longer be trusted. Sad.
- Status
Similar threads
