Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (2 Viewers)

[TomC727]

I will assume this is something like a true home game. No rake among people with passable connections to each other. If this is somehow an unraked game acting like an underground casino, that is a wholly different thing . . .

As I see the comments, they look to me like people want to play heads and Hero wins, tails and the host sucks up the loss. It is an unraked game. The host has no way to recover losses with "profits" from hosting the game. That seems like a pretty unrealistic ask to me.

As noted, the stakes are huge and there are good reasons not to have cash in full at the table. It seems preferable to have cash transferred when chips are handed over. No doubt the host would prefer that too.

Most of us know "those" sorts of players who seem to never have enough bankable cash, for all sorts of reasons. We like them because they spew chips. We are happy the host isn't sending them home, rather extending credit to keep the game going and juicy. No doubt the big winners often can trace their good fortune to the whale dusting off buy in after buy in.

This time the whale cannot/ will not cover the marker. I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table. And only now finds his voice to object. Tough luck. Hero and the other big winners have feasted off the whale for a while. This is the cost of doing business. Hero is well advised to carefully consider what is in his long term benefit. Making an ass of himself doesn't seem to be the obvious best choice.

These sorts of losses should be shared somehow among the winners and the Host. The host shouldn't be incurring all the risk since he/she isn't getting the bulk of the profits. If Hero doesn't like that answer, then play in "safer" games - maybe there is a rake/fee. maybe the host runs the deadbeats off at the first whiff of trouble. Perhaps hero should be cashing out early when parts of the bank are "on the books" Though Hero might find his ability to find nose-bleed stakes games quite limited by these sorts of restrictions.

As for the more exotic suggestions:

Gambling debts are often not enforceable contracts. Litigation is expensive. lawsuits are slow. and you might lose but still have the costs. Litigation also creates a trail easily followed by tax authorities.

Violence and the threats of violence are poor solutions. Even assuming that Hero is going to be on the winning side of a violent exchange is a risk in and of itself.

If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid. There is a delicate balance here - hero can ask about the marker some, but not too much. Again, taking part of the losses on markers is the cost of playing and normally being a big winner.

Let's just say asking the losers and breakeven players to forgo their cash outs to keep the big winners whole is short sighted at best. Come-on we know better than this.

TLDR suck it up, buttercup. This is part of the price of playing poker at these stakes. Don't like it? Find a game with fees, rakes and tips expected where the state regulates the house. -=- DrStrange

Completely disagree with all of this. "Suck it up, buttercup?!?!?!" Really?!?!?!?!

If the host is going to allow BL to play on credit, then this is on the host. OP wasn't the one allowing BL to play on credit. This isn't the cost of doing business. OP needs to continue to stay on the host on getting his money. Either way, this isn't a game OP should play in ever again. Hopefully he is made whole. 100% of this situation is on the host. He pays the OP the money owed and then host deals with BL on the debt. Either he sets up a plan, bank transfer, or cash. If this game is such high stakes, then OP absolutely needs to cover the risk if BL doesn't pay. OP is being played and I would be pissed.

Best case scenario is OP is made whole and never plays in this game again

Worst case scenario is he doesn't get paid and never plays in this game again.

It has been a month. The OP needs to be informed that reputations are going to be sullied if this isn't made right. I think OP needs to also begin reaching out to BL.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I haven't read any responses so if this is redundant, sorry.

I host regularly. As host, it's 100% my sole responsibility to make everyone whole at the end of the game. So as host, I cash myself out last and if the drawer is short (which has happened a time or two), I absorb the loss.

I've given markers from time to time at my discretion - but only when I had the cash on hand to cover the payouts in any circumstances. The markers are a deal between the host and the player in question.... not the winner(s) on the night and the player borrowing.

I generally don't fuck around with electronic payments. Players bring cash. Period. Trusted players can occasionally PayPal me funds but that's contingent on me having the cash on hand to put them in the game (I almost always do), but it is frowned upon.

My philosophy is that every chip in the bank must be backed by cash on hand. As such, there is ample cash on hand to deal with any short-term situation that may occur. It's the responsibility of the host to ensure that the players and the dealer is made whole.

As to the OP's situation - this really seems like a debt between the host and the player. The LP's situation is between him and the host... not other players at the table. I don't really know what recourse OP has other than to be patient... although I suspect he will never be paid. But this should hopefully serve as a cautionary tale to avoid games where there's a player gambling to excess on credit and electronic forms of payment are being accepted.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I will assume this is something like a true home game. No rake among people with passable connections to each other. If this is somehow an unraked game acting like an underground casino, that is a wholly different thing . . .

As I see the comments, they look to me like people want to play heads and Hero wins, tails and the host sucks up the loss. It is an unraked game. The host has no way to recover losses with "profits" from hosting the game. That seems like a pretty unrealistic ask to me.

As noted, the stakes are huge and there are good reasons not to have cash in full at the table. It seems preferable to have cash transferred when chips are handed over. No doubt the host would prefer that too.

Most of us know "those" sorts of players who seem to never have enough bankable cash, for all sorts of reasons. We like them because they spew chips. We are happy the host isn't sending them home, rather extending credit to keep the game going and juicy. No doubt the big winners often can trace their good fortune to the whale dusting off buy in after buy in.

This time the whale cannot/ will not cover the marker. I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table. And only now finds his voice to object. Tough luck. Hero and the other big winners have feasted off the whale for a while. This is the cost of doing business. Hero is well advised to carefully consider what is in his long term benefit. Making an ass of himself doesn't seem to be the obvious best choice.

These sorts of losses should be shared somehow among the winners and the Host. The host shouldn't be incurring all the risk since he/she isn't getting the bulk of the profits. If Hero doesn't like that answer, then play in "safer" games - maybe there is a rake/fee. maybe the host runs the deadbeats off at the first whiff of trouble. Perhaps hero should be cashing out early when parts of the bank are "on the books" Though Hero might find his ability to find nose-bleed stakes games quite limited by these sorts of restrictions.

As for the more exotic suggestions:

Gambling debts are often not enforceable contracts. Litigation is expensive. lawsuits are slow. and you might lose but still have the costs. Litigation also creates a trail easily followed by tax authorities.

Violence and the threats of violence are poor solutions. Even assuming that Hero is going to be on the winning side of a violent exchange is a risk in and of itself.

If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid. There is a delicate balance here - hero can ask about the marker some, but not too much. Again, taking part of the losses on markers is the cost of playing and normally being a big winner.

Let's just say asking the losers and breakeven players to forgo their cash outs to keep the big winners whole is short sighted at best. Come-on we know better than this.

TLDR suck it up, buttercup. This is part of the price of playing poker at these stakes. Don't like it? Find a game with fees, rakes and tips expected where the state regulates the house. -=- DrStrange

I agree with the vast majority of this, but how is Hero supposed to know if the Whale is loaded and this game is nothing to him or a degenerate gambler when it is his first time playing in the game? Hero is putting his trust in the host who knows all the players and should have a much better idea of there ability to cover a marker.

I know as a host my comfort level to loan with any player that comes to my game. Some it is definitely cash or electronic transfer before chips are given no matter what, while others have a deep credit line available to them if they ask. A good host should know the difference and if not sure, error on the side of cation.

 

[TomC727]

I haven't read any responses so if this is redundant, sorry.

I host regularly. As host, it's 100% my sole responsibility to make everyone whole at the end of the game. So as host, I cash myself out last and if the drawer is short (which has happened a time or two), I absorb the loss.

I've given markers from time to time at my discretion - but only when I had the cash on hand to cover the payouts in any circumstances. The markers are a deal between the host and the player in question.... not the winner(s) on the night and the player borrowing.

I generally don't fuck around with electronic payments. Players bring cash. Period. Trusted players can occasionally PayPal me funds but that's contingent on me having the cash on hand to put them in the game (I almost always do), but it is frowned upon.

My philosophy is that every chip in the bank must be backed by cash on hand. As such, there is ample cash on hand to deal with any short-term situation that may occur. It's the responsibility of the host to ensure that the players and the dealer is made whole.

As to the OP's situation - this really seems like a debt between the host and the player. The LP's situation is between him and the host... not other players at the table. I don't really know what recourse OP has other than to be patient... although I suspect he will never be paid. But this should hopefully serve as a cautionary tale to avoid games where there's a player gambling to excess on credit and electronic forms of payment are being accepted.

This right here.

No credit should ever be given unless there is cash to back it up at the end of the night.

 

[springbox]

This has gone on far too long. I'm surprised so few people are recommending violence when it's probably the only option at this point. What kind of excuses is the host giving you? Degen gamblers have the lamest excuses when they owe money. Would he mind if you collect the debt directly from the BL?

What are we, loan sharks? It's just not worth the risk trying to collect like that. Say you beat the guys ass. He calls the cops and can prove it was you. You're in jail and you still don't have your money.

Obviously a scummy situation but you don't have any real legal recourse as far as I know. BL is a shitstain, and host obviously lacks scruples. The problem occurred the moment he gave chips to a player without receiving money or having assurance of his creditworthiness.

Practically speaking, the best way to get your money back is making as big a stink as you can. Harass the host, maybe harass the BL, shit talk them to everyone you can about how they're rats that don't pay what they owe. Social pressure is probably the only way you can get paid, and I still wouldn't count on it.

 

[Darson]

As you don’t know the host well, the reality is that you’re at their whim. Yes, the host should make you whole immediately as you’re not the one who lent money but if the host doesn’t want to (and clearly doesn’t) you’re not getting your money. Even if the big looser paid the host, the host can keep telling you that he hasn’t been paid yet.

I would keep harassing the host in the hope that you eventually get paid, perhaps even stating that you’re not the one who lent the money so you should not be the one carrying the debt. But I’d also chalk this one up to experience and expect not to be paid.

 

[TomC727]

Practically speaking, the best way to get your money back is making as big a stink as you can. Harass the host, maybe harass the BL, shit talk them to everyone you can about how they're rats that don't pay what they owe. Social pressure is probably the only way you can get paid, and I still wouldn't count on it.

This. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This is really the only option.

 

[bergs]

This has gone on far too long. I'm surprised so few people are recommending violence when it's probably the only option at this point. What kind of excuses is the host giving you? Degen gamblers have the lamest excuses when they owe money. Would he mind if you collect the debt directly from the BL?

Violence is a fairly horrible idea for this situation. There aren’t really any good outcomes.

 

[Dbxela]

I haven't read any responses so if this is redundant, sorry.

I host regularly. As host, it's 100% my sole responsibility to make everyone whole at the end of the game. So as host, I cash myself out last and if the drawer is short (which has happened a time or two), I absorb the loss.

I've given markers from time to time at my discretion - but only when I had the cash on hand to cover the payouts in any circumstances. The markers are a deal between the host and the player in question.... not the winner(s) on the night and the player borrowing.

I generally don't fuck around with electronic payments. Players bring cash. Period. Trusted players can occasionally PayPal me funds but that's contingent on me having the cash on hand to put them in the game (I almost always do), but it is frowned upon.

My philosophy is that every chip in the bank must be backed by cash on hand. As such, there is ample cash on hand to deal with any short-term situation that may occur. It's the responsibility of the host to ensure that the players and the dealer is made whole.

As to the OP's situation - this really seems like a debt between the host and the player. The LP's situation is between him and the host... not other players at the table. I don't really know what recourse OP has other than to be patient... although I suspect he will never be paid. But this should hopefully serve as a cautionary tale to avoid games where there's a player gambling to excess on credit and electronic forms of payment are being accepted.

This, the first part at least. Lending, if it happens, is between the banker and the player, not the player and the group. (Banker is not always host, I usually manage money for other hosts because we have a system...)

We used to use cash, had to remember to bring change, there were often some errors. Now its completely cash-free, the pot is managed with an account at a challenger bank that has an API feed. It populates a google sheet shared for read access with the group. When there is a payment all players can here a notification and see the pot increase and the new payment listed on a dashboard on a nearby TV. The amount in the pot is always viewable by everyone. Almost no cash out issues since then.

Key rules we learned:
- 1 person handles chips and banking
- Wait for the transfer (or banker takes the risk)
- On cash out make sure chips are packed away as they are cashed out

 

[Anthony Martino]

Is BL still playing in the games?

The host didn't extend BL credit, he let you and the other big winner do it, he just didn't tell you until it was too late.

Yeah, this is absolute horseshit and on the host as others have said.

OPTION

See if the host will extend you credit to play since he owes you thousands.

Be sure to leave each game early so you are guaranteed to get cashed out

 

[LowerBama1714]

Go to hosts house, take one of his cars wheels…

Hold hostage until debt is cleared.

Next problem?

Genius.

 

[louBdub]

This right here.

No credit should ever be given unless there is cash to back it up at the end of the night.

The Federal Reserve enters chat………

 

[Taghkanic]

The host owes you for sure. Either keep going after your money from the host or play on the host's credit.

But the host’s credit is no good, Q.E.D.

 

[Taghkanic]

I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table.

How was he to know? I’ve played in a lot of home/private games. Some of them sketchy. Never once seen anyone not made whole at cashout.

If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid.

Oh no, how terrible, getting disinvited to a game where you don’t get your money when you win.

 

[louBdub]

Contact BL.

Borrow money from BL.

BL will feel grown, now that he’s the “lender” and will do everything he can to lend.

BL will source the funds from Host.

Take funds.

Sit BL & Host down together, and ask one question…. “What did we learn?”

 

[LowerBama1714]

Contact BL.

Borrow money from BL.

BL will feel grown, now that he’s the “lender” and will do everything he can to lend.

BL will source the funds from Host.

Take funds.

Sit BL & Host down together, and ask one question…. “What did we learn?”

My uncle BL is a degenerate gambler…

 

[WedgeRock]

I will assume this is something like a true home game. No rake among people with passable connections to each other. If this is somehow an unraked game acting like an underground casino, that is a wholly different thing . . .

As I see the comments, they look to me like people want to play heads and Hero wins, tails and the host sucks up the loss. It is an unraked game. The host has no way to recover losses with "profits" from hosting the game. That seems like a pretty unrealistic ask to me.

As noted, the stakes are huge and there are good reasons not to have cash in full at the table. It seems preferable to have cash transferred when chips are handed over. No doubt the host would prefer that too.

Most of us know "those" sorts of players who seem to never have enough bankable cash, for all sorts of reasons. We like them because they spew chips. We are happy the host isn't sending them home, rather extending credit to keep the game going and juicy. No doubt the big winners often can trace their good fortune to the whale dusting off buy in after buy in.

This time the whale cannot/ will not cover the marker. I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table. And only now finds his voice to object. Tough luck. Hero and the other big winners have feasted off the whale for a while. This is the cost of doing business. Hero is well advised to carefully consider what is in his long term benefit. Making an ass of himself doesn't seem to be the obvious best choice.

These sorts of losses should be shared somehow among the winners and the Host. The host shouldn't be incurring all the risk since he/she isn't getting the bulk of the profits. If Hero doesn't like that answer, then play in "safer" games - maybe there is a rake/fee. maybe the host runs the deadbeats off at the first whiff of trouble. Perhaps hero should be cashing out early when parts of the bank are "on the books" Though Hero might find his ability to find nose-bleed stakes games quite limited by these sorts of restrictions.

As for the more exotic suggestions:

Gambling debts are often not enforceable contracts. Litigation is expensive. lawsuits are slow. and you might lose but still have the costs. Litigation also creates a trail easily followed by tax authorities.

Violence and the threats of violence are poor solutions. Even assuming that Hero is going to be on the winning side of a violent exchange is a risk in and of itself.

If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid. There is a delicate balance here - hero can ask about the marker some, but not too much. Again, taking part of the losses on markers is the cost of playing and normally being a big winner.

Let's just say asking the losers and breakeven players to forgo their cash outs to keep the big winners whole is short sighted at best. Come-on we know better than this.

TLDR suck it up, buttercup. This is part of the price of playing poker at these stakes. Don't like it? Find a game with fees, rakes and tips expected where the state regulates the house. -=- DrStrange

I could agree with this a lot more *if* it was stated up front that shortages would be shared.

I don't think sharing shortages up front should be assumed. It sets a terrible precedent. Why would anyone pay if they knew the group was just going to absorb their losses?

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

I will assume this is something like a true home game. No rake among people with passable connections to each other. If this is somehow an unraked game acting like an underground casino, that is a wholly different thing . . .

As I see the comments, they look to me like people want to play heads and Hero wins, tails and the host sucks up the loss. It is an unraked game. The host has no way to recover losses with "profits" from hosting the game. That seems like a pretty unrealistic ask to me.

As noted, the stakes are huge and there are good reasons not to have cash in full at the table. It seems preferable to have cash transferred when chips are handed over. No doubt the host would prefer that too.

Most of us know "those" sorts of players who seem to never have enough bankable cash, for all sorts of reasons. We like them because they spew chips. We are happy the host isn't sending them home, rather extending credit to keep the game going and juicy. No doubt the big winners often can trace their good fortune to the whale dusting off buy in after buy in.

This time the whale cannot/ will not cover the marker. I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table. And only now finds his voice to object. Tough luck. Hero and the other big winners have feasted off the whale for a while. This is the cost of doing business. Hero is well advised to carefully consider what is in his long term benefit. Making an ass of himself doesn't seem to be the obvious best choice.

These sorts of losses should be shared somehow among the winners and the Host. The host shouldn't be incurring all the risk since he/she isn't getting the bulk of the profits. If Hero doesn't like that answer, then play in "safer" games - maybe there is a rake/fee. maybe the host runs the deadbeats off at the first whiff of trouble. Perhaps hero should be cashing out early when parts of the bank are "on the books" Though Hero might find his ability to find nose-bleed stakes games quite limited by these sorts of restrictions.

As for the more exotic suggestions:

Gambling debts are often not enforceable contracts. Litigation is expensive. lawsuits are slow. and you might lose but still have the costs. Litigation also creates a trail easily followed by tax authorities.

Violence and the threats of violence are poor solutions. Even assuming that Hero is going to be on the winning side of a violent exchange is a risk in and of itself.

If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid. There is a delicate balance here - hero can ask about the marker some, but not too much. Again, taking part of the losses on markers is the cost of playing and normally being a big winner.

Let's just say asking the losers and breakeven players to forgo their cash outs to keep the big winners whole is short sighted at best. Come-on we know better than this.

TLDR suck it up, buttercup. This is part of the price of playing poker at these stakes. Don't like it? Find a game with fees, rakes and tips expected where the state regulates the house. -=- DrStrange

Worst take in this whole thread.

 

[MrCatPants]

The more I think about it, the more I’d prefer to just send over a bank to bank transfer to home games I play at.

Send you bulk $ upfront, and I just pull from that throughout the year. Have an ongoing ledger that I sign off on at the end of each game. Could even be online accessible.

I don’t attend one off home games really, so this would make me pretty much able to go moneyless at 100% of games.

For all the folks out their who have a reg scheduled weekly/biweekly game with all regs only, why isn’t this the preferred method?

Two reasons

1) it would be a really high amount of float for one person to carry. That's a crazy amount of trust to put in someone. Even not for dishonesty - host dies, get divorced, gets sued, tax issues, etc.

2) any method that makes losses more front and center and painful to net losers is potentially gamebreaking.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Two reasons

1) it would be a really high amount of float for one person to carry. That's a crazy amount of trust to put in someone. Even not for dishonesty - host dies, get divorced, gets sued, tax issues, etc.

2) any method that makes losses more front and center and painful to net losers is potentially gamebreaking.

Word, I’m with ya on both.

I think this is more fantasy, and as such would be a game with all lifelong friends.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I was recently invited to a new home game. I casually know the host, but we aren’t friends really. The game is bigger ($5/5 PLO $1000 max buy-in) than my game ($1/1). It is a true home game, no rake taken.

The game is a mix of cash and electronic payments, but mostly electronic. Debts are settled up at the end of the game to reduce the amount of transactions.

This is red flag number one I think. The fact that OP didn't know the host very well is troubling - did OP know any of the players in the game?

The game is a mix of cash and electronic payments, but mostly electronic. Debts are settled up at the end of the game to reduce the amount of transactions.

So anyone who leaves the game early has to wait until the game breaks to get paid? I've never heard of someone running a game this way.

1 particular player kept rebuying for $1k at a time and losing it faster than the host could get the next rebuy it seemed!!!

The Big Loser (BL going forward)pulls the host aside and tells him he doesn’t have the money to pay what he lost. BL is a pretty regular player in the game apparently, but also a big time gambler in general.

This is all really starting to sound like OP got scammed. It's very possible BL never intended to make the bank whole, leaving the winners in the game 'holding the bag' so to speak.

 

[Highli99]

The BL wasn't playing poker. He was playing “heads I win tails you lose” .

It sucks, and I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Perhaps a policy of verifying funds available (screen shot of Venmo/bank balance) before extending a large amount of credit could reduce the chances of this happening?

I understand the desire not to bring huge amounts of cash, but I'm not sure this is a reliable method either. I like the idea of an escrow of some kind as mentioned earlier.

Just because the activity from which the debt was incurred was "illegal" doesn't mean that you can't for a civil suit to try and recoup your debt.

In many states (Florida is one), gambling debts are legally unenforceable.

 

[BPTDirector]

BL was basically playing for free - F that big time. A chance to win thousands while losing nothing - bullshit!! Host extended, host pays and BL makes him whole or he learns BL is a huge piece of shit!

 

[BarrieJ3]

Two reasons

1) it would be a really high amount of float for one person to carry. That's a crazy amount of trust to put in someone. Even not for dishonesty - host dies, get divorced, gets sued, tax issues, etc.

2) any method that makes losses more front and center and painful to net losers is potentially gamebreaking.

Word, I’m with ya on both.

I think this is more fantasy, and as such would be a game with all lifelong friends.

But wait, this is why that escrow app makes total sense. Everyone just shoot your money into secured access whatever, and upon agreed to exit amounts it shoots out one transaction per.

 

[Taghkanic]

Send you bulk $ upfront, and I just pull from that throughout the year.

[…]

For all the folks out their who have a reg scheduled weekly/biweekly game with all regs only, why isn’t this the preferred method?

Because it would mean:

1. Multiple players sending large deposits*, each of which can trigger banking rules for reporting to authorities;
2. Earning reportable interest on that balance;
3. The appearance, if audited, of the account holding six figures of undeclared income;
4. Huge complications from not-uncommon scenarios like death, divorce, theft, embezzlement, etc. occurring.

There are reasons cash is king.



…………..
* Even in a smaller game, a year’s worth of buyins can be a large amount. Say you play 1/2 with a $300 cap. You play there 20 times a year, and rebuy/add on sometimes. To cover the year (unless you redeposit your wins, a major PITA for the host), you’d want $10K to draw from. If you transfer 10K, your bank has to report it. Some banks are hassling customers over less these days.

 

[KHarp1]

In many states (Florida is one), gambling debts are legally unenforceable.

All that means is that the state won't take up your case for you, you have to proceed through civil court...where the burden of proof is less then in criminal court.
You, however, will have to pay for getting an attorney and suing.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I do like the idea that at certain debt points the credit needs to have a payment made. We have all seen someone go on tilt and lose a bunch. If they can keep borrowing that amount can get big fast and we know that people on tilt are unlikely to win it back. So making them keep the marker under a certain dollar amount can put a stop to the downward spiral and limit the host/bankers total exposure while still giving some leeway and reducing the total number of transactions coming into their account.

 

[WedgeRock]

It's very possible BL never intended to make the bank whole, leaving the winners in the game 'holding the bag' so to speak.

I believe this too, at least at some point during the night. He figured he was freerolling and would get into high variance spots. If he hit, he could crawl out of the hole he dug. If not, no worries, he wasn't gonna pay up anyway.

The more important question is, did the hose know. Seems like from the tenor of the OP that the host was not in on it, but that doesn't absolve the host of liability for extending credit to BL, IMO.

 

[WedgeRock]

So anyone who leaves the game early has to wait until the game breaks to get paid?

Not the point of the OP, but establishing an escrow in advance, playing that night, and getting paid (or refunded the unused escrow) in a few days is totally reasonable at these stakes.