Simple, the host made the decision to do the loan on his own. He has the responsibility on his own. That shouldn't need explaining.
Great point about leaving, but we all also know if you are the “new guy” or even a regular and are up a lot and are the first to leave you can almost guarantee you won’t be invited back. Hit and run in a private game is a death sentence for invites and that label can get attached to you for other games. While not as bad a cheat, it isn’t much better!
Lots of interesting perspectives in this thread. Have you decided what you’re going to do?
Well, I thought I’d ask PCF to help cover the shortfall, seems to be the trend.
Yeah this is a good point, I don't think I would even make this call unless I was pretty sure I wasn't coming back.
That's where all the flavor is!
Want to see a bunch of dug-into-their-beliefs hobbiest whackos? Check out cast iron.
My wife's a die-hard. I mess up every single time I use it; scrub too much, scrub too little, pan was too hot or too cold. The thing's a Mensa puzzle.
It was clean at the beginning of the night, if that helps at all. And scrubbing all that burnt cheese yesterday was a real PITA. The things I do for people
Or everybody just speak up and cut the guy off. Buddy of mine kept rebuying and going all in within 2-3 hands multiple times. All of us told him to stop. He was drunk as a skunk and all pissed off when I told him he lost enough and asked for his keys then drove him home shortly after. His wife was pretty pissed but glad I did what I did.
For things like a banking error, this logic makes sense. But that's not what this is. The host is making a decision to loan a player money. It's between the borrower and the lender.
I can understand this to a point.
It is not the hero's place to interject on what the lender chooses to do with the borrower. Hero cannot object and expect to continue. Hero could have left the game, that was the only option if he had discomfort, but even that has repercussions.
This take is awful because it completely absolves the lender of a lending decision that he alone made. And to boot, he just arbitrarily assigned the loss the newest player in the game. I can't believe you are defending this in the slightest.
True, but the suggestion was to get up and leave early if you get the feeling something sketchy is going on. If you are leaving early for that reason, do you even care if you aren't invited back. Are you even planning on going back to the place you felt you had to get out of Dodge from if you do get invited back?
Been at games it was my first time playing, I ran good, I played ok. Wasn't the first one to leave , told the table I be leaving in 30-40 minutes, but there were still players that wanted to stay on after that time.
If I know something sketchy is going on, sure, running out the door asap. But what if this guy is WW level rich and dropping $20k is what he does for fun on a Saturday night and I am now burning a game that could be very profitable long term?
Anytime after 1am I would say is safe to leave.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true. Hero reports that the custom of this game is to settle up everything at the end of the night. It seems likely that host assumed the guy would pay up at the end of the night. So he probably didn’t actually choose to make a loan; the host and the game got stiffed.
I'm not advocating leaving early or not leaving early. I'm just pointing out that if things are so bad you need to leave early, getting invited back is probably not a consideration.
I've had plenty of games when people announce that they are leaving. Some were up, some down, and some even. On several occasions, said player wins a HUGE pot right before the time they announced they were leaving, and plays another hand or two and leaves because they already announced they were leaving. No issues at all with that. Its the sit down, play 20-30 minutes, double/triple up .. play a hand or two, and leave..
I don't even think this approach (making the winning players eat a loss caused by poor banking) is appropriate for honest mistakes.
I often bank in my game, and we play for fairly large stakes. We are all friends. I wouldn’t bank if I was being asked to take all of the risk. And I wouldn’t expect others banking to take all of the risk. Although I agree that the banker bears primary responsibility, players have some responsibility as well, at least to verify a cash out. We all share in shortages, which are few and far between, and that’s our preference.
Apparently @DrStrange has a problem with this conclusion
This is the sad truth. Assigning responsibility and making corrective action are two very different things.
We obviously can hope host will do the right thing, but if he doesn't, I think @Rhodeman77 would be completely justified to spread the word about what happened and who's involved so hopefully no one else gets whacked like this again.
Even if I accept this at face value, I can't square this as an out for the host. He is the one that set up this culture, he has to take responsibility for when it doesn't go according to plan.
Distributing the loss is considerably more fair than picking and choosing which players are made whole versus which ones get stiffed. There probably should have been a uniform haircut on cashout based on percentage, and the host should make out markers for the haircuts.
Sure, players should verify their cash-outs, but that's a responsibility to check that their own funds are in line. They're not responsible for auditing the bank itself at any point. Any mistakes made there are not the doing of the players.
Obviously I disagree with this approach. But if it's agreed to in advance by everyone, then I guess that's your prerogative.
I hear you loud and clear on this one. I was just trying to relate to @DrStrange 's point that banking is a no win proposition in an unranked game, but it's an necessary job and one that requires high skill as you point out.
