Hosts who run a sheet (1 Viewer)

[chippitydoodah]

This.

In today’s day and age there should be no reason for you to have to loan money to anyone. Pull out your phone, transfer some funds electronically and I will give you some more chips.

Unless they need to hide their losses (and possibly their winnings )

 

[Mojo1312]

Wow. Why lend at all, though?

Good question. There is a greater amount of camaraderie present in home games than there is in casinos. Over the course of time, relationships of a friendly nature are built, which results in a level of trust being extended to players who you see and interact with every week.

However, friendships in home games - as in life - can be abused. IMO, that occurs when players look at you as their bank. I feel that is where I am right now. It is important to realize that there are no winners when one person (in this case, the house) is bankrolling another's losses unchecked.

 

[Madmizike]

I can understand the one off loan when someone forgets money but if you’re constantly asking for a loan you shouldn’t be playing. Period.

 

[Taghkanic]

I can understand the one off loan when someone forgets money but if you’re constantly asking for a loan you shouldn’t be playing. Period.

I did speak with the host about this.

I was glad to learn that he’s not actually taking any interest on the money that he extends to players short of cash. So least it’s not a loansharking situation.

He seems to think that it’s good for the game that people splash around, even beyond their immediate needs. He is confident that he’ll get paid back, albeit slowly. And of course, since he is taking a rake, as long as he does get paid back, that’s probably good for his own bottom line.

All that said, he did agree that when people get in so deep that they avoid the game, that creates a different problem (attendance). And he said on his own volition that anyone who can’t pay him back within a month or so probably shouldn’t be playing these stakes.

He said he is likely going to institute a much lower limit on how much anyone can borrow in the future, more like $500. (I got the sense that multiple players are into him for more like $1,500, which seems like too much for a 1/3 game, 500BB.)

 

[Lord_Foldemort]

This.

In today’s day and age there should be no reason for you to have to loan money to anyone. Pull out your phone, transfer some funds electronically and I will give you some more chips.

Second this. I fully think if you do not have access to electronically pay someone on the spot, then you likely do not have the funds to be playing poker. But I exclusively play with either friends, or friends of friends. I think playing with randos and strangers can make someone significantly more apathetic toward whether or not they lose money, but without posting collateral of some sort, I feel like someone could be setting themselves up for not seeing that money ever again.

 

[Seven2Wizard]

I play regularly in a weekly private game whose host runs a sheet… i.e., he lets players borrow from him when they are short of cash.

I absolutely won’t do this as a host, as I think it easily leads to problems. Problems are exactly what I’m seeing develop in this other private game. (It’s a 1/3 which plays bigger, almost like a 2/5.)

For the first year I played there, it went off quite regularly. But two out of the last three weeks, and three out of the last five, the host has had to call his game off for lack of players.

I’m pretty friendly with the host, who runs a really nice game. In chatting with him, it has become apparent that the cancellations are happening because at least 3-4 regs now owe him too much to keep playing.

I don’t know how much interest he charges, if any. I don’t really care. I care that a good game is falling apart, seemingly because of the sheet.

Sports betting is probably exacerbating the problem, as I know these same regs are constantly talking about their parlays etc.

Some regs have disappeared before for 1-3 months. But this time they are all M.I.A. at the same time. The host is scrambling to replace the regs while they try to pay him back slowly or at least enough to resume borrowing.

So now I am tempted to talk with the host to discourage him from extending credit, or at least not extending them so much that they start missing multiple games. I’d rather they attend regularly leave down only 1-2 buyins in a night, rather than getting in so deep that they disappear for months.

My question is, are there any hosts here who run a sheet? How do you do it in a way that is sustainable, and does not lead to these problems?

I agree with you. Absolutely no way I’m giving markers. It will inevitably cause friction and discontent.

 

[russdawg1]

Even with smaller buy-ins either you supply the cash or we don't play in my group. Owing money just has so many drawbacks and I can't think of a single benefit.

Sorry that your local game fell apart!

 

[Sparkynutz]

Sounds to me they need to all start playing limit games for quarters and no more iou's

 

[ekricket]

The sheep are getting sheared too close. Sounds like your game is dependent on 3-4 people constantly losing. If you are clipping them so much that they have to rebuild to repay - one of these times they just won’t repay, they will find a different game. Sheep wander off pretty easy.

 

[merkong]

It’s nice when losses do the variant thing and everyone sort of takes their share. Loaning money, whether it’s between players or if the host is involved, comes out of pocket and is between the parties involved.

 

[SetToBean]

I gave credit once recently despite having a "no credit from the host" policy just from getting wrapped up in the moment in the usual manner of juggling a few things at once. Regretted it just from the awkwardness of the follow-up later, and I'll have to be more consistent next time especially since I'm starting down the road of nudging the stakes just a little higher.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

"I care that a good game is falling apart, seemingly because of the sheet."

Unfortunately, the game is not falling apart because of the sheet, it's falling apart because the losing players do not have the funds to keep playing. That's always been the difficulty with playing poker. Is that the better players end up winning in the long run and the losing players have to keep inserting cash into the game for them to continue playing. Players only have so much money to continue playing, that's why every poker game needs new players with new cash infusion to keep the games going.

It kind of sounds like the game runner or host has been funding the losing players which has kept the game running longer, which appears to be artificially running longer because the losing players have been living off the loans to continue playing. Whether they charge interest or vig or whatever, is almost irrelevant, the game doesn't have the players with the capital to play, so the game cannot continue. Think about it as customer acquisition, poker rooms, live, and online deal with this all the time, it is especially relevant. When Rake is involved, everybody here can do the math, you have nine players on a poker table who all sit down with $500 each, and the rake is five dollars a hand, in one hour, there's roughly $100-$150 evaporating from the table, eventually if those nine players play long enough, they will simply be eliminated just by paying the rake. That's exactly why, to sustain poker games, you must have new player insertion and acquisition to continue the game. If there's no rake, eventually, the better players win the money from the not so better players, and then you're left with the same issue. You need new customer acquisition and insertion to keep the game running.

Good luck.

 

[Taghkanic]

Unfortunately, the game is not falling apart because of the sheet, it's falling apart because the losing players do not have the funds to keep playing.

Disagree, at least in part.

The sheet speeds up the rate at which losing players lose.

If a player can only really get together 1-2 buyins per game, and no credit is offered, then that’s all they bring. It limits how much they can risk per session.

When the host extends credit, then a player lacking restraint can rack up multiple buyins on the sheet each session.

They justify this with the idea of getting back to even—playing for too long, for too much, often on tilt. Instead of losing 1-2 buyins in cash, then going away to earn enough to buy in to the next game, after just a few sessions borrowers can dig themselves into a deep hole.

Instead of attending regularly, now they have a nasty debt. They owe too much, so their attendance dwindles or stops altogether. They start to avoid the host and the game.

Sure, a bad player will still go broke eventually…. But the rate of loss is very relevant.

Big difference between being on a downswing where you haven’t won in 5-6 weeks, but the losses are manageable, and being so far down that you can’t show your face.