I think you and I really have different assumptions here and it's a question worth exploring. When you buy into a game, are you making a transaction with the banker or with everyone else in the game.
Our disagreement I believe comes down to this question.
Players are taking risks in the game too and now they have to take a risk that someone the host invited is going to stiff the bank too?
It's an easier system imo if everyone just trusts the bank and the bank takes that responsibility. And I agree, it really sucks that there is no upside to be the bank because the bank can't take any reward in the present legal environment (thankfully in our group, we have a good culture of tipping the host)
But if the assumption is that everyone covers everyone, I think that's a chilling effect on who is willing to play in games that is also unesirable.
Great point. And I don't think the answer is simple, especially in the context of this thread.
In a home game situation, everybody has paid for the chips they're playing with, so there's a bit more certainty.
In these online/paypal tourneys, it's usually the opposite, at least in my experience - everybody signs up, they start playing, and then somebody collects the money. Ideally in the online situation, the host/banker is vouching for everybody playing. But realistically, that's not always a fair proposition. And lets forget about one guy stiffing the banker for a moment - what if paypal seizes all the money and holds it for a day, a week, a year, or forever? Should the banker pay everybody out of his pocket, then wait to recover the funds?
If the banker set up the tournament, invited all the people, chose the method of payment - had made all the decisions top to bottom, yeah, I suppose he's on the hook. But situations differ. A lot of times, these are "clubs" and people who never really made any decisions, take turns being the banker. If the shit goes down on the night you happen to be banker, should you get screwed? I don't know. Was the idea that everybody takes turns assuming the risk? Or was the idea more like we're a club all playing poker together, lets hope nothing goes wrong?
Back to the home game situation. If a guy runs a game, invites you to his game, and then takes your money in exchange for chips, I guess I can't argue with you expecting him to make good on that transaction. But in real life, I'm the guest, and I'm going to a guy's house every week to play in a game that he's hosting out of the goodness of his heart, and he happens to get screwed, I'm going to help him out.
This whole narrative is a long way of giving you the same answer I just gave detroitdad - I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer here. Hopefully everybody is good people and they work shit out. The practical truth is that the law isn't getting involved - you're not going to win a court case over a home poker game - so it really is the wild west in a way.
But if you want a yes or no answer - no, I don't think I have a transaction with a banker in a game that isn't raked. I think I have a transaction with the game.