200 Motels
Flush
Here's a scenario I'd like some feedback on.
I'm usually cashier at our home game and have a very good accuracy rate (ie, very infrequent discrepancies).
During a game in Jan I decided to have the host be cashier as I was pretty tired and would likely be getting slightly inebriated. My faith in host's cashier abilities come from his proven math skill demonstrated by his ability to total pot in PLO games as well as count side pots.
Anyhow, a scenarios arises during this game where a player is cashless and wants to go on the book for $100. It's not uncommon as we're a pretty close group and no one has ever not paid funds back. So they're on the book for $100, they go bust, the get another $100. Now the cashier isn't putting the cash in the case for their book lending and at one point the cashless one asks if they're on the book for $200 or $300. No one is sure as we try to keep the lending of funds between the lender and borrower. Cashier says let's just do a quick audit and see. So everyone counts their stack quickly and it's determined that cashless is on the book for $200. Cashless one celebrates by saying, I thought it was $300, excellent it's like I just won a buyin. They eventually bust and leave. Their loss is larger than normal for them.
End of the night rolls around and the cash is off $100.
The only person on the book was cashless one and there were only two more buyins after they left, which were odd amounts under $100.
It's brought to their attention by text. They deny this. Their argument is that they don't know what took place after they left and things were settled before they left. Valid points.
Generalizing, they're the type of person that would deny it immediately and not attempt to think about it objectively right away until a solid argument was brought up to counter theirs.
It's between cashless one and cashier, but cashless one hasn't played since and often game hasn't ran because they didn't play.
Options we discussed at the next game...
1) cashier and cashless chop the $100 loss
2) cashier sticks to the one argument that cashless said that they felt they were free rolling $100. (which they're more likely to deny the more time that passes)
3) cashier eats the loss
Any thoughts on a creative solution to this?
TL;DR - Cashier is off $100 at end of night after player who's playing off the book leaves. Thoughts on fair solution?
I'm usually cashier at our home game and have a very good accuracy rate (ie, very infrequent discrepancies).
During a game in Jan I decided to have the host be cashier as I was pretty tired and would likely be getting slightly inebriated. My faith in host's cashier abilities come from his proven math skill demonstrated by his ability to total pot in PLO games as well as count side pots.
Anyhow, a scenarios arises during this game where a player is cashless and wants to go on the book for $100. It's not uncommon as we're a pretty close group and no one has ever not paid funds back. So they're on the book for $100, they go bust, the get another $100. Now the cashier isn't putting the cash in the case for their book lending and at one point the cashless one asks if they're on the book for $200 or $300. No one is sure as we try to keep the lending of funds between the lender and borrower. Cashier says let's just do a quick audit and see. So everyone counts their stack quickly and it's determined that cashless is on the book for $200. Cashless one celebrates by saying, I thought it was $300, excellent it's like I just won a buyin. They eventually bust and leave. Their loss is larger than normal for them.
End of the night rolls around and the cash is off $100.
The only person on the book was cashless one and there were only two more buyins after they left, which were odd amounts under $100.
It's brought to their attention by text. They deny this. Their argument is that they don't know what took place after they left and things were settled before they left. Valid points.
Generalizing, they're the type of person that would deny it immediately and not attempt to think about it objectively right away until a solid argument was brought up to counter theirs.
It's between cashless one and cashier, but cashless one hasn't played since and often game hasn't ran because they didn't play.
Options we discussed at the next game...
1) cashier and cashless chop the $100 loss
2) cashier sticks to the one argument that cashless said that they felt they were free rolling $100. (which they're more likely to deny the more time that passes)
3) cashier eats the loss
Any thoughts on a creative solution to this?
TL;DR - Cashier is off $100 at end of night after player who's playing off the book leaves. Thoughts on fair solution?