Cash Game Am I wrong to ask a player to pay for their referral who didn't pay up?

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
Welp, I play fairly regularly on a site where the guy maintains accounts, so yes, everybody plays in advance.
I’ve played online tournaments with four other groups this year, and with each one, people were expected to pay before, or in the early stages of the tournament.

So I, for one, have never played online where the cash is all settled up later.
This sounds super time intensive over an extended period of time tbh, but kudos to whichever of your friends is making that work! If we had to do that in advance (lots of rebuys etc), I don't think it would work.
 

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,317
Reaction score
15,592
Location
boston
No, actually, I replied too quickly. I didn’t notice you specified in between friends. That’s different. Still potentially dangerous, as we see in this thread, but different from what I’ve been doing - some of those people are friends, but there’s enough randos like me, that they’re not quite friend groups.
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
No, actually, I replied too quickly. I didn’t notice you specified in between friends. That’s different. Still potentially dangerous, as we see in this thread, but different from what I’ve been doing.
Oh yeah, in raked games (just like actual sites like Pokerstars etc), you have to put $ up front, for sure. This was meant specifically for a friendly game.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,323
Location
Burnsville, MN
Nobody pays in advance in online games between “friends” (ie. Non-raked games), that’s just not realistic. Always a mechanism for settling up. As has been said, the organizer(s) needed stronger/clear rules for HOW this settling up process will take place (it’s basically the single most important thing to clarify & agree on in this context).

Really? Because I played in a couple of these rooms and I was a regular player with both hosts and I paid up front. Just seems to be the respectful thing to do, why add stress to the host that's taking the initiative to host?
 

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,317
Reaction score
15,592
Location
boston
Really? Because I played in a couple of these rooms and I was a regular player with both hosts and I paid up front. Just seems to be the respectful thing to do, why add stress to the host that's taking the initiative to host?
Not only that, but just on a personal level, going through a losing session sucks. Having to pay up AFTER that must be like adding insult to injury.
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
Really? Because I played in a couple of these rooms and I was a regular player with both hosts and I paid up front. Just seems to be the respectful thing to do, why add stress to the host that's taking the initiative to host?
I think it's actually *less* stress for the host when you have a good settlement system. Again, this is based on trust, and everyone is responsible for someone else, but as long as you got that down, a weekly settlement system (in our case on Monday mornings), automatically generally by an algorithm is just FAR easier and less stressful than having ~30 players adding money and contacting the host every time they want to rebuy or add more money after a bad beat.
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
It might also be a reflection of the stakes played? People are regularly +1k or -1k in our games so it would be a lot of handle in terms of transactions. On the flipside, everyone playing in our games is comfortable with those stakes and have track records of YEARS playing with each other. That helps.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,323
Location
Burnsville, MN
I think it's actually *less* stress for the host when you have a good settlement system. Again, this is based on trust, and everyone is responsible for someone else, but as long as you got that down, a weekly settlement system (in our case on Monday mornings), automatically generally by an algorithm is just FAR easier and less stressful than having ~30 players adding money and contacting the host every time they want to rebuy or add more money after a bad beat.

I mean processing payouts is hard enough, which is part of why I never sought to run one of these things. That level of trust is great and appreciated where it exists, and I think all honorable gamblers understand it. But the problem is not all gamblers have that level of honor, and it's pretty easy to rationalize. "I'm being cheated I don't have to pay." I know of another guy (who I didn't play online with) that got left holding the bag for pretty much the same excuse as in the original post.

If I ran this, I would limit my intake by saying 3x max buy in to open the account. Personally, I'd rather stress the transactions than the likelyhood of someone turning heel and deciding to stiff the game.
 

PlayerADK

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
1,821
Location
Upstate NY
Guy plays + loses $800, just to claim he thinks y'all were cheating?

So he gambled for free, and continued to do so, then claims rigged game?

I'd try and confront this guy in person, if possible. Get his contact info, badger him daily. He literally just stole $800 from you and your friends.

I would agree that John isn't responsible, as others mentioned. Unless agreed upon prior to the game, it's on the host.

I also agree with others that it is a system error. Collect up front from everyone (inconvenient sure, fool proof though) payout at end of the night.
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
I mean processing payouts is hard enough, which is part of why I never sought to run one of these things. That level of trust is great and appreciated where it exists, and I think all honorable gamblers understand it. But the problem is not all gamblers have that level of honor, and it's pretty easy to rationalize. "I'm being cheated I don't have to pay." I know of another guy (who I didn't play online with) that got left holding the bag for pretty much the same excuse as in the original post.

If I ran this, I would limit my intake by saying 3x max buy in to open the account. Personally, I'd rather stress the transactions than the likelyhood of someone turning heel and deciding to stiff the game.
Yeah totally understand that. We've never had that problem (or ever gotten close to that problem) over 13 months of running our online game. A lot might be due to the nature of the pre-existing relationships in our games but the rules (and declining certain player applications to the club) have helped us strengthen that confidence.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,323
Location
Burnsville, MN
Yeah totally understand that. We've never had that problem (or ever gotten close to that problem) over 13 months of running our online game. A lot might be due to the nature of the pre-existing relationships in our games but the rules (and declining certain player applications to the club) have helped us strengthen that confidence.
And I agree, that's great and something you should be proud of.

But by closing your system, you are running the risk of your game going through atrophy too. Always need new players. A happy medium is what others have said here. New guys are on probation and at least have to put some up in advance and demonstrate good credit over a few months before they achieve the top level of trust.
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
And I agree, that's great and something you should be proud of.

But by closing your system, you are running the risk of your game going through atrophy too. Always need new players. A happy medium is what others have said here. New guys are on probation and at least have to put some up in advance and demonstrate good credit over a few months before they achieve the top level of trust.
Agreed, and honestly, just thinking about the stress involved in on-boarding less known players to a game I have some responsibility for running, already gives me anxiety. Luckily here in NYC, we have a network of hosts who have decent player pools of friends or friends of friends who have been playing non-raked games together (live) for an extended period of time so we haven't had to reach too far to recruit new players. Having said that, our games run only 3-4 nights a week so it is not 24-7 nonstop action as some expect on their online site.
 

CrazyEddie

Flush
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
3,632
Location
Georgia
Lots of good comments here, although it's drifted somewhat from the OP's concern.

Seems like a good system combining the best of both worlds would be a weekly settle-up after-the-fact combined with an up-front standing collateral deposit. All new players post an amount sufficient to cover their worst-case buy-ins to be held as collateral by the banker. Everyone settles up every week, including paying your losses in full with new funds rather than drawing down your collateral. Every month, the banker gives everyone back a quarter of their initial collateral, so that after four months of having proven themselves reliable in paying their weekly losses, a player no longer needs to keep any collateral posted.

No one plays if they haven't settled up from the previous week. Anyone not settled up after a month is out. Their collateral is liquidated to cover their debts, any excess is returned to them, and any deficit is covered jointly by the rest of the players.

Just a thought.
 

CrazyEddie

Flush
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
3,632
Location
Georgia
I guess the downside of a scheme like that is that some players (maybe a lot of players?) might want to sit and play in a game but get paid in full right away if they win, not have someone hold onto a big chunk of their money as collateral. I guess the host could say "Okay, that's fine, you can get your collateral back in full any time, but that resets the clock on the trust period... which means you'll always have to pay your buy-ins in advance in full instead of eventually earning the right to freeroll on credit."
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
I guess the downside of a scheme like that is that some players (maybe a lot of players?) might want to sit and play in a game but get paid in full right away if they win, not have someone hold onto a big chunk of their money as collateral. I guess the host could say "Okay, that's fine, you can get your collateral back in full any time, but that resets the clock on the trust period... which means you'll always have to pay your buy-ins in advance in full instead of eventually earning the right to freeroll on credit."
Yeah... I mean in reality it just creates an endless series of questions or follow up riddles to solve... this is why once a week settlement payments actually work very well, once people get accustomed (and agree) to it.
 

JScott

3 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
672
Reaction score
1,351
Location
Whistler, BC
Or... wait for it....... You can pay your buyins at the time of buying in? ;)

It can't be that hard guys. I've extended credit before, but we're talking like $50/100 max, and to close friends who will settle up with me at the next break, or latest when I'm cashing out. I get it may be more difficult with online, but with all the paypal/venmo/emt solutions out there I can't find a good reason not to make everyone settle their buyins up front.
 

Senzrock

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3,863
Location
New York City
Or... wait for it....... You can pay your buyins at the time of buying in? ;)

It can't be that hard guys. I've extended credit before, but we're talking like $50/100 max, and to close friends who will settle up with me at the next break, or latest when I'm cashing out. I get it may be more difficult with online, but with all the paypal/venmo/emt solutions out there I can't find a good reason not to make everyone settle their buyins up front.
Not to get too into the weeds, but here is the reason:

Most players don't put up as much cash as they think they're going to need up front. They buy-in for $300, so that's what they pay up front. Now this is already an email, a transaction, a site moderator who has to pay attention and take care of it etc. OK. Now... player is in the game, gets a bad beat, and wants to rebuy (right away, because the game is JUICY and the FISH just TOOK ALL HIS MONEY), but he has to now track down the site moderator (who might be out on a date or doing something completely different, this is just an unraked game between friends mind you, and then go through the process again of loading more money onto the account, the moderator tracking his buyin, extending the limit on his chips etc etc. You get the idea.

I can't tell you how much work this becomes in the real world for a site that is not getting paid to run it. Try doing this when multiple tables are running and people are rebuying left and right, it just doesn't work!
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,323
Location
Burnsville, MN
I can't tell you how much work this becomes in the real world for a site that is not getting paid to run it. Try doing this when multiple tables are running and people are rebuying left and right, it just doesn't work!
But it works in the two games I have been in.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,323
Location
Burnsville, MN
Unless it's a small game, there is *someone* putting in a fair amount of labor to make this happen for you guys. Good on them for offering to do that.
I know that,and I would estimate both pools are in the 20-30 player range. I tipped with every cash out.

But now that I can host live again, I have been absent from online play. But it was a good system in the interim.
 

MrCatPants

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
2,548
Location
Houston, Texas
As one of these hosts it is 100% easier carrying balances and only processing deposits for players who bust/cash outs for players whose balances getting pretty big.

I couldn't imagine keeping tabs on the ups and downs personally and chasing people down. Friends or not it's an immense amount of hassle comparatively. My friends trust me to carry balances on their behalf rather than me trusting them to settle up - better system, hands down.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,323
Location
Burnsville, MN
As one of these hosts it is 100% easier carrying balances and only processing deposits for players who bust/cash outs for players whose balances getting pretty big.

I couldn't imagine keeping tabs on the ups and downs personally and chasing people down. Friends or not it's an immense amount of hassle comparatively. My friends trust me to carry balances on their behalf rather than me trusting them to settle up - better system, hands down.
One of my friends hosted on pokerrrrrr which seems to do a lot of the keeping track.
 

XBobdog

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
1,195
Location
charlotte
I will admit I haven't read every post in this thread.

It just doesn't seem that you fully understand vouching for someone. Or the nuances.

If you are trying to get people to play in your game, vouching enters a grey area where you need to protect yourself. (If you look for fish, get paid first)

Vouching typically is when someone is trying to get a guy into a game.

Vouching only works among people that think the same way. You can play poker with people for years and never think the same way. If you expect coverage from someone, you need to say that out loud.
 
Last edited:

L3urntout

Two Pair
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
263
Reaction score
253
Location
USA
A lot of people really concerned here with changing the game and taking cash up front... for a busy club that is a huge hassle.

This is fixed by making people who refer accountable for those who they invite (club is invite only), if that person defaults, it is who referred him. We haven't had a default in our system, though we have had to kick some players for late payments.

I actually don't see how John in good faith could introduce someone without considering what happens if he defaults, even if it wasn't explicitly stated I would hold him accountable to some degree, even if it is a partial split in good faith. All in all it should be absolutely required going forward.

We just punch the pnl of all the games in between settles into a script and it is posted in a group chat, with it automatically telling us who request who from Venmo. Sometimes it can be weeks other times we're running the settle 3x a week because of game frequency, and ANYONE can settle, it is just on the individuals to do their due diligence that their amounts are correct. We have had some ledgers adjusted for incorrectly punched names etc, but never have had any issues resolving after.

Also it is the winner's jobs to send the requests, one guy waits like actual weeks later to collect in huge batches, so much so that I actually just pay him first if I'm supposed to settle with him.

Edit: Character > poker skill when trying to add long term club members
 

Attachments

  • settle.png
    settle.png
    21.5 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:

LotsOfChips

Flush
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,609
Location
UTG +1
A lot of people really concerned here with changing the game and taking cash up front... for a busy club that is a huge hassle.

This is fixed by making people who refer accountable for those who they invite (club is invite only), if that person defaults, it is who referred him. We haven't had a default in our system, though we have had to kick some players for late payments.
The hassle is also easily fixed by having everyone (or at least new players) put up a deposit up front (perhaps enough for 2-3 games) and have the host act as bank. That shifts the burden of trust from the host or the referrer, and onto the player (he needs to trust you, you don't need to trust him)

If you want to place the burden of trust onto the referrer, where does this end? 2 or 3 games? 2 or 3 months? 2 or 3 years? Life?

Things change, people's circumstances change. A guy that has been totally reliable for the last many years may face personal or financial pressures in the future that leads him to do some scummy behavior at some unknown point in the future. I'm probably ok with accepting responsibility for referring a guy and he shits the bed on his first or second game. But if I'm responsible for someone else's behavior forever, I'm probably not going to refer anyone, ever, even if I know they are currently worth bringing into the game.
 

L3urntout

Two Pair
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
263
Reaction score
253
Location
USA
The hassle is also easily fixed by having everyone (or at least new players) put up a deposit up front (perhaps enough for 2-3 games) and have the host act as bank. That shifts the burden of trust from the host or the referrer, and onto the player (he needs to trust you, you don't need to trust him)

If you want to place the burden of trust onto the referrer, where does this end? 2 or 3 games? 2 or 3 months? 2 or 3 years? Life?

Things change, people's circumstances change. A guy that has been totally reliable for the last many years may face personal or financial pressures in the future that leads him to do some scummy behavior at some unknown point in the future. I'm probably ok with accepting responsibility for referring a guy and he shits the bed on his first or second game. But if I'm responsible for someone else's behavior forever, I'm probably not going to refer anyone, ever, even if I know they are currently worth bringing into the game.
So this still doesn't solve the issue for the long-running game. A "few games deposit" returned doesn't cover the situation you outlined... who assumes responsibility then? The host doesn't make sense for an online game...

And if you don't want the responsibility of being the referrer that is your prerogative, but you're not going to get as good consistent games without people who fit those criterion. Surely you would know some people who you would you could that much trust in? And honestly it would be a few games of risk at most.
 

Hammer517

Pair
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
172
Reaction score
143
Location
Atlanta, GA
But it works in the two games I have been in.
What stakes game are you playing in? Problem is when you get to .5/$1 or above. If people are buying in up front and cashing out fully the next day, then it works a couple of times until the host/banker gets all their accounts frozen due to setting all sorts of red flags off.
 

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,317
Reaction score
15,592
Location
boston
The more I think about it, the more I think this is just more of the "online poker sucks" think, for me.
Even the site I play on, where the guy keeps the accounts, and lets people cash out once a week - I realized early on that I wasn't going to cash out once a week, because that just creates more work for everybody when I inevitably have to deposit again. So I decided to let my account run up to a certain threshold, and only cash out the excess. Which worked fine I guess, but for me, leaving money in some online poker account makes it less real. And like chips in a casino, easier to piss away.
For me, poker is walking in, putting cash on the table, and (hopefully) walking out that night with a fat pocket full of cash. Anything else is a poor substitute.
/rant
 
Top Bottom