Cashier situation (1 Viewer)

[200 Motels]

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?

 

[inca911]

Unless the borrower readily agrees to pay more, the Bank eats the loss.

 

[links_slayer]

+1 to bank taking it on the chin.

 

[Nex]

Bank agrees to lend money, bank screws up -- bank eats the loss. Bank also free to choose to no longer let that specific player play at their place if they feel they deliberately fabricated the situation.

I would not lend money in the first place however, and also always write down any cash movements to and from the bank - every buyin, rebuy, and cash out.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Bank. It’s happened to me. Just got to to smile and eat it.

However, we never play on the books. Someone wants to loan a player money, great. It happens all the the time. Otherwise go hit the ATM. .

 

[SWEATER]

Agree with the others. This is and should be the bank's loss.

 

[BGinGA]

Unless the borrower readily agrees to pay more, the Bank eats the loss.

^This. And ditch the on-the-book practice for future games, or at least keep good records of those type of transactions -- including having the borrower sign or initial for each loan (people who borrow, especially when drinking, often have faulty memories).

 

[200 Motels]

Thanks for the replies gang. The host's wife and the cashless one are fairly close friends so I'm pretty confident the above is what will happen. I'm thinking that if cashless is ever flush with money at the right time, they'll reluctantly make some compromise.

I'm a fan of the "no book" rule. Thanks again gang.

 

[Jambine]

Unless the borrower readily agrees to pay more, the Bank eats the loss.

It sucks but thats all you can do. That's why you have a banker (that is to say one banker)

 

[Jambine]

Maybe I missed it, but why is the banker NOT putting markers in the bank in exchange for chips?

 

[upNdown]

Maybe I missed it, but why is the banker NOT putting markers in the bank in exchange for chips?

Yeah, I normally feel bad if the banker personally gets stuck for a shortage, because it isn't necessarily his fault. But in this case, if he wasn't recording the loans, he has to eat it because he was negligent.

 

[Rhodeman77]

As a regular host I am often in the position of being asked to borrow money by players.

Most of the time I am willing to as long as I know the player well.

When I do this I always make a note of the IOU in my phone first, then move the cash from my bankroll into the game’s bank, then I get the player chips.

This process keeps the bank right and the debt recorded.

And if for some reason the bank came up short I would eat the shortage.

 

[TexRex]

Banker is responsible for losses. All bankers should understand that! When they take the position, they agree to it.

I do wonder what made the player think he was in for $300. He might have been right, but if audit showed otherwise, it sounds like he's in the clear. If someone miscounted in audit, that's a bank problem.

 

[DrStrange]

I don't like the idea of putting the banker in a no-win situation. On a good night, the bank comes out right and the banker is never distracted from the game for a rebuy at a critical point. Most nights the bank comes out ok but the banker's game suffered a little. On a bad night the bank is short and everyone thinks the banker should make up the loss.

OK, if that is the deal, then the game should pay the banker for his/her time, effort and risk. After we quit laughing at that idea, which isn't ever going to happen, we have to ask why anyone would volunteer to be banker. The banker is on the hook for shortages. The banker can't easily leave before the game breaks. The bank is well advised not to drink. The banker is going to have distractions that weaken his/her game. Almost no one says thank you for a banking job well done, but let the game be $100 short and the banker will hear about it.

I win more than I lose. I also don't drink, so I take on the banking job most games. Mistakes do happen and I eat the loss, treating it as a cost of playing. I would not feel the same way if I wasn't profiting from the game. If I am not the banker, I always offer to help cover banking shortfalls, even nights when I lose. The winning players in the game would be well advised to follow this model.

We play a lot of money on the books. Sometimes the game agrees to be jointly at risk for defaults, sometimes I am personally at risk. My practice is to write down every purchase on credit and treat it like money in the bank. Money in bank + credit slips should equal chips in play. Stiff me once and your credit is no good anymore, perhaps your invitation to play gets yanked too.

In the situation discussed in this thread - - - the guy on the books had his total amount borrowed validated by a table-wide chips count vs the bank and came up with $200 on the books. That locks in the amount in my mind, no matter how the bank ends up the night. There are good reasons not to chase down the guy who left early, busted, for an extra $100 buck even though he might be the responsible party. If I had been there, I toss the banker some money and ask the winners to toss in enough to cover the loss. It is good for the game. (If this happens much, then find a new banker - but this sounded like a one time affair.

There are times to be greedy, but don't be stupid. -=- DrStrange

 

[upNdown]

I don't like the idea of putting the banker in a no-win situation. On a good night, the bank comes out right and the banker is never distracted from the game for a rebuy at a critical point. Most nights the bank comes out ok but the banker's game suffered a little. On a bad night the bank is short and everyone thinks the banker should make up the loss.

OK, if that is the deal, then the game should pay the banker for his/her time, effort and risk. After we quit laughing at that idea, which isn't ever going to happen, we have to ask why anyone would volunteer to be banker. The banker is on the hook for shortages. The banker can't easily leave before the game breaks. The bank is well advised not to drink. The banker is going to have distractions that weaken his/her game. Almost no one says thank you for a banking job well done, but let the game be $100 short and the banker will hear about it.

I win more than I lose. I also don't drink, so I take on the banking job most games. Mistakes do happen and I eat the loss, treating it as a cost of playing. I would not feel the same way if I wasn't profiting from the game. If I am not the banker, I always offer to help cover banking shortfalls, even nights when I lose. The winning players in the game would be well advised to follow this model.

We play a lot of money on the books. Sometimes the game agrees to be jointly at risk for defaults, sometimes I am personally at risk. My practice is to write down every purchase on credit and treat it like money in the bank. Money in bank + credit slips should equal chips in play. Stiff me once and your credit is no good anymore, perhaps your invitation to play gets yanked too.

In the situation discussed in this thread - - - the guy on the books had his total amount borrowed validated by a table-wide chips count vs the bank and came up with $200 on the books. That locks in the amount in my mind, no matter how the bank ends up the night. There are good reasons not to chase down the guy who left early, busted, for an extra $100 buck even though he might be the responsible party. If I had been there, I toss the banker some money and ask the winners to toss in enough to cover the loss. It is good for the game. (If this happens much, then find a new banker - but this sounded like a one time affair.

There are times to be greedy, but don't be stupid. -=- DrStrange

I agree 100% that the banker shouldn't assume the risk of all shortfalls. The only night I was at a game where the bank was short, I was a winner and I volunteered to eat some of it.
But when the banker is making loans and not writing them down - that's a different story.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd gladly pay for a banker, same as paying for a dealer. Both are thankless jobs, and rarely hear praise.... but often catch shit-storms for any errors they make.

A smallest-chip banker rake on post-flop pots sounds about right, and nobody will ever miss the chips.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Why is the bank never long?

 

[Ronoh]

I don't like the idea of putting the banker in a no-win situation. On a good night, the bank comes out right and the banker is never distracted from the game for a rebuy at a critical point. Most nights the bank comes out ok but the banker's game suffered a little. On a bad night the bank is short and everyone thinks the banker should make up the loss.

OK, if that is the deal, then the game should pay the banker for his/her time, effort and risk. After we quit laughing at that idea, which isn't ever going to happen, we have to ask why anyone would volunteer to be banker. The banker is on the hook for shortages. The banker can't easily leave before the game breaks. The bank is well advised not to drink. The banker is going to have distractions that weaken his/her game. Almost no one says thank you for a banking job well done, but let the game be $100 short and the banker will hear about it.

I win more than I lose. I also don't drink, so I take on the banking job most games. Mistakes do happen and I eat the loss, treating it as a cost of playing. I would not feel the same way if I wasn't profiting from the game. If I am not the banker, I always offer to help cover banking shortfalls, even nights when I lose. The winning players in the game would be well advised to follow this model.

We play a lot of money on the books. Sometimes the game agrees to be jointly at risk for defaults, sometimes I am personally at risk. My practice is to write down every purchase on credit and treat it like money in the bank. Money in bank + credit slips should equal chips in play. Stiff me once and your credit is no good anymore, perhaps your invitation to play gets yanked too.

In the situation discussed in this thread - - - the guy on the books had his total amount borrowed validated by a table-wide chips count vs the bank and came up with $200 on the books. That locks in the amount in my mind, no matter how the bank ends up the night. There are good reasons not to chase down the guy who left early, busted, for an extra $100 buck even though he might be the responsible party. If I had been there, I toss the banker some money and ask the winners to toss in enough to cover the loss. It is good for the game. (If this happens much, then find a new banker - but this sounded like a one time affair.

There are times to be greedy, but don't be stupid. -=- DrStrange

Banker is in a risk with no upside situation. I’ve always felt as banker I eat the loss if it’s off as it’s my fault, however these are very good points.

 

[Gunnar]

I feel the only way to fix this problem is to have the bank eat the loss.

I had a similar case a while back and asked the player to pay. I lost a great fish over 80$
I stopped drinking while hosting after that night

 

[Michael Simmons]

I would eat the loss like others are saying but I would also not let that person ever play there again. Those aren’t the type of people I want to play with.

 

[justsomedude]

I guess I'm the weird one here who thinks the player needs to step up and claim some responsibility. He already thought he was $100 more short during the game, why would he think he's not at the end of the game? Maybe offer a chop with the house to account for the math error? But to deny everything is pretty classless in my view. Maybe I am just spoiled by having ultra-honest players at my game.

That said, maybe this is simply a hosting-syle issue. I host a casual/social game, and I play at other PCF member's homes with a similar vibe. If I told the house to "take it on the chin" after a math error, I would not expect to be invited back. Similarly, if I was hosting and this occurred, and a player flat out denied the situation or tried to argue "Hey, I left - it's not my problem anymore," he would never be invited back either. As @Michael Simmons just said... these are just not the kind of people I want to play with.

I value integrity above "the gambol," and players who view things oppositely shouldn't bother coming to my games.

 

[k9dr]

I feel the only way to fix this problem is to have the bank eat the loss.

I had a similar case a while back and asked the player to pay. I lost a great fish over 80$
I stopped drinking while hosting after that night

As banker, I am willing to take the loss, but I am not willing to stop drinking :

 

[pltrgyst]

As banker, if you're dumb enough to not write down any outgoing chips not covered by cash, $100 is a small price to pay for a valuable life lesson.

I banked my home .25/.50 game, with up to $6000 on the table, for 25 years, and never came up short. If you want to do the same, leave the loan business to private matters between other players.

And despite what he said above, I can't believe @k9dr would ever come up short -- he simply doesn't drink enough. :

 

[Jambine]

As banker, if you're dumb enough to not write down any outgoing chips not covered by cash, $100 is a small price to pay for a valuable life lesson.

I banked my home .25/.50 game, with up to $6000 on the table, for 25 years, and never came up short. If you want to do the same, leave the loan business to private matters between other players.

And despite what he said above, I can't believe @k9dr would ever come up short -- he simply doesn't drink enough. :

It's harsh, but I have to agree with everything.
...although I'm not sure about @k9dr 's drinking problem

 

[rjbf65]

Why is the bank never long?

I’ve wondered this as well. I don’t recall ever seeing the Bank being long in my years of playing.

I played in a game with new to me people a couple weeks ago. It was .25/.50 with only $20 buy ins/rebuys/add ons. The host (new to hosting) pre stacked many $20 stacks before the night. However, he allowed everyone to make their own $20 for chips transaction. He also allowed people to cash out on their own. I cashed out earlier than most as I had to work the next morning. I asked the host the next day if the bank was right at the end of the night and he said it was. That was just by sheer luck. I doubt I play that game again. Way too loosely goosey of a format. I prefer having 2 people double check the chip stacks and cash handed out at every cash out to avoid the occasional human error. In the future I’ll write down every in and out transaction to aid in accuracy of the bank and to know how much is in play. I hate it when the bank is off.

 

[CraigT78]

I bank my games, and I drink while I host. I frequently have players on the books, most will PayPal me from the table, others walk it down the next day. If I was ever short, I'd eat it, but I'm sure many of my players would contribute to make it right. But I ALWAYS put the loaned money in the cash box from my pocket. I won't loan more than I have in available cash. I've never been off buy more than +/- $5.

 

[Jambine]

I’ve wondered this as well. I don’t recall ever seeing the Bank being long in my years of playing.

I had it happen a few times with missing chips. I usually find them the next day, hiding under something.
That's the only times I've ever been over on the bank.

 

[Rhodeman77]

The Thursday night game I joined in the fall of last year had a shortage of $500 (before I joined the game). I took the place of the person that was hosting that week BTW.

They allow players to go on the book against the Bad Beat. They write the players name on a white board and the amount. If they can’t repay it by the end of the night the money comes from the Bad Beat and they have until the following week to pay it back.


Well someone must have missed a rebuy of $500 at some point and the bad beat got shorted. Or the host rebought without telling anyone.

Now to make sure it never happens again every buy in and rebuy is written down and verified in a notebook. And the white board is also still used for people who go on the book.

So every game every player knows exactly how much each other player is in the game for in actual cash and credit.

It makes for some interesting table talk when someone is in the game for $2k+

 

[bsdunbar1]

As a regular host I am often in the position of being asked to borrow money by players.

Most of the time I am willing to as long as I know the player well.

When I do this I always make a note of the IOU in my phone first, then move the cash from my bankroll into the game’s bank, then I get the player chips.

This process keeps the bank right and the debt recorded.

And if for some reason the bank came up short I would eat the shortage.

I follow the same process almost exactly except that I document "owes" on our shared spreadsheet for the league. It is always posted for everyone to see.
As the host I am always the banker and my records stand, but if I make a mistake, as the banker I always eat it.

I ALWAYS put the loaned money in the cash box from my pocket.

I do this as well, that way the bank is never short/off. This along with proper documentation is key.

 

[Aplusent]

Bank Losses... (n) :thumbsdown: