And to add to this, the host was allowing players to play on credit. If he allowed electronic payment, that electronic payment should have been sent to you, and you wouldn't be dealing with this BS.
Host can't pay out everyone, what to do? (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Rhodeman77
- Start date
Harlan goes on to tell Molly, he doesn't have the money . . .
Just because the activity from which the debt was incurred was "illegal" doesn't mean that you can't for a civil suit to try and recoup your debt.
Bluegrass Poker
Flush
I understand and agree on the security issue.
But on the last point, if they can do that then why not transfer it directly to the host/bank when they rebuy. Doesn’t take but a few seconds and everyone knows the money is there. (Although as I was typing I realized it could raise red flags with your payment processor or bank if you are sending or receiving multiple transfers in and out of $1000s at a time.). So ummm…. Nevermind I guess.
buzzmonkey
Flush
Credit means the house is covering the debt, on hand. If the player can't pay then the house is paying because they have taken over the debt.
If that's not happening then it's not a game you want to play in. I'd insist on a payment plan at this point.
If that's not happening then it's not a game you want to play in. I'd insist on a payment plan at this point.
.
MrCatPants
Full House
Bigger stakes has the security and transfer issues others have mentioned.
At my middle stakes game, no book/credit and people can have other players spot them but I'm not extending credit as a host for all the reasons mentioned.
Re what to do here:
How well do you know the gsme/host/players?
Do you know the other winner who is stuck?
Overall need to be consistent/persistent without being annoying. I would reach out to the other winner if you could and mutually agree you want to be made right at the same pace.
At my middle stakes game, no book/credit and people can have other players spot them but I'm not extending credit as a host for all the reasons mentioned.
Re what to do here:
How well do you know the gsme/host/players?
Do you know the other winner who is stuck?
Overall need to be consistent/persistent without being annoying. I would reach out to the other winner if you could and mutually agree you want to be made right at the same pace.
megarises
Flush
All of the things that have been mentioned + this is number one bullshit
Mick
Pair
Wow. You all are not like me. I wouldn't be leaving without being made whole to my satisfaction. Host owes me and will pay me. Failing to do so, he should have enough assets for me to hold as pawn in the interim, and if he doesn't, how did BL get to the event? If he got there in a vehicle, that could be signed over as an interim solution. Barring these types of solutions, there's always late night phone calls to grandad that can be made. One thing I'm never doing is leaving unsatisfied. At no point did I agree to lend money. If I leave less than whole, I will be considering it theft.
I would approach this in a friendly and jovial manner, but would make a point to convey that I was dead serious. Maybe I'm coming off a bit "internet tough guy", but that's not how I'm meaning it. I'm just shocked at how accepting some of you would be to leave being owed money by (proven) disreputable strangers.
I would approach this in a friendly and jovial manner, but would make a point to convey that I was dead serious. Maybe I'm coming off a bit "internet tough guy", but that's not how I'm meaning it. I'm just shocked at how accepting some of you would be to leave being owed money by (proven) disreputable strangers.
Damn! Shaking off that "Canadians are so nice and easy going" label!
The bigger of the games I play in (thanks to @Gorbash for getting me in) uses an app, SettleKing, to track buy-ins and then assign player-to-player IOUs after the game and facilitate transfers between players and to/from your bank account. It works well but only because these guys have played together for years . . . I'm still on probation but I plan to just keep on winning so . . .
Anyway, there were some grumblings at the last game I played about a certain player not making folks whole after plenty of time had passed, so even this "vetted friends" scenario can fall apart.
Also: the host is the creator (or founder, whatever) of the app in question so he obviously incentivized to use it for his own game. I prefer how I run the bank at @Gorbash's game: every buy-in is in cash or verified electronic payment except for Gorbash who gets infinite credit ;-)
Anyway, there were some grumblings at the last game I played about a certain player not making folks whole after plenty of time had passed, so even this "vetted friends" scenario can fall apart.
Also: the host is the creator (or founder, whatever) of the app in question so he obviously incentivized to use it for his own game. I prefer how I run the bank at @Gorbash's game: every buy-in is in cash or verified electronic payment except for Gorbash who gets infinite credit ;-)
Last edited:
Chippy McChiperson
4 of a Kind
I would imagine a hospital so it can get prompt medical care
Chippy McChiperson
4 of a Kind
Seriously though, I’d ask for some type of collateral until the host can pay you, either from his own funds or those of the degen.
Mick
Pair
Lol, no, that wasn't my intent. I wouldn't be threatening or angry, but I would be insistent. I've been the sucker to a welcher for a fairly large sum in the past. I don't put myself in those situations anymore, and won't have the sucker title randomly handed to me here again with no justification whatsoever. A solution CAN be found.
EDIT: Part of my (harsh? idunno) reaction is because I frequently host, and I would move heaven and earth to make every player whole, every time, no matter how short I got. The situation literally could not come up in my game. Me being host is my guarantee to you that your $ is 100% likely to come back to you whenever you choose to cash out. We have a sacred contract, albeit unspoken.
Last edited:
ekricket
Royal Flush
Surely the host realizes that it’s these kinds of situations that lead to games getting reported - or worse, robbed.
Crappy security, questionable players, no ability to collect debts….. what could go wrong?
Crappy security, questionable players, no ability to collect debts….. what could go wrong?
louBdub
Full House
Go to hosts house, take one of his cars wheels…
Hold hostage until debt is cleared.
Next problem?
Hold hostage until debt is cleared.
Next problem?
This right here.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Wait. You're saying @Anthony Martino owed the casino money?
The host owes you for sure. Either keep going after your money from the host or play on the host's credit.
host is responsible for paying out , but if I offer to be banker, I am responsible
Not that this has much to do with anything, but that’s essentially why Molly started taking a rake - to cover shortages that she couldn’t cover.
I honestly don’t know if it works like that in the real world - I don’t have much experience with underground games. But I think it speaks to what makes a good host - you’re going to pay your winners.
bergs
Royal Flush
I was gonna answer tell the host to float you on buyins until you’re even. Don’t bring a single dollar to the games.
bergs
Royal Flush
This, but bring a friend cuz there is a non zero chance this approach gets you rolled on.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
This will never work. @Rhodeman77 doesn't ever lose playing poker...
ArielVer18
Flush
This has gone on far too long. I'm surprised so few people are recommending violence when it's probably the only option at this point. What kind of excuses is the host giving you? Degen gamblers have the lamest excuses when they owe money. Would he mind if you collect the debt directly from the BL?
Jimulacrum
Full House
Cash in, cash out, and this is never a problem.
I don't personally do it, but I know people who extend credit when they host.
By "extend credit," I mean they agree to cover whatever credit they issue. But the host here did not extend his own credit. He usurped credit from the future winners without telling them, and then foisted the arrangement on them after it was too late. Pisses me off when people pull shit like this.
If he doesn't have the integrity to cover the debt he wrote on your back, even a month out, the best you may be able to hope for is that he'll agree to settle it with you for a discount.
But to tell you the truth, I think you've been had. Maybe he didn't plan in advance to screw you, but once the ball dropped, that's where it landed. As someone above mentioned, a guy running a game this big isn't a novice. He knows what he's doing. He knows how wrong it is to force you to eat this debt from a stranger.
I hope not, but you may just be out your money.
And obviously don't play in this game again.
I don't personally do it, but I know people who extend credit when they host.
By "extend credit," I mean they agree to cover whatever credit they issue. But the host here did not extend his own credit. He usurped credit from the future winners without telling them, and then foisted the arrangement on them after it was too late. Pisses me off when people pull shit like this.
If he doesn't have the integrity to cover the debt he wrote on your back, even a month out, the best you may be able to hope for is that he'll agree to settle it with you for a discount.
But to tell you the truth, I think you've been had. Maybe he didn't plan in advance to screw you, but once the ball dropped, that's where it landed. As someone above mentioned, a guy running a game this big isn't a novice. He knows what he's doing. He knows how wrong it is to force you to eat this debt from a stranger.
I hope not, but you may just be out your money.
And obviously don't play in this game again.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,502
- Reaction score
- 26,849
- Location
- 129 West 81st Street, Apartment 5B
I find it strange that there is no best practice for hosting and buy ins. There’s preferences, but nothing widely agreed on.
I prefer a home game with everyone known. My dream is to have a game where everyone just banks in like 100,000 big blinds to escrow and we either sign off to get paid out throughout the year, or just settle up eoy.
Current situation sucks, idk what you do with that much money being owed. My biggest problem is doing nothing makes it far too easy to happen again, and doing nothing means that if there was something untoward about all this, you leave it uncovered.
More than anything, I just can’t believe there’s not an app that can act as escrow for things like this. Cash in cash out obviously doesn’t work for a laundry list of reasons, and constant online bank transfers for gambling isn’t a great look.
I prefer a home game with everyone known. My dream is to have a game where everyone just banks in like 100,000 big blinds to escrow and we either sign off to get paid out throughout the year, or just settle up eoy.
Current situation sucks, idk what you do with that much money being owed. My biggest problem is doing nothing makes it far too easy to happen again, and doing nothing means that if there was something untoward about all this, you leave it uncovered.
More than anything, I just can’t believe there’s not an app that can act as escrow for things like this. Cash in cash out obviously doesn’t work for a laundry list of reasons, and constant online bank transfers for gambling isn’t a great look.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,502
- Reaction score
- 26,849
- Location
- 129 West 81st Street, Apartment 5B
The more I think about it, the more I’d prefer to just send over a bank to bank transfer to home games I play at.
Send you bulk $ upfront, and I just pull from that throughout the year. Have an ongoing ledger that I sign off on at the end of each game. Could even be online accessible.
I don’t attend one off home games really, so this would make me pretty much able to go moneyless at 100% of games.
For all the folks out their who have a reg scheduled weekly/biweekly game with all regs only, why isn’t this the preferred method?
Send you bulk $ upfront, and I just pull from that throughout the year. Have an ongoing ledger that I sign off on at the end of each game. Could even be online accessible.
I don’t attend one off home games really, so this would make me pretty much able to go moneyless at 100% of games.
For all the folks out their who have a reg scheduled weekly/biweekly game with all regs only, why isn’t this the preferred method?
Come on man. As a host, I don’t mind managing 400 big blinds per player per night. But I don’t have any interest in banking 5,000 - 10,000 big blinds per player.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
I will assume this is something like a true home game. No rake among people with passable connections to each other. If this is somehow an unraked game acting like an underground casino, that is a wholly different thing . . .
As I see the comments, they look to me like people want to play heads and Hero wins, tails and the host sucks up the loss. It is an unraked game. The host has no way to recover losses with "profits" from hosting the game. That seems like a pretty unrealistic ask to me.
As noted, the stakes are huge and there are good reasons not to have cash in full at the table. It seems preferable to have cash transferred when chips are handed over. No doubt the host would prefer that too.
Most of us know "those" sorts of players who seem to never have enough bankable cash, for all sorts of reasons. We like them because they spew chips. We are happy the host isn't sending them home, rather extending credit to keep the game going and juicy. No doubt the big winners often can trace their good fortune to the whale dusting off buy in after buy in.
This time the whale cannot/ will not cover the marker. I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table. And only now finds his voice to object. Tough luck. Hero and the other big winners have feasted off the whale for a while. This is the cost of doing business. Hero is well advised to carefully consider what is in his long term benefit. Making an ass of himself doesn't seem to be the obvious best choice.
These sorts of losses should be shared somehow among the winners and the Host. The host shouldn't be incurring all the risk since he/she isn't getting the bulk of the profits. If Hero doesn't like that answer, then play in "safer" games - maybe there is a rake/fee. maybe the host runs the deadbeats off at the first whiff of trouble. Perhaps hero should be cashing out early when parts of the bank are "on the books" Though Hero might find his ability to find nose-bleed stakes games quite limited by these sorts of restrictions.
As for the more exotic suggestions:
Gambling debts are often not enforceable contracts. Litigation is expensive. lawsuits are slow. and you might lose but still have the costs. Litigation also creates a trail easily followed by tax authorities.
Violence and the threats of violence are poor solutions. Even assuming that Hero is going to be on the winning side of a violent exchange is a risk in and of itself.
If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid. There is a delicate balance here - hero can ask about the marker some, but not too much. Again, taking part of the losses on markers is the cost of playing and normally being a big winner.
Let's just say asking the losers and breakeven players to forgo their cash outs to keep the big winners whole is short sighted at best. Come-on we know better than this.
TLDR suck it up, buttercup. This is part of the price of playing poker at these stakes. Don't like it? Find a game with fees, rakes and tips expected where the state regulates the house. -=- DrStrange
As I see the comments, they look to me like people want to play heads and Hero wins, tails and the host sucks up the loss. It is an unraked game. The host has no way to recover losses with "profits" from hosting the game. That seems like a pretty unrealistic ask to me.
As noted, the stakes are huge and there are good reasons not to have cash in full at the table. It seems preferable to have cash transferred when chips are handed over. No doubt the host would prefer that too.
Most of us know "those" sorts of players who seem to never have enough bankable cash, for all sorts of reasons. We like them because they spew chips. We are happy the host isn't sending them home, rather extending credit to keep the game going and juicy. No doubt the big winners often can trace their good fortune to the whale dusting off buy in after buy in.
This time the whale cannot/ will not cover the marker. I can't help but note that Hero didn't object to host extending unsecured credit to the weak spot at the table. And only now finds his voice to object. Tough luck. Hero and the other big winners have feasted off the whale for a while. This is the cost of doing business. Hero is well advised to carefully consider what is in his long term benefit. Making an ass of himself doesn't seem to be the obvious best choice.
These sorts of losses should be shared somehow among the winners and the Host. The host shouldn't be incurring all the risk since he/she isn't getting the bulk of the profits. If Hero doesn't like that answer, then play in "safer" games - maybe there is a rake/fee. maybe the host runs the deadbeats off at the first whiff of trouble. Perhaps hero should be cashing out early when parts of the bank are "on the books" Though Hero might find his ability to find nose-bleed stakes games quite limited by these sorts of restrictions.
As for the more exotic suggestions:
Gambling debts are often not enforceable contracts. Litigation is expensive. lawsuits are slow. and you might lose but still have the costs. Litigation also creates a trail easily followed by tax authorities.
Violence and the threats of violence are poor solutions. Even assuming that Hero is going to be on the winning side of a violent exchange is a risk in and of itself.
If Hero makes himself into a pain in the ass, a more likely outcome is he gets uninvited rather than he gets paid. There is a delicate balance here - hero can ask about the marker some, but not too much. Again, taking part of the losses on markers is the cost of playing and normally being a big winner.
Let's just say asking the losers and breakeven players to forgo their cash outs to keep the big winners whole is short sighted at best. Come-on we know better than this.
TLDR suck it up, buttercup. This is part of the price of playing poker at these stakes. Don't like it? Find a game with fees, rakes and tips expected where the state regulates the house. -=- DrStrange
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
