Hosts who run a sheet (1 Viewer)

[Taghkanic]

I play regularly in a weekly private game whose host runs a sheet… i.e., he lets players borrow from him when they are short of cash.

I absolutely won’t do this as a host, as I think it easily leads to problems. Problems are exactly what I’m seeing develop in this other private game. (It’s a 1/3 which plays bigger, almost like a 2/5.)

For the first year I played there, it went off quite regularly. But two out of the last three weeks, and three out of the last five, the host has had to call his game off for lack of players.

I’m pretty friendly with the host, who runs a really nice game. In chatting with him, it has become apparent that the cancellations are happening because at least 3-4 regs now owe him too much to keep playing.

I don’t know how much interest he charges, if any. I don’t really care. I care that a good game is falling apart, seemingly because of the sheet.

Sports betting is probably exacerbating the problem, as I know these same regs are constantly talking about their parlays etc.

Some regs have disappeared before for 1-3 months. But this time they are all M.I.A. at the same time. The host is scrambling to replace the regs while they try to pay him back slowly or at least enough to resume borrowing.

So now I am tempted to talk with the host to discourage him from extending credit, or at least not extending them so much that they start missing multiple games. I’d rather they attend regularly leave down only 1-2 buyins in a night, rather than getting in so deep that they disappear for months.

My question is, are there any hosts here who run a sheet? How do you do it in a way that is sustainable, and does not lead to these problems?

 

[Hornet]

@Rhodeman77

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. Ths other reason I personally never lend to my own players is that it just often creates weirdness. Even friends who I know would be good to pay me back because they just forgot to bring enough, I won’t do it. Some people unconsciously resent you doing a favor, no matter how low-key and friendly the transactiom is.

I’m in the same mindset in my non-poker life. I just never lend anything. The only person for whom I would consider it is my brother, and fortunately he has more dough than me so it’s never come up!

 

[louBdub]

Hellllllll no.

I’d never lend money to a poker player. I’ve let friends borrow to help them when things got tight, and that’s always turned into a “can I pay ya next month instead?” situation…. Always annoying.

I couldn’t imagine letting players borrow to play at my game. I think it would mess the game up too…. I win a hand and it feels like I’m just taking my money back - but he still owes it…. Or they win a hand, and it feels like I didn’t really lose it, because he’s giving it back?

It would ruin the dynamics for me.

 

[tabletalker7]

Money has a way of ruining friendships. Never lend cash. Never.

 

[Hornet]

I host and spot people money somewhat frequently. Amounts that I know they can easily pay back, and they always have. I guess it’s a question of who’s in the game and the amounts borrowed, but I trust this group and sometimes it’s just a question of whether they had time to stop at home or the ATM etc.

 

[glynn]

This is honestly a recruiting and game health issue more than it is a loan issue. If the host were not lending to those 3–4 regs, then they still wouldn't have a means to play, and the game would still be dying. Loans or not, there are no flush players to take their place.

 

[Taghkanic]

If the host were not lending to those 3–4 regs, then they still wouldn't have a means to play, and the game would still be dying.

I disagree to the extent that the host could impose a stop-loss on such players, especially when they’re running bad and tilting. Bankrolls it might take them six months to deplete—during which time they can accumulate income to get back in—get blown in a few weeks instead.

What I see happening is one of these guys buys in for $300 twice, then for $600 chasing his losses, then as stacks get bigger they want to buy back matching the big stack, and tilt that off too… So they blow through 6-8 buyins in a night instead of a 1-2.

Generally these players have come back to the game eventually when they busted before, as they do have other sources of income. But when they all run bad together, it’s a catastrophe for the game.

 

[Rhodeman77]

My game and situation is similar to @Hornet. I will lend most of my players money and they Venmo/PP me at the end of the game or next day. The vast majority of my players do very well financially and are not big into sports betting. I definitely try to keep the degenerate gamblers away from my game as much as possible.

Running a weekly game of substantial size will take a toll on the player pool in general. Unless all of the players are about the same skill level and they just are trading who wins each week, the losing players will dry up fast. Even with my player pool being pretty well off, I won’t run a weekly game unless we mixed in more limit and tournaments as well.

 

[ValueTown]

Nope! Bad business.

 

[Esection]

it seems the bigger issue is the game doesn’t have a deep enough pool of players to support it

 

[Esection]

Ie the consistent losers can’t afford to play at those stakes and there are not enough others to fill in for them

 

[Coyote]

No ATM is far enough. Lending cash can ruin friendships - and games.
Actually, it's a criterion for the Greek Police force to raid home games, at the whims of embittered loosers.
Edit: If the stakes are equal or surpass casino stakes (basically 1/2 E)

 

[Taghkanic]

it seems the bigger issue is the game doesn’t have a deep enough pool of players to support it

It was very regular for a long time. Several regs dropped out due to job / family stuff, then the trio of degens went on major downswings and are either avoiding the game or not allowed back until they pay—not sure which.

So his game has gone from a weekly waiting list to being pretty short of players.

The host only invites people he knows well and vouched-for invites, so it’s not like he can just drum up replacements instantly.

 

[doublebooyah85]

1. Need a bigger player pool. It’s not uncommon for players to take months off. Hell…even years.

2. Mix in tourneys (and limit like @Rhodeman77 said).

But this isn’t a friendly game. It’s a raked game. So he needs to add to his player pool. He’s probably not interested in running tourneys.

*I have to be assuming to offer credit there is a rake involved.

And 6-8 buy ins? Damn, let me play this game.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Frequent 6-8 buy ins? I can’t get over that lol. That’s juicy.

But back to solutions of how to overcome this problem.

1. Is there a cap to the buy in? Or is everyone just matching biggest stack?

2. Heavy sports betters? Surprised took this long to dry up. Host needs to keep recruiting. They r good for the game but can’t be his main players.

Just repeating what everyone is saying but it’s that simple.

 

[Taghkanic]

Frequent 6-8 buy ins? I can’t get over that lol. That’s juicy.

But back to solutions of how to overcome this problem.

1. Is there a cap to the buy in? Or is everyone just matching biggest stack?

2. Heavy sports betters? Surprised took this long to dry up. Host needs to keep recruiting. They r good for the game but can’t be his main players.

Just repeating what everyone is saying but it’s that simple.

The max buy-in is technically 200BB ($600). Most buy in initially for less ($100-$500).

But it is common for someone who is stuck to ask if they can rebuy for more. The host typically asks if anyone objects, and no one ever does.

So now it’s a 1/3 game with people losing several normal buyins… then coming back in for another 3+. Sometimes more than once.

Great for patient players waiting to pounce on the fish. But disastrous for those fish blowing 5/10 money at a 1/3 game. While losing at sports betting.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The max buy-in is technically 200BB ($600). Most buy in initially for less ($300-$500).

But it is common for someone who is stuck to ask if they can rebuy for more. The host typically asks if anyone objects, and no one ever does.

So now it’s a 1/3 game with people losing 1-3 normal buyins… then coming back in for another 3+. Sometimes more than once.

Great for patient players waiting to pounce on the fish. But disastrous for those fish blowing 5/10 money at a 1/3 game. While losing at sports betting.

Lmao, the objecting.

"Hey, this guy's lost $1200 and is visibly seething, is everyone okay with him buying in for $1500? No objections? Okay, you're good bud, good luck."

 

[Taghkanic]

Anyway: Given that I’d like this soft game to continue, but it is not sustainable giving the degens so much rope, what should I suggest to the host?

My thought was to either urge him to stop extending credit altogether, and rebuild the game from there with players who don’t need it. Or to at least limit how much he’ll extend in a single session.

It would likely become less soft but still profitable.

 

[Coyote]

Stakes and lending (or not) mark the boundary between home games and underground games.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Anyway: Given that I’d like this soft game up continue, but it is not sustainable giving the degens so much rope, what should I suggest to the host?

My thought was to either urge him to stop extending credit altogether, and rebuild the game from there with players who don’t need it. Or to at least limit how much he’ll extend in a single session.

Hmmm he needs to figure it out for himself.

1. Hold strong on max buy-ins. You can’t open it up for discussion after the game started or when you feel bad someone is down. You have rules for a reason. It protects the game.

2. If someone can’t pay me that night in cash Venmo or PayPal that’s a red flag. I wouldn’t extend “credit” past 1 additional buy in.

Seriously tho, sounds like these guys have gambling problems and you may be enabling a problem……

Always enjoy ur discussions @Taghkanic

 

[Rhodeman77]

The host will likely realize he needs more players or have games less often. Maybe every 2 or 3 weeks to give the players time to rebuild funds.

 

[doublebooyah85]

The max buy-in is technically 200BB ($600). Most buy in initially for less ($100-$500).

But it is common for someone who is stuck to ask if they can rebuy for more. The host typically asks if anyone objects, and no one ever does.

So now it’s a 1/3 game with people losing several normal buyins… then coming back in for another 3+. Sometimes more than once.

Great for patient players waiting to pounce on the fish. But disastrous for those fish blowing 5/10 money at a 1/3 game. While losing at sports betting.

$600 buy in is still juicy. But I feel ya, once you lose the $500-$600 you want to win your money back and some.

You can also say after at midnight (if the game started at 7pm for example) the cap is lifted. Try to lift the cap for the final few hours.

 

[Mojo1312]

One of my quirks is making sure that I have more money than I will need when I leave the house to play poker. For me, that means five to six buy-ins. The extra cushioning gives/buys me peace of mind.

I win more often than I lose and I don't miss games. Therefore, I am a constant, which has put me in the position of being hit up by other players for money when they bust. My general attitude towards this is that it goes with the territory. But like other things in life, you need to set parameters.

I felt the amount of money I was loaning out, combined with the frequency, got out of hand towards the end of 2020 through early 2021. I laid the law down by capping my loans to $200 per player.

I have been on an unusually good run the last few weeks in terms of my cash outs. I think it is somewhat natural for players to turn to the big stack for money, especially of that person has a history of loaning out cash.

This likely explains why this problem has got out of hand again. Currently, I am owed $3500. This is a ridiculous amount for me. The ironic part is the lions share of the borrowed money is to players in the $8/$16 FL game, one of whom has his own landscaping business and called me Friday to ask if I could loan him $600 because he didn't have time to stop at the bank. I loaned $500 to another player that night and $800 to a player at Tuesday's $1/$2 NLHE game.

I discussed this very subject of loaning money at the table with a fellow poker player from Tuesday's cash game this weekend. "You can tell who the donkey is at the table by how frequently they lose." I said in reference to a player who lost $1400 and a thousand dollars plus back to back in the $8/$16FL game. "Alternatively, the same can be said about how often and how much someone loans out money at the table --- which by definition, makes me a donkey!"

I am sure the five people that owe me money will pay me back... but that is really beside the point. Loans are not helpful to players who consistently show up week after week not properly rolled. Unless this a raked game, (which means there is a business component to consider) the host needs to bring this issue to a head by setting up parameters.

I have decided I am going back to what I did in 2021 by placing a $300 cap on what I loan out to any individual player.

 

[tabletalker7]

Anyway: Given that I’d like this soft game to continue, but it is not sustainable giving the degens so much rope, what should I suggest to the host?

My thought was to either urge him to stop extending credit altogether, and rebuild the game from there with players who don’t need it. Or to at least limit how much he’ll extend in a single session.

It would likely become less soft but still profitable.

If people are borrowing and owing and avoiding the game because they owe it tells me the stakes are way too high. The stakes being so high can also be a problem with recruiting new players which makes the game rely too much on the owing degenerates. Seems lowering the stake would solve two problems at once. Lower the stakes and enforce a hard max buyin.

 

[Coyote]

$600 buy in is still juicy. But I feel ya, once you lose the $500-$600 you want to win your money back and some.

You can also say after at midnight (if the game started at 7pm for example) the cap is lifted. Try to lift the cap for the final few hours.

Wrong, IMHO. Players should have in their pockets a "reasonable" amount of money, like 400 to 600 BBs.
They shouldn't expect a game of 1,000+ you name it BBs, or it should have been described as a higher stakes game.
Edit: talking of course about "home" games, where a minimum factor of social relationship exists among players.

 

[Tonysquander]

If someone can’t pay me that night in cash Venmo or PayPal that’s a red flag

This.

In today’s day and age there should be no reason for you to have to loan money to anyone. Pull out your phone, transfer some funds electronically and I will give you some more chips.

 

[doublebooyah85]

This.

In today’s day and age there should be no reason for you to have to loan money to anyone. Pull out your phone, transfer some funds electronically and I will give you some more chips.

Only issue is sometimes I’ll log it down and ask for the electronic payments at the end of the night so we don’t have unnecessary back and forth transactions.

But again, even then, make payment. Any credit not paid within 12 hours, ur not getting an invite back.

Unless it’s a raked game and host is making $1500 a night etc. But I don’t rake. But the OP’s game he is referring to must.

 

[Dbxela]

I feel like playing on credit is a legacy thing because cash and banking used to be hard work. Now players transfer money seconds before they get given chips, and get a transfer back seconds after they cash out. There's no good reason to run a credit game anymore. The only good reason to ask for credit is to retain the option to default.

 

[Taghkanic]

One of my quirks is making sure that I have more money than I will need when I leave the house to play poker. For me, that means five to six buy-ins. The extra cushioning gives/buys me peace of mind.

I win more often than I lose and I don't miss games. Therefore, I am a constant, which has put me in the position of being hit up by other players for money when they bust. My general attitude towards this is that it goes with the territory. But like other things in life, you need to set parameters.

I felt the amount of money I was loaning out, combined with the frequency, got out of hand towards the end of 2020 through early 2021. I laid the law down by capping my loans to $200 per player.

I have been on an unusually good run the last few weeks in terms of my cash outs. I think it is somewhat natural for players to turn to the big stack for money, especially of that person has a history of loaning out cash.

This likely explains why this problem has got out of hand again. Currently, I am owed $3500. This is a ridiculous amount for me. The ironic part is the lions share of the borrowed money is to players in the $8/$16 FL game, one of whom has his own landscaping business and called me Friday to ask if I could loan him $600 because he didn't have time to stop at the bank. I loaned $500 to another player that night and $800 to a player at Tuesday's $1/$2 NLHE game.

I discussed this very subject of loaning money at the table with a fellow poker player from Tuesday's cash game this weekend. "You can tell who the donkey is at the table by how frequently they lose." I said in reference to a player who lost $1400 and a thousand dollars plus back to back in the $8/$16FL game. "Alternatively, the same can be said about how often and how much someone loans out money at the table --- which by definition, makes me a donkey!"

I am sure the five people that owe me money will pay me back... but that is really beside the point. Loans are not helpful to players who consistently show up week after week not properly rolled. Unless this a raked game, (which means there is a business component to consider) the host needs to bring this issue to a head by setting up parameters.

I have decided I am going back to what I did in 2021 by placing a $300 cap on what I loan out to any individual player.

Wow. Why lend at all, though?