Cash Game Ugh...bank short $100 (1 Viewer)

[Frogzilla]

Short story for those interested.

So the work group is playing $1/$2 last night. The host is just obliterated...don’t really know how, but my guess is pills. Another guys owns the chips and is managing the bank, also having a great time. Banker asks me to just double check the chip counts when cashing in and out folks, which I oblige.

Everyone initially bought in $100. Throughout night, host busts 2 or 3 times and rebuys in $100...but always plays a few hands before getting the cash. Had it in a different room. He’s so gone that doesn’t really remember he owes the bank...other folks keep prodding him “hey why don’t you grab that buy-in real quick.”

End of the night rolls around and bank is exactly $100 short. Banker says the host forgot to pay up on a rebuy and shorts him $100. I’m pretty sure that’s probably what happened, but it’s on the banker right? Host is adamant he paid every time, but has no idea how many buy-ins he is in for, etc. Banker shorts him and is packing up, and it’s getting a little ugly. As big winner I chip in $20, force the banker to also chip in $20, leaving host short $60 (or +$40). I don’t really like banking but maybe I need to next time.

 

[BGinGA]

Simple solution -- no cash, no chips. Period.

 

[Kyle]

Host should be just that, host. Therefore he is in charge of the bank and should take the responsibility of it. One person and one person only should be in charge of the bank.

The only exception to the rule would be one banker per table. Only a person who you know will be responsible enough and in attendance from start to finish is preferred.

Not a fan of having the host give responsibility to a guest but have seen it happen on many occasions.

In the past, my experience is that the winners just pitched in a little to make up the difference. Not an ideal situation but was the best we could come up with on the spot. Hopefully it doesn't happen again.

 

[links_slayer]

Bankers fault for handing out chips w/out the cash

 

[Payback]

Sucks, but banker has to eat it. Cash for chips everytime and have someone else double check.

 

[MacGrad]

I agree that it's the banker's fault.

If the host is visibly out of it, then there's no way I'm handing out chips until money is in hand... and I'm not letting him play any hands without him having chips -- would he (or any of the other players) have let another player continue without chips on the table?

 

[Ronoh]

Host should be just that, host. Therefore he is in charge of the bank and should take the responsibility of it.

Disagree here... it should be one person running the bank (one banker per table is fine if using multiple sets) but that doesn’t always have to fall on the host. Most meet ups someone else generally acts as the bank for at least one day, normally the owner of the guest set(s) in play.

Bankers fault for handing out chips w/out the cash

Absolutely this and yes, no cash = no chips. It kinda hurts my head trying to figure out why anyone would find it acceptable otherwise.

With one person taking in money and handing out chips if there is an error there is no question who made the mistake.

 

[upNdown]

I agree that it's ultimately the bankers fault, and there needs to be a "no cash, no chips" policy. But if the banker is always 100% responsible for banking errors in a home game, why would anybody ever be the banker? Personally I'd say this time everybody chips in to absorb the loss, and lets put some real policies in place to make sure this never happens again. And if I was the banker that got stiffed for $100 because drunkie the host screwed the bank, I'd be looking for a new game.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Host doesn’t get special treatment. He gets chips when the bank gets cash.

I have no problem if the host asks someone else to bank if he is going to drink (or something else) but don’t ask for special rules too.

On Thursday I was going to the back room to get a rebuy for a player, he handed me cash, I verified the amount and went to get chips. As I’m back there another player yells he want $300 as well now.

So I bring both amounts back with me, hand the player that paid for his chips them, but hold the other $300 in chips on the rail in a rack.

Hand goes buy and the other player finally realizes he doesn’t have the chips and makes a comment that I guess you want the $300.

Point is, nobody gets chips until I (the bank) get the cash.

 

[Frogzilla]

Oh yea, I completely agree with all y’all. Easy to see an error was going to be likely but I wasn’t host and wasn’t banker so I didn’t get involved with the buyins.

 

[MacGrad]

Personally I'd say this time everybody chips in to absorb the loss, and lets put some real policies in place to make sure this never happens again.

I disagree with this, since the other players at the table had no control over the bank / cash collection... why should the innocent players be penalized because the banker didn't do his job and get payment from the host? If there's a split going to happen, I'd say it's between the banker and the host (or, generically, the non-payer).

 

[Jeff]

The banker backstops the game. I always Bank at my game except for at meetups when there’s a guest set. If the owner wants to bring a guest set, they have to bank and be responsible.

It’s always worked out great. Some times the guest set has been running at all tables, sometimes only at 1 table. We have had a couple guest sets going at one time.

Forrest has helped collect for the tournament at times (which is the nicest thing someone can do for a meetup host), and that’s fine because he handed off an accounting and cash that I checked. I was still responsible to make sure that the money was there at payout time.

 

[Gear]

If the banker isn't responsible for controlling cash-in-chips-out, what is the point of having a banker at all?

 

[links_slayer]

And if I was the banker that got stiffed for $100 because drunkie the host screwed the bank,.

Host didn’t screw the bank, banker screwed the bank by handing out chips without receiving cash first. Not sure what’s so hard to understand here.

 

[longflop]

It is the bankers responsibility to get the cash for chips, but at the same time, isn't it also the bankers final call? If he is keeping track of everything and says the host didn't pay, then that's it, the host gets shorted $100. Isn't that basically playing on a marker? You have to pay it eventually. At the end of the day, its just money and not enough to really break anybody. You probably did the right thing with trying to deescalate the situation.

I have a feeling that if the host got lit, rebought several times for $100, then got fired up about being shorted when he was in the wrong, it might not have been about the money.

 

[Ronoh]

And if I was the banker that got stiffed for $100 because drunkie the host screwed the bank, I'd be looking for a new game.

The banker should never be in a position to get stiffed, all he has to do is collect the money before handing out the chips. This isn’t even a going-on-the-books situation, you just don’t let him “always play a couple hands before getting the cash” which is flat out dumb.

Another thing sometimes done at meet ups to make constant rebuys easier on the banker is someone at each table will buy five or so $100 chips from the bank to use for rebuys on the table they are playing at.

In other words the bank is good as they are paid for but are not in play until/unless someone buys them from the guy holding them.

 

[upNdown]

Host didn’t screw the bank, banker screwed the bank by handing out chips without receiving cash first. Not sure what’s so hard to understand here.

They’re not mutually exclusive. You see, it is possible and likely that both the host and the banker screwed the bank. You can hold the banker solely liable for the mistake, but I’ll ask again - why would anybody ever want that job? They do extra work for no pay but they assume all the risk.
Maybe I’m overly sympathetic or maybe I’m a sucker but I’m not comfortable leaving the banker on the hook for the full amount.

 

[davin]

I have had a player try to get chips first because his money is in the car, with me you get no chips until I get that money and then I log the buy in, in my notes in my phone, every player that plays I log there name and there buy in..... throughout the game I'll count all the buy ins in my notes - calculate total then I subtract from my total starting chips from what I host with, then check to make sure the difference is
What's in my drawer, I'm always dead on! I'll do this about 2-3x a night!!! As soon as someone cashes out I then deduct those chips from the in play chips, sounds complicated but it keeps my drawer balanced and payouts flawless.

But yes I stresss the fact no chips until money in hand, I will also count the chips out in front everyone and that player while having the cash in front me until player acknowledges chips are correct and then I'll add cash to drawer and log players buy in, also when I do payouts I'll log the players cashout and do the same count chips in front player acknowledge amounts correct and payout player counting money twice..... yes over kill again but I make sure it's correct to save myself from being short

 

[Rhodeman77]

They’re not mutually exclusive. You see, it is possible and likely that both the host and the banker screwed the bank. You can hold the banker solely liable for the mistake, but I’ll ask again - why would anybody ever want that job? They do extra work for no pay but they assume all the risk.
Maybe I’m overly sympathetic or maybe I’m a sucker but I’m not comfortable leaving the banker on the hook for the full amount.

The problem is this, if someone doesn’t act as the bank then you can’t have a game!

So whoever does it needs to set up rules for cash in/ chips out that everyone, including the banker and host must follow. It isn’t very complicated if done correctly. It’s when people get sloppy that mistakes happen.

 

[n0m1n4l]

this is always a problem unless you make strict rules up front. Some how always have that one dillweed, possibly two that doesn't want to bring cash to a CASH GAME ... and insist on PayPal or Venmo ... super annoying

 

[Lemonzest]

I can understand it can feel like a buzzkill in this fun environment to be the one who lays down the law but it has to happen. It is exceptionally weird cuz the host is trashed.

But yeah whoever forks over the chips should not allow the next hand to be dealt...just stop the game for literally 10-20 seconds and let the guy properly rebuy.

 

[DJ Mack]

I think we all agree the banker screwed up by handing out chips without getting the money, but ultimately it's the host's game. You can outsource the responsibility but you can't outsource the accountability.

At the end of the night the house has to pay out all chips properly redeemed. Think about casinos: you usually buy chips at the table and cash them out at the cage. Unless the casino has proof that you obtained the chips illicitly they have to cash them. If some poor dealer's drop is short that's between the dealer and his employer, not the player and the dealer. Casinos have very comprehensive cash handling procedures to avoid this kind of problem because at the end of the day they, not their employees, are responsible for any shortages.

IMO if it's my game I'm accountable because it's my house, my game, and my (poor) decision to "hire" the schmuck who screwed up. This is one big reason why I always bank games I host and rarely if ever drink at my own games. To do otherwise is just "axing" for trouble.

 

[Lemonzest]

I think we all agree the banker screwed up by handing out chips without getting the money, but ultimately it's the host's game. You can outsource the responsibility but you can't outsource the accountability.

At the end of the night the house has to pay out all chips properly redeemed. Think about casinos: you usually buy chips at the table and cash them out at the cage. Unless the casino has proof that you obtained the chips illicitly they have to cash them. If some poor dealer's drop is short that's between the dealer and his employer, not the player and the dealer. Casinos have very comprehensive cash handling procedures to avoid this kind of problem because at the end of the day they, not their employees, are responsible for any shortages.

IMO if it's my game I'm accountable because it's my house, my game, and my (poor) decision to "hire" the schmuck who screwed up. This is one big reason why I always bank games I host and rarely if ever drink at my own games. To do otherwise is just "axing" for trouble.

Very good point. I have been trashed as the host before and I don't plan to do it again.

 

[Jambine]

it’s on the banker right?

Correct

 

[Mental Nomad]

I think it's on the banker and on the host. The host is in a position of power, and can take actions that represent special treatment that other players can't. It was an abuse by the host to take chips without putting up the cash. It was an error by the banker to put out chips without taking in cash. To me, the responsibility is shared.

Banker asks me to just double check the chip counts when cashing in and out folks, which I oblige.

I also make someone else check all my buy-ins and cash outs... But I do it Casino Style. The cash is laid out next to the chips, and the person doing the confirmation confirms that they match. They're double checking my count of the bills, as well as my count of the chips. If they're not both out there, they can't approve. The Only Exception is when I take electronic payments, where I call it off from my phone and there's no doubts about what the amount is, and then they just confirmed the chips... But again, the payment hits my account before the chips go on the table..

 

[timinater]

I think we all agree the banker screwed up by handing out chips without getting the money, but ultimately it's the host's game. You can outsource the responsibility but you can't outsource the accountability.

I disagree. I don't think its a non-starter to delegate the running of the bank to another player. This is noble of you that you would honour a shortage though.

Most times I'll run the tournament and cash game, but on occasion at my game I've wiped my hands of the cash game in the interest of running/playing in the tournament without disruption (For context We play a 1-2 table game, and a cash game sometimes breaks out once the first table breaks).

This would be done with the understanding that there is a single designated banker, and the responsibility is theirs to ensure the bank is whole.

I dunno - it works for us. YMMV.

 

[TroyMan]

They’re not mutually exclusive. You see, it is possible and likely that both the host and the banker screwed the bank. You can hold the banker solely liable for the mistake, but I’ll ask again - why would anybody ever want that job? They do extra work for no pay but they assume all the risk.
Maybe I’m overly sympathetic or maybe I’m a sucker but I’m not comfortable leaving the banker on the hook for the full amount.

Here's a few reasons why someone would bank and accept the responsibility.

1. The players in the game accept that the game needs to have a banker and decide to take turns banking and sharing the accountability from week to week. I banked on ocassion for a game that I played in regularly. We didn't necessarily have a set rotation, but different people stepped up from game to game to take on the responsibility/accountability

2. A person is confident in their ability to be the banker and, by running a tight ship, avoid getting shorted and that person wishes to avoid the kind of angst caused in the scenario described by the OP. They figure by being the banker, they accept a small risk of shorting themselves, while reducing the risk of there being hard feelings due to the someone else banking and screwing it up.

 

[DJ Mack]

I disagree. I don't think its a non-starter to delegate the running of the bank to another player.

This is one of those things that is never a problem until it is a problem. And then it's too late.

I can delegate until the cows come home but since I invited these people over to my house to play in my game, I'm ultimately responsible for anything that happens under my authority. If you don't doubt that, let some shady people run your bank and disclaim any liability when problems arise. Your game won't last long, notwithstanding the fact that technically it wasn't your fault.

I have no problem with someone delegating the bank, but the banker better be someone who will cover their mistakes, because if they don't, I'm looking to the host and if that fails I'm never coming back and I'll certainly won't say anything nice about their game to anyone.

Most times I'll run the tournament and cash game, but on occasion at my game I've wiped my hands of the cash game in the interest of running/playing in the tournament without disruption (For context We play a 1-2 table game, and a cash game sometimes breaks out once the first table breaks).

That's fair. The host is responsible for the main event that they invited people over for. What the guys do after they bust out is their business.

 

[timinater]

I can delegate until the cows come home but since I invited these people over to my house to play in my game, I'm ultimately responsible for anything that happens under my authority. If you don't doubt that, let some shady people run your bank and disclaim any liability when problems arise. Your game won't last long, notwithstanding the fact that technically it wasn't your fault.

I hope I didn't give the impression I was suggesting someone should delegate to a random person...

 

[Ronoh]

I hope I didn't give the impression I was suggesting someone should delegate to a random person...

This. Not only should the banker be someone you know and trust but it should be understood beforehand that they are responsible for any shortage as any mistake made could only have been made by them.