100% agreed for many years now. I used to play in a 1/2 NLHE home game where the host printed (he owned his own printing press) and provided the use of actual markers in his game. You'd have to settle up at least half your markers for the next game to be dealt in, and you could buy in with those won markers should you choose to do so.
It got to the point where I had almost $2,000 in markers from the host himself. He'd settle up with me like clockwork every game but the whole concept just seemed ripe for abuse, which thankfully never occurred.
The game played way too high given the amount of cash brought to the table thanks to the markers involved. Players would throw caution to the wind with buy-ins as they didn't have to pay for it right there and then, and could do so later. Predictably, players would only come by to pay some / all of their marker tab, have $100 or $200 left to play with, and didn't want to get in deeper marker debt when they busted out. This in turn made the game eventually fizzle out when the marker heavy players had to confront their past losses rather than in the moment.
If we instead played a limit structure, the bleeding would be stemmed quite a lot from the bad players. But bad players don't want to play limit because their suckouts don't convert into a whole stack / double up.
