I just wanted to get other peoples perspective on this situation I’m in. Sorry, the story is kind of long. Don’t how else I could have made this shorter.

I’ve played in this particular private game for about 1 year now. It’s a PLO game where we can have any where between 50k to 300K+ on the table at any given time.

Anyways, a month ago I’m playing at a local WPT tournament and come across another player (we’ll call him X) at my cash game table and we start discussing the games/limits that we regularly play. We exchange numbers and contacts. And then last week he sends me a text to know when the next game is for the private game. I tell him the details and we decide to meet in front of the establishment at a certain time.

The guy who runs the game (we’ll call him Frank) has always told me he’s looking for new players and that if I can find any, to let him know. So some time during last week while I’m texting back and forth with X, I let Frank know that I got an extra player for his game. Frank says perfect but tells me that for X its all COD (cash on delivery) because he’s a new player. For the remaining other players who play consistently at Franks game we settle afterwards with cheques, just because there is a level of trust and we’ve been playing each other for quite some time. Anyways, so before the game I advise X that he must bring cash in order to play (and to bring enough if he needs to reload) and whatever Frank wants to do later, that’s up to the two of them. Keep in mind, I have text history with X regarding the COD policy. At this point, Frank knows that I ONLY MET X at a casino only ONCE and that was a month ago. I made it clearly to FRANK I have no idea who this guy is nor am I vouching for him or anything.

Right before the game starts I have a telephone conversation with Frank and advise him that X is coming 100% and that I might pick him up since he lives close to the location of the game. I was going to offer just so X wouldn’t get lost because he did tell me back when we played a month ago at the WPT cash game that he just moved here recently. Anyways, as I’m heading to the game, X says he’ll just meet me there at the building lobby. So I pull up to the location and valet my car but notice X’s car is being valeted ahead of mine. I waive him down and we head over to the building elevator together. As we get into the elevator, Frank walks in coincidentally and I introduce them to one another.

So the game begins and X buys in for $3,000 to start and asks Frank if he wants the cash now. Frank replies “no, we’ll settle after the game”. 8-10 hours go by and there’s a lot more money on the table now and X has re bought a few times and is in for $20,000 but sitting with a $4,500 stack (-$15,500). But has not given Frank any of his cash from what I have seen. Everyone else at the table is sitting much deeper than X, so X starts texting me he’s going to reload for more but I get the idea he only brought $20,000 with him. So X gets up and speaks with Frank privately in the kitchen and they come back. I text X and ask him what happened and X says he wants to reload but only brought $20,000. This was precisely what I had thought.

At this point, I text Frank and message verbatim “Are you going to extend X any credit above $20,000? Because he did bring in $20,000 cash”. I only messaged this to Frank because I was just curious what he was going to do and also because I would feel ****ty playing short while stuck $15,500. Anyways, Frank responds “Only if you’re going to cover him?”. I thought his response was stupid, so I didn’t reply. Why would I cover, vouch or be responsible for someone I didn’t know. I always made that clear with Frank and other players who asked me how his PLO game was.

X then tells me that Frank wanted X to pay what he owes first ($20,000) and then go home (since he lives close by, but not exactly sure where) and get more money if he wanted to reload for more money. X tells me that Frank wanted someone to go down with him to get the money though. Keep in mind, Frank does have someone/muscle at his game at all times who just sits and watches the game (kind of like security).

An hour goes by and X tells me he messaged his gf to come and bring more cash and tells me to come downstairs with him. It’s 2:30am and I’m stuck $12,000 in the game and not thinking about much. The room was super hot and during the game I asked for the air conditioner to be turned on on 3 separate occasions, explicitly because I was starting to sweat. So when X asked me, I was like “let’s go now, I’m sooo hot and i need some fresh air”. So X and I proceed to walk to the front door, as we’re walking to the door, Frank gives me a look (like a where da **** you going look?) because we just got off the table and left them 5 handed and I waive my hand in the air as a (I’ll be right back) type of response.

So X and I go down to the ground floor and X points to his gf’s car which is on the street in front of our building. He says he’s going to run into her car and grab some money from her. Right before he leaves to her car, he gives the valet his ticket stub because he tells me he’s got some money in his car too. He comes out of his gf’s car and goes inside his car after the valet brought it up. 20 seconds later he comes out of his car and he and I walk back to the elevator waiting for the security at the elevator to scan us back up to our floor. As we’re waiting for the elevator, X quickly tells me that he forgot to give his gf his house key back or something as he heads back outside while I’m in front of the elevator with security. 20 seconds pass and at that point I walk around the corner to the front lobby entrance/valet and he’s gone. 1 minute goes by and he texts me that his gf is giving him a hard time etc etc and for me to wait a minute. At this point, I message Frank trying to quickly explain what happened. I wait for like 2 or 3 minutes while calling and texting X but no response. I finally head back upstairs and explain what happened to Frank. He proceeds to lose it on the fact that the guy had the balls to pull that off.

Anyways, Frank after a few minutes asks me why I waived him off when X and I were walking to the door. I’m like “wtf are you talking bout... waiving you off???” Frank advises me that he or his “muscle” was going to go down personally with X, but that I waived him off as a sign of “I’ll take care of it”. I told him that when X asked me to come down with him, it was 2:30am and I was stuck $10,000+ and just needed to get some fresh air because I was so hot inside.

A day or two later, Frank and I are in heated telephone conversation regarding this issue and I tell Frank that this is HIS GAME, and if a guy I bring into the game which I CLEARLY tell him I don’t know or am not responsible for, brings cash to his game and understand COD policy, than Frank should’ve collected the money up front. Frank tells me he didn’t want to be a dick and demand cash for every buyin or reload during the game. Essentially, he’s trying to stick me with this $15,500 loss on top of the $11,650 that I lost myself.

If there's something more you need in terms of details that have nothing to do with the privacy of the game, ask away.

home game or underground game? I'd be shocked if this were a home game, but I thought I should ask. {If the guy gets paid to run the game beyond collecting for a pizza it is not a home game.}

For the moment I will assume this is a for profit private game . . .

The host made a sequence of mistakes and owns the shortfall, assuming OP has given us the whole story. New guy with no credit history gets to play $20,000 on a tab and some how walks out without paying? Even though the owner/host is explicit that the new guys plays with cash only?? I don't know what the host is thinking, but it is a mistake and he should take the loss politely.

OP did himself no favors by the appearance of a close association with the new guy. OP was quite clear in his texts but the physical part of the night sure looks like OP and the new guy are more than just guys who met once over the table last week.

I wonder if the story from the point of view of the host would be quite different from the original post? Normally the banker would be far more careful about what seems to me to be a sizable amount of money. Maybe the whole game is made up of people who really aren't worried about $20,000 - that much being "pocket money". I am having difficulty putting myself in the Host's shoes and not getting paid in cash when issuing chips.

DrStrange

PS and I am not going to be very surprised if/when we get "the rest of the story"

Wow, great story. Thanks for sharing it here.

Frank was insane to have a COD policy with X, then extend him credit. He is totally responsible for getting into this situation. COD is cash on delivery. As in, you give me cash, I'll deliver you the chips. Did he do that? No.

I can see where Frank might have thought you were telling him "Hey, don't worry about it, X and I will be right back." He might have even thought you were reassuring him on that point. Even if that is not what you meant, he could have interpreted it that way. But he should have talked with you about it, to confirm it. And more importantly, if he's not comfortable with the situation, he should have told security to go with the two of you. End of story.

Bottom line: There is no contract between the two of you, not even implied. Not based on a wave. Good God.

Frank, you're not very good at what you do.

Underground. Frank who runs the game rakes a huge amount (the amount I'm not going to disclose because it's irrelevant to the story).

When Frank and I spoke today over the phone. Our two stories were the same EXCEPT 1. Frank thought I had actually picked up X from his place (hence knew where he lived) because he saw us at the elevators together. However this was a coincidence because we just arrived at the same time 2. Frank thought I was waiving him off and that I was going to collect the money. This is the only two different interpretations/differences I found personally in our story. He gave his version and I gave mine.

Also, I don't think I displayed close association with X. I told Frank "I only played him once at Casino XYZ and he was interested. I don't know anything about him". And Frank was cool with that. To make it clear, the day of the game was my 2nd time meeting this guy. But thank you for your comment because I clearly want to see what it looks like from an outsiders point of view.

The story of the host is the same EXCEPT for the 2 different interpretations that I mentioned earlier above. Don't get me wrong, it's a big game and obviously people do care about $20,000. This is just the way he runs his ship, I guess. AND LET IT BE KNOWN this apparently isn't the first time he's been in a situation like this. Before I started playing, he told me some young kid stiffed him in his game for $5,000 or so.

What I gave is the full story from both our perspective. Frank is literally telling all the players his story and his interpretation of what he thought when I waived as I was leaving. The problem is, he's the biggest fish in his own game I have a feeling people will just side with him. I just want a "real" perspective from an outsider to determine if I am at fault or liable (not legally obviously). But if I honestly got sound & concrete reasons from outsiders who have no vested interest in the game or playing with Frank, than I might consider owning up to this.

An example of the above, when I came back and we were arguing about who's fault it was, a separate player (Z we'll call) who actually runs his own game asked Frank "How do you not collect the money upfront when you a run a game and when OP (Me) told you he doesn't know the guy?" But after, Frank and Z have a conversation privately and now Z is singing a different tune. Trust me, Frank is the biggest fish and people want to keep him happy.

Frank, gave X COD but did NOT extend credit. He told X to go and get more money but settle up the first $20,000 you're playing first!

To your 2nd point, that's exactly how he interpreted it. My act of waiving to him he thought it meant "I'm taking care of the collection". So my response to him was "I'm just a ***** poker player who plays full time in your insane raked games, why the *** would I take ownership or responsibility in something I have no part of (game/rake/risk)". Honestly, it's completely different if he said verbally as I was stepping out "I'm going to come down with you or send Mr. Muscle down with you guys" and I waived him off. Then I think he has a case or an argument.

It's not a matter of if there's a contract between the two us or not. I just want to do what's right. But I seriously don't think I did anything wrong in this case and that's why I'm posting it out here. Because if I did, I'd own up to it.

Ok - the house made a bad credit decision driven by a profit motivation. OP is not liable, the house knew the risks.

The mistake is huge, no matter how large the rake. It will take quite a while for a single table to rake enough to cover the losses. I remain shocked at the house's indifference to a massive amount of money, more so if the owner isn't the guy running the bank.

I have to wonder if the house uses 'enhanced collection techniques'. Someone is going to eat thousands of dollars in losses and it may take some arm-twisting/breaking to decide who is paying.

DrStrange

I can't see any angle of this where OP owes Frank anything. He was right to demand COD with this guy from the beginning, but then he decided to allow him to settle up afterward, for no reason I can figure. Then he tried to get OP on the hook for more credit than X could back up, and OP did not agree to it.

I can see how it might look fishy to Frank. OP invites the guy, shows up with him, and sorta "covers his escape" when he's trying to walk out without paying up. At least that's how it might look to him. But if OP never explicitly agreed to vouch for or cover X, there's not really anything else to discuss. Frank chose to take a risk and lost.

No one at the game thinks I was in on some sort of scam with X for $16,000, including Frank. I've been crushing this game for much more than $16,000 over a long period of time. $16,000 is probably a tad bit more than my average session swings in Frank's game.

I don't think Frank's response was stupid. I think at this point you should have made it clear to Frank (iterated) that you had no intention of covering X.

I think you need to work on your communication skills. Just in case it was not clear to Frank that you had no intention of covering X, you should have made it crystal clear by replying to the response of Frank that you indicated you thought was stupid.

You need to seriously work on your communication skills. Your wave of your hand could indicate various things.

Frank evidently thought your hand wave and failure to respond indicated you'd take care of things. Frank evidently trusted you to bring X back with the money. That was his mistake.

Exactly.

Your wave off could be interpreted that way.

Yes. I agree that Frank should have done that.

Looks to me like Frank thinks you owe him $15,500 plus $11,650.

You don't, of course, but I can see how Frank thinks you do.

If your story is true, it's clear to me that Frank got scammed and you inadvertently abetted the crime.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

Just curious, what would of happened if X had won, say $15,000. If he was the only one putting up cash and the rest of the players settle with cheques? Would X had been excepted to accept a cheque for his winnings?

This OP is way out of my league and I suppose many others who post here. BUT it does go to show the dangers of bringing in new folks to any game without a really good vouching system (sponsors) and also the possible negative aspects of playing on credit rather than paying cash for chips! This would be applicable to any home game so thanks to the OP for posting in the HG forum despite the vast differences in stakes of your underground raked game and most of ours.

I mean Frank extended credit while X was playing his first buy-in.

You said X's cash was in his car, right? And he had chips in front of him? Those chips are on credit as long as the cash is not in Frank's pocket. Correct me if I read this incorrectly.

There is really not difference in giving two players chips, and then at the end of the night one pays by check and the other with cash, except that you have to trust the check is good. Other than that, they've been playing the game on credit.

That's where Frank screwed up. Royally. He's just trying to grasp at straws with this wave bull****.

Thanks for your opinion. I'm really glad you brought up your points. Frank and I had an understanding that I was in no way covering/vouching for X. The only misunderstanding from that night came from 1. He thought I picked up X (in turn, meaning new where he lived) 2. He thought I waved him off from coming down with X and I.

I told X before the game started (through text) that Frank ALWAYS pays after the game. I already told X he would have received a cheque from Frank and X agreed to it.

Yes you are correct. Sorry, when you said X was playing on credit I wasn't taking the first $20,000 into play. But yes, because X did not give the initial $20,000 to Frank, I guess he did extend credit to X.

If you're crushing this game, you have to bend over backwards for the host. The biggest tragedy to you would be to be left of future invite lists.

This is the critical mistake that caused this problem. He didn't even follow his own policy.

Good point. I wouldn't fold immediately, but if there is no other way to placate Frank, maybe you can split the loss in some way, if it's worth it in the long run.

Also, keep your eye open for X. The weasel.

Buzz couldn't be more spot on with this entire thing.

Frank was too much of a softy(idiot) by not wanting to be a dick and actually demand COD(which should've been easier for Frank to do seeing how OP alreasy explained to X that this was how Frank was going to do business once he arrived to the game). Hey Frank, youre not a "dick" just because you're trying to protect yourself and run your "business" like any other smart businessman would've handled it. I mean, that's just common sense, and apparently he doesn't have enough of it.

OP(again, this goes back to what I said about Buzz) needs to work on his communication skills. BIG TIME! You thought Frank's request on the text was "stupid" so you chose not to respond? A $20,000 question at hand and you think that's not worth responding to? What's really "stupid""(and pretty darn irresponsible) is you not knowing the difference between a stupid question that doesnt require an answer, vs. a stupid question that does. And, c'mon, did you really think X had additional money of that amount just lying around in his car?

Hopefully, you learn something here and you're able to take some important things out of all of this. With that kind of money at stake and in an environment such as that, I would have expected you to be REALLY street smart if nothing else, OP.

You don't owe Frank the money, but, had you both been keener on communicating better, none of this would've transpired.

I wonder if Frank feels like a dick now. Nah, he probably just feels like a putz. And rightfully so.

And now it's time to negotiate.

Frank's mistake was not collecting the 20k up front, and now the game is stuck 16k.

IMHO, you don't owe it, but have to consider the 'cost' of playing hardball and not being invited back (and any not deserved damage to your reputation, which you will not be able to defend if you are not there).

With a rake and muscle, I'm sure the host can take the info you do have (cell phone number and casino where he has played) and track X down. Are there that many players in that pool?

Good luck.

Good points here. If I were OP, I might even be willing to participate in contacting X to help Frank lure him out (if he's still answering his phone).

Frank's the one who lost money, but X ripped off OP too. He basically used you as a human shield in his scam. Now you're in a weird spot with Frank. You don't owe Frank anything, strictly speaking, but you'd do well to help him out here if you can.

X would have to be a complete imbecile to answer his phone. And the odds against it are very high.

Now what?

Still think OP couldve/should've answered Frank's text; if anything, just to cover his own ass. And right here says that, imo..


OP: if you're going to text Frank about any part of this transaction, then you owed Frank the common decency of a reply in his follow up text.

Frank clearly knew that I DID NOT know X. And I made that VERY CLEAR before we started also. There's no way I'm covering anybody in this spot and me not replying to Frank's question, would or should be a clear indication of that (in this particular situation). I don't know why you keep reverting to my lack of communication skills. I don't think this part of the story is "so relevant". If i answered "yes, I'll cover him", than that's a different story.

Again, this situation had nothing to do with me responding or not responding to whether I was going to cover X or not. It came from his interpretation of the wave while I was stepping out the door.

If I had answered Frank "no". Nothing would have changed. He's putting it on me because he thinks that I waved him off when I was stepping outside. Even though, he said nothing verbally about himself or "muscle" going down with X.

Frank assumes X is "with" you because you arrived at the same time, you asked about him playing on credit, etc.

Instead of texting him back—when it relates to a five-figure question—you assume he'll take your silence as a no.

Instead of stopping you to clarify—again, when it relates to a five-figure question—Frank assumes the wave means you're taking responsibility for making sure X pays.

When it's all over, there's been a misunderstanding and somehow no one can figure out why.