I already asked this but wanted to get other opinions. There is a group of firends who play a home game tourney alot. Every once in a while, they play a cash game and when they do, its acceptable to lend chips from one stack, to another. I really don t like the idea of lending chips like that because in a way its taking money off the table. If I mentioned something, I get a answer, what difference does it make.

How would you explained why its a bad idea to lend chips from one player to another?

Sorry but how does it take money off the table if player A gives player B $50 worth of his chips? The same chips are in play with a different player right? You may not like the practice, a casino may prohibit it, a home game may not allow it, all for a lot of various reasons but not because the chips are being removed from the game! That happens when someone pockets some chips to cash in later "goin south", or attempts a partial cashout! It is never a bad idea when a good player is lending chips to a bad one either IMHO . In the end all the chips are still cashed out to winners and any debts between the players are settled with money outside the game.

If it's a group of friends and it's a casual cash game, I don't lose any sleep over it. Not everyone is a serious player and feel there is anything wrong with going south.

If it bothers you that much - don't play. IMO, there's really not a good (or simple) way of explaining it without it sounding like - because I want all your money.

Loaning of chips from the table is pretty much the meaning of 'going south' -- I loan you $100 from my stack. I have essentially just put that $100 in my pocket.

Its the going south with the chips that bothers me. When you lend chips, basicly you are going south with them. Its usually the guys that lend the chips are the ones saying, what differecne does it make?

Anyways, another way to look at it. 8 guys playing, each buys in for $80, for a total of $640 on the table. Three of the guys have a bad night each borrowing $160 from other players chips. Between the three guys, they are down $720 total but there are only $640 chips on the table.

In your example,Player A is owed $50 from Player B. If player B had purchased the chips from the bank, there would be another $50 on the table.

The games I play in, everyone understands that this is the same thing as going south, and these are full of casual sloppy players. The guy who says "what difference does it make?" as he's doing it -- HE understands too, he's just being a jerk.


This is spot on.



A couple weeks ago the guy who was serving as banker had built up a huge stack, probably 4x anyone else at the table. It was getting late and we were thinking about quitting. Player X busted and bought back in. The banker just sold it out of his stack. Since it was only a fraction of the difference between his stack and the #2 stack, and we were going home soon, nobody said anything. Well, banker went on winner's tilt, we all stayed until daybreak, and he left broke. He also acted like a jerk and the bank was off, so everyone was pretty pissed at him. Every single player remembered that thing where he'd sold chips out of his stack and added it to the list of complaints.

Lending chips is not allowed at all the home games in my rotation. If someone needs to reload they can borrow cash from someone or drive to the ATM.

Oddly enough we allow chips to be used for prop betting even sports betting and for paying for booze runs & food even though that really isn't much different from lending chips.

DrStrange

So you are upset ( a little) because there are not an additional bunch of chips being added to the game from reloading from the bank? That makes more sense to me and I can see your point on this. To me "goin' south "had always meant actully having chips removed from the table somehow, but I can see what you mean now. Likely most low stakes home games will let this occur to some degree in some form. GL to you

This topic comes up regularly, and the general consensus is that it's overall bad, but sometimes it's a necessary evil that keeps the game running or keeps the fish playing.

If I have a choice between the game breaking or having one player loan another money, I'll generally allow it. ...but I make sure to have other options available to me, like a real loan, or that pesky Square reader I keep handy for credit cards

Easy solution:

Do it yourself. When someone is going to ask for chips, have them ready to go from your stack. Then buy that same amount from the bank.

This way nobody else is asked to do anything differently, so nobody feels defensive. You are in control, and you emulate proper behavior.

Not OK to lend... but OK to 'sell' for cash, with the understanding that the cash plays. If my Buddy needs more chips, but is broke, I can pull cash from my pocket to lend him. If I lend him chips from my stack, I put the cash in my stack, and it plays.

We do run props with chips, and occasionally players will pull chips for food/drinks/cards etc, but not usually significant stack altering amounts...

Ours is a friendly game, and one player objected to paying for pizza 'off the table'. We understood his objection and told him to STFU, in a kind, caring and empathetic way. The line is drawn that it's unacceptable for 'rebuy amounts', but for under 20BB, it's been fine.

Oh, and if someone else beats you to passing chips, just pass chips to *that* person and say "I'll take on the debt" and re-buy from the bank.

I like that idea , shows how to do it. I always pushed the point that you should borrow cash from someone and buy in for more chips.

Yeah, I find it's easier just to do it myself. I can't change their mentality, and if I quietly take care of it, then nobody's annoyed by my nittery.

Quite often we'll get players as a pair, and both of them have their money entirely on the table. Given a choice between busting one of them out (which risks losing both of them from the game), we'll let them shuffle money around.

Of course it's a good idea to always just get cash and turn it into chips, but quite often the only one willing to make a loan has a stack of chips and lacks cash.

...then, if it keeps a healthy game running, I'm happy to look the other way.

If it were towards the end of the night I wouldn t have a problem., Keep the game going and give the guy a chance to win his money back. But in the past, and it has been awhile since we played, the borrowing would start in the first hour. As funny as it sounds, if your going to a cash game, then make sure you bring lots of cash. Bring whatever you are prepared to lose.

Myself, if we are all friends, I would say allow X amount of money from the bank as credit. getting paided would not be a problem and it keeps lots of chips on the table.

I don't like credit from the bank. Unless I'm the bank. But even then, it's ME giving the credit, and I put cash in the bank.

Also, yeah, what Pali said, totally cool. There are times where transferring chips is good, especially if it's tight players transferring to lose players. But as a general rule, I'd rather cover the debt myself and add cash to the bank.

We don't allow it; as some have mentioned, it's essentially taking money off of the table.

It's pretty common for people to borrow cash that isn't in play from others, but even to keep the game running, it just feels "wrong" to let people give stacks to other players.

The player who lends the chips is going south by taking chips off of his stack and essentially putting an IOU in his pocket.

The thing is that in a home game sometimes you have to allow this in order to keep the game going. I have even heard the same argument in a casino. Its late at night and the game is 5 handed and somebody busts out and there buddy wants to give him chips from his stack. You tell them they can;t do that. The players then say "Oh let him do it because the game will break if they leave."


In a casino environment you can't give in to this ..... but in a home game thats just something you may have to do if you want to play.

We used to allow this in our cash games, mostly, as stated before, just to keep the game going. We had to put a stop to this practice, however, when two paticular players would bet everyone else out of the pot (squeeze plays), then if one of them went bust, they would just "loan" the other one his money back.

Your problem was deeper then the lending of chips. You probably need to rid yourself of those players.

Assuming that good players accumulate chips and bad players lose them, i am all for the big stack giving chips to his buddy who lost all of his

besides the going south part of lending chips, there is another sernio. Once players know they can borrow from someone elses stack, they don t worry so much to bring lots of money.

In the pre texas holdem days when we played wild card games, we sometimes got into the following

Player A borrows $100 in chips over the night from player B. Player B had a rougth start to the game and was into it for $80 cash , before he started to win and lend the chips. At the end of the night, Player B takes a couple of hits and is down to $20 in his chip stack and Player A still owes him $80. Player A had busted out. Player B leaves the game with $20 cash and a IOU for $80.

Agree with this, if it is a one time thing that a player is short on cash i don't really have a huge issue, but if a player is consistently not bringing ample cash it would have to be stopped

Then again, if they leave the game when a "no lending" rule is applied, they can only lose the $80.

In big-bet games (NL and PL, as opposed to limit), I agree with what most people are saying so far. I'm not sure if the game gains more, by keeping players playing, than it loses by south-ing some chips, in effect.

Look at it this way- it's similar to playing in a raked game, but you don't pay the rake!