So does winning the chips from loan guy. The banker still has $200 more in chips in his stack, after the loan repay or after the pot scoop.

If the chips don't leave the table, then the only assumption that can be made here, that's negative for you as a player at the table, is that the borrower is a bad player and you have a better chance to win chips from him, rather than the bankloaner... right?

I guess I'd have to tell you at the end of the night that I can't pay you back now, since I probably lost... and don't you wish that you'd taken the chips when I offered them?

This sorta seems as if the left brain is trying to lie to the right brain, about what's really going on.

yes, you worded that better then I did. Thats why the chips should not change hands. Also take into account there are other players at the table.
IMO, chips should only shift between players from playing poker

Maybe its not so good for the game to let players with limited budgets get into debt at the game.

I ain't their pappy.

Tho' regarding the person who was most likely to do this, I did stop inviting him to my game, as it played deeper and against tougher opponents than the one where this happened from time to time. So, yeah.

I think a lot depends on the game, and the maturity of the players. People who are playing home games for entertainment, bring enough money to last and perhaps even a bit more in case someone runs low. Our game(s) and players are established enough that having the extra money isn't a big deal.

Back when we started, and funds were not as readily available, we had players fishing out change from car ashtrays, and even once bought discount parkway tokens from a player to help him rebuy.

Yes, I can see some cases where lending chips would be OK. It would be the exception, not the rule. If they don't have cash to play, and aren't liquid enough for me to cover them, perhaps they are in too deep?

haha that sounds great. "I got two discount parkway tickets on this hand!"

That math makes no sense. They aren't "down" $720 because they each have $160 in front of them. They're only down $240 total - the amount they've lost. There was $640 on the table when they started, and there is still $640 on the table because the chips haven't gone anywhere.

Yikes. Lighten up Frances. This is a home game. If they're not even good enough to know why it would make a difference, then it hardly matters.

No, it's not the same. The money has not been taken from the game.

Ratholing and going South are the same thing. When you rathole, 2 things happen:

1 - you take money out of your stack and out of risk for you personally
2 - you take money off the table

In the situation in the OP, only #1 happens.

When player A lends money to another player from his chipstack and gives it to player B, the money stays in play. If player B is weak and player A is strong, then this is the perfect situation and it would be stupid to object. (In fact this is what I pray for during the normal run of cards.) If player A is weak and player B is strong, then I would object if we were playing serious poker. In a home game where no one can even figure out why there would possibly be such a rule, then I wouldn't say anything.

Totally off-topic. An easy mnemonic.


FrancIs = his
FrancEs = hers

Lighten up, Palemax.

Yeah
Benny = his
Bene= hers (usually)

Derail/ sorry

Player A has effectively taken money off the table. Money from his chip stack is now in the form of a IOU. If player A faces a allin bet, he has removed some chips/money from his stack.

Another way to look at it. If player B had brought lots of money, there would of been more chips in play since he would be purchasing them from the bank. By borrowing the chips instead, he is keeping this added money off the table

I think you missed the part where they borrow chips from other players making the three of them down $720 altogether

The way that balances is that the people who loan chips are now up whatever amount they took off the table. The net result is the same.

If this was happening every week for large amounts, I'd probably be a bit irritated. However, if they're people who keep doing it because they keep losing to the rest of the table... well, surely you're profiting from it, right? If it's not your game, not much you can do. These are the conditions of the game. Accept and adapt, or play a different game.

Here's what I did when people told me that if I wanted something done a certain way, I should do it myself: I did it myself.

But player B didn't bring more money. It's not an alternative tonight. It might be another night, but not this one. There is no IF. We can either continue the game 7-handed with $1000 on the table, or we can continue the game 8-handed with $1000 on the table. We can also remind players to bring a little extra next time to stop this from happening. ...but we can't make more money appear from the void.

Also...

Player B has effectively added money to the table. Money from his IOU is now in the form of chips in front of him. If player B faces an all-in bet, he has added some chips/money to his stack.

Same logic.

My answer to the problem. Give the player a loan from the bank in the form of chips. More chips are added to the table, and you kept the 8th player at the table. All of thew players should have to agree with this as they should with allowing a player to loan chips.

problem solved.

That's a great solution. Unfortunately, the owner of the chips isn't always in a position to loan a losing gambler money.

The players would have to agree to take the credit, the owner /banker should not be eating the cost. The way I look at it

Lending chips from a players stack= all players have to agree since its a change in procudure.

lending chips from the bank= all players have to agree since its a change in procudure and they all take the risk incase the players skips town before settling up.

Plus then you need a system to decide how the risk is borne. At the end of the night who gets paid with cash and who gets paid with the IOU.

Top winners take the IOU. Its hard to come up with a clear system, just commoin sense. You can't have the top winner taking the whole IOU when it means the second biggest winner walks out with more cash. Most games have a couple big winners, easiest to have them split the IOU. New players to the game should not have to take the IOU

I'm actually not okay with that. If you are, then why not just loan the person money out of your pocket? I'd rather someone transfer chips from time to time than risk getting stuck with an IOU. If I'm not already comfortable stepping up and offering cash on loan, then why would I be comfortable getting stuck with it simply because I had a good night?

If I were okay with loaning money, we wouldn't be passing chips in the first place.

David, is this a persistent problem, or an occasional thing? Do other people see it as a problem? What are the stakes/buyins here? Has this been discussed with the group? Whose game is it? I feel we need more context.

It was a constant problem when we had a regular dealers choice game years and years ago. That game dried up and in time, some of us started playing texas holdem tournies. Every once in awhile, 6-7 months, we get a game of dealers choice going and the same stuff goes on. Cash gets played with chips which is a problem. I've seen guys

1: A player wins a pot with cash, so he pulls $20 and puts it in his wallet, because he had to rebuy 10 minutes earlier.

2: Someone bets $20 into the pot, and someone not playing the hand, takes the $20 out putting in $20 worth of chips instead ( from his stack not the banks).

3; Players show up with almost no money and just borrow chips


The last time we played, the stuff went on and thats where I started this thread. The groups close so no one is worried about getting caught with a IOU from someone who wouldn't pay. I'm the only one who sees this stuff , but I don't speak up. I actually moved on from the group