Was invited by a friend to his cousin's low stakes home game over the weekend. The other players present were mostly the host's friends and their +1s. I have been to this game before and it's usually a pretty good game with the host willing to call light and bet/raise even lighter. To give you an idea of what I mean, the blinds are 0.5/0.5 with the buy-in at 50, and I once saw a guy leave up 252 after a 4-5 hour session. Host doesn't usually collect hard cash for buy-ins and we usually settle the cash disbursement after the game has ended without issue.

We have been playing for an hour or so when this pot unfolds. Host is involved in a hand with a +1 (let's call him A). Host is 3 buy-ins into the game and is pretty much on full tilt after having lost some coolers. Host has about 110 going into this hand; A covers him with 150 or so.

Host picks up AJ and raises pre from EP to 2.50. A has AA and 3bets to 7. Host calls.

Flop is Jxx no flush or straight draws. Host leads out for 10. A asks Host how much he has behind, to which Host replies "80 or so". Following that, A raises to 20. Host snaps the extra 10.

Turn is another J. Host leads out again for 20, leaving him 63 behind. A announces all-in, Host instacalls. A asks Host how much he has, which turns out to be 63. At this point, A tries to take back his all-in by claiming he thought Host had 20+ instead of 63. To be fair, Host did have a lot of 0.5 chips in tall stacks which may have confused A as to the actual value of Host's stack. That being said, Host kept his big chips in full view of everyone at the table.

Host and the majority of the table insist that A pays up. Guy who brought A along makes a weak attempt to defend him but probably knows he has no case. A refuses to pay claiming he was deceived. Host tells A he is not welcome at the game should he fail to make good on his raise. A then pulls out his wallet and flashes the bill compartment, revealing that he hasn't any cash on him.

Which is the best course of action to take following the series of events?

There is only one question to ask A. "On the flop, you asked the host how much he had. He said $80 or so. So where is the confusion?"

Kick A out. Kick his friend out too, unless he offers to come up with the money that A rightfully owes the host. Let it be a lesson to the others in the game that if you bring someone, you must vouch for them, including financially, if something like this arises.

"Host doesn't usually collect hard cash for buy-ins and we usually settle the cash disbursement after the game has ended without issue."

Hero knows this is the way the game is run. So does everyone else. No cash in the till is a potential problem. It might never become a problem, but now we know it is a problem at this moment.

Of course "A" is responsible for his call of an all-in. Verbal is binding absent some sort of outlandish fault by the other player. No doubt A would been fine with the call if he ended up with the winning hand.

Given that "A" is a +1, it could be that the host is going to expect the guy who brought "A" to cover his unpaid marker. This is the way it works in most of the games I play in where credit is allowed.

In the worst case, the Host is on the hook for unpaid debts. Sucks to be the host at the moment, though it isn't the worst possible case. At least the host is holding the unpaid for chips rather than shelling out cash to a third player.

I encourage the host to tighten up his game, especially in regards to new players. It is one thing to offer credit to well known regulars. Giving an open line of credit to total strangers is going to lead to troubles.

I rule this way:

Host is ultimately responsible for the unpaid debt.

The guy bringing "A" should make good on the default from his guest. If he doesn't, then said guy gets punished. Maybe a ban of some sort. At least he gets his +1 invitation rights cancelled.

"A" is life banned - not that it matters much to "A". he got a sweet free roll. Given he had no cash, it isn't clear that he ever intended to pay for chips.

Hero will have to decide if he can tolerate the obvious risks that come from playing in this game. It is not obvious Hero should abandon the game, but at least he should consider his options.

This structure of playing on "markers" or whatever is precarious. Especially if you allow a"new" player to join in. We have a similar sponsor system at our weekly low stakes game (.25-.50) . It is a cash only system $50 max Buy in , reload! So this situation can never come up.

Now player A (with no cash in his wallet) figured that since the game was not run by the Gambino Crime Family he could skate if he lost. He was right. This will only happen very rarely , but now that it has happened, the weakness of this structure is revealed. The host, who is responsible for much of this and the sponsor of A could make a deal I guess. The system should be changed to cash only. This situation will be on everyones elses mind every session , especially with new players in and out.

And of course the player should be banned and his behavior mentioned to any other players or hosts that folks in the group are familiar with.

The question of the all in call being valid or not is silly, of course he owes.
He already asked how much he had, not that that even really matters. It's your responsibility to know how much you're calling, or take the time like you did on the previous street and ask.

As for the credit issue, and overall shadiness of player A, I put most of the blame on the guy who invited him. Guy brings no cash to a poker game-come on man, GTFO.

But the regular who invited him? You owe his share, no doubt. Whether you collect it from player A some other time, or whatever, you're the one I'm going to see again, you're the one who brought him, and you should know better.
Obviously history plays a part, so who knows if the regular is even a staple in the game.

But this being "home poker", I just picture my own crew and can't imagine any of them being nothing but apologetic and immediately rectifying the issue.

OP, give us an update when you play again please. Tell us if anyone mentions it, or if the structure changes.

Major red flag. You should not be playing here. While it was probably a friendly game with no previous problems, it always had the potential to be a major problem.

Huh? He is a liar who just got caught in a bluff.

Immediately, A and his friend are asked to leave immediately and both are never to return unless one of them pays up. (If A's friend pays on the spot, he can stay but A still needs to go.) Host needs to eat the loss as he is "the banker" for this game.

In the future, the host now begins basic bank procedures for future games. He needs to appoint someone as the banker (if not himself). Banker collects all money for all buy-ins. No cash, no buy-in. The banker will be the only person to handle the money and the un-allocated chips. Chips should be keep in a place away from the table and no one (but the banker) should go near the chips. Banker will keep the bank separate from his personal money. The banker will assume all responsibility for any shortages. Any overages, which we hope never happens, should be split among all the players.

The only thing I can add is I hope OP shows this thread to the host. Playing without collecting money is insanity, and before host tries, "But we've always done it like this," this thread is full of decades, not years, of wisdom from helpful people.

This is slightly off-topic, but OP said "the majority of the table" said A should pay. I'd personally be concerned about the people who didn't think A should pay...unless there's more to this story, as is often the case. :P

Everyone at the table minus A and the guy who brought A would constitute as a majority.

Thanks for all the responses so far. Will definitely push for a cash-for-chips policy at the next session.

It would be very difficult for me to give up going to this game as it's just a 5min drive from my place and I believe I have a pretty solid edge here, plus the action is great.

What happens following the events as described is...

Various players start berating A, and eventually one of the other players - this burly guy who by now has a face black as tar - gets in A's face, plants a vice lock on A's shoulder blade and demands that he pays his due. A decides that the 60 or so dollars is not worth his well-being and offers to go to the nearest ATM to withdraw some cash. Burly guy, A and A's friend leave the place and return about 25 minutes later sans A. Host gets paid for his all-in and the game resumes.

Maybe not the best way to handle the situation but whatever works I guess. Nobody broached the subject of banning A's friend or removing his +1 privileges, so I'm probably not going to rock the ship till the next incident.

Was the burly guys name Silvio Dante? Good that it got settled , but likely bad for the game vibe , just how bad time will tell! As for you advocating a strict cash for chips structure , suggest it but don't go on a crusade. The host and other players should see the potential problems this credit system can cause and want to change it also. If they don't see it that way after all this they likely never will. You like the game and the action , so don't push so hard for change that it causes another needless problem between you and some others in the crew.

I don't get why a credit system for a low stakes home game would ever start to begin with, even if everyone could be fully trusted. Seems like it would be much more work to keep track of how many chips people took and then figure out how much is owed at the end. Just taking cash when you sell chips and paying out out when you buy them back is much simpler.

Over here we have an e-payment service which allows you to send cash to your recipient's bank account by simply keying in their mobile number, which beats carrying/receiving physical cash for me since my wallet is of the minimalist variant and doesn't take too kindly to too many notes Most people have this service enabled for their accounts; for some reason this guy didn't - in addition to having no cash in his wallet.

Perhaps requesting to view each player's account balance before the game starts might be a decent workaround.

Good it was resolved. TBH, if I'm playing, I'm much more comfortable with this strong are resolution from a not-directly involved player. It shows the player pool is serious about making good.

As debts have been settled at the end of the night without issue so far, I'm good with continuing this way. Perhaps a reminder that you are responsible for making good on your +1 needs to be put out there. I've got no problem with people that carry little cash, but can transfer funds instantly.

As host, if A decided not to pay, and nobody strong armed him, I'm putting his friend on the hook for the whole amount. We don't know if the friend could/would have covered, as it didn't come down to that.

As host, if I choose to run my game this way, I'm covering any unpaid debts. If I'm banking and the pot is short, I'm covering. If the pot is over, I'm keeping that though. No reason to get reverse free-rolled with bank errors.


I didn't play in this college frat game, but my understanding was there were worthless IOUs put into pots (match the pot games like guts and acey-duecey). Never had interest in a game like that.

When our games were in semi-pubic places, I thought about having players settle up at the end, to avoid cash transfers before and after the game. For many reasons, people preferred cash on the spot. In hindsight, with some of the players, it was a good idea to collect cash for chips. Even currently, some players need to borrow to rebuy during the game. They borrow cash from the pocket of another player. Never allow anyone to go south or play on credit.