Who is responsible for money owed?

Something about it seems twisted - it's sort of like the player brought in an ally to negotiate the loss down.

I mean, if someone squelches, you're automatically in conflict with that player. If the squelcher is telling the winner to get the money from a backer, then the winner is now in a conflict with the backer too. It's not necessarily an intentional power play, because maybe things just worked out weird, but the winner is now in the uncomfortable position of potentially being in conflict with two guys, instead of just one guy.

$30/game also signals that the losing player is very unlikely to win enough money to pay off the winner any time soon, since one would assume this is the same number the backer will put up for future games, which means that the losing player would need to win over a hundred games to afford to pay off the bet out of his or her winnings.

And why would the loser sic the winner on the loser's backer? It's sort of like the loser is saying, "My backer squelched on me, so go get my backer!" Either the loser is in it with the backer to game the winner, perhaps because the backer is an intimidating guy, or else the loser is pissed off enough to not mind burning his or her relationship with his or her backer.

I don't know anything about the situation, so maybe it's much more innocent than all that, but when a winner is put in an awkward position like that, I have a lot of questions.
 
garczar said:
just means to post the $$$ before you tee-it-up. some people actually put the up money on the light. at derby one year svb played appleton and there was so much $ on the light that the light listed to one side!!
Click to expand...
Gotcha - thanks! And cool story.

So "post" can mean basically anything that takes the money out of the players' pockets and puts it somewhere, whether that be on the table, on the light, or with a third party?

I've never noticed money on the light, but maybe that's one reason to put it on the light instead of on the table - so people won't notice it?
 
Minnesota Phat said:
Gotcha - thanks! And cool story.

So "post" can mean basically anything that takes the money out of the players' pockets and puts it somewhere, whether that be on the table, on the light, or with a third party?

I've never noticed money on the light, but maybe that's one reason to put it on the light instead of on the table - so people won't notice it?
Click to expand...
no offense but i thought i made it pretty clear what it means.
 
The problem in my gambling days was that local law forbade gambling on pool. The law changed when a bunch of local bigwigs got busted gambling at golf. Then it was decided that betting on yourself in a game or sporting event was wagering and exempt from the anti-gambling laws. You can bet with the other player legally but not the rail.

Anyhow, we couldn't post more than small amounts or somebody would dime you and they and the cop would split most of the evidence with maybe a taste left for the court case if a player tried to defend themselves.

I have had people pull the "backer" move. I never let that hunt, when you accept anyone other than the player as responsible they had better be present to pay. If not, you get the old shell game with everyone claiming they aren't the one responsible to pay and you run around in circles.

If I had played somebody for a pretty long session and they had paid off regularly I didn't think anything of a final bet being an air barrel, it was almost expected. On the other hand, when somebody stiffed me early things were likely to get interesting.

Hu
 
I know someone, pro player when younger, that had his backer flake on him for a much bigger number than 2k. He immediately assured the other guys that they would get paid, and got it done eventually by grinding his day job. All class, the way it should be...
 
Last edited:
easy-e said:
This just came up in our local Facebook pool group, which is very active with thousands of members. Here are the details as they were presented:

-The player is known for playing big money games/sets. Like 300 minimum/game.
-His opponent is a guy he's played before, and gets in action a lot.
-Opponent says the same guy is backing him as the last time they played.
-Opponent loses $2K.
-Player reaches out to backer to collect.
-Backer says he only gave opponent permission to play for 30/game, and offers to pay the player based on that.
-Player wants his 2K.

The question is, who would you say is responsible for that debt?
Click to expand...
Sounds like the player thought he could win and took a chance in not even getting the $ particulars cleared with his backer.

My guess is if the opponent had won instead of lost, he likely would have only paid off his backer 50% of his $30/game for however many games he finished ahead, and pocketed the majority of the score himself.

Of course the player is responsible for any $ amount he lost over $30/game.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Sounds like the player thought he could win and took a chance in not even getting the $ particulars cleared with his backer.

My guess is if the opponent had won instead of lost, he likely would have only paid off his backer 50% of his $30/game for however many games he finished ahead, and pocketed the majority of the score himself.

Of course the player is responsible for any $ amount he lost over $30/game.
Click to expand...
Anyone who needs a backer for $30/game is on a very short stack. Bless his heart….
 
This thread touches on something that doesn’t have a rule book for. We can’t go to the “Street Gamblers Official Rule Book 32nd Edition” approved by the Street Gamblers Association and reference rule number 13.3.a in Chapter 4 page 74 and get a official ruling.

Either you know the ropes or you don’t and you learn them.

To me personally there’s something, some aspect of this unwritten set of rules that gamblers for the most part follow. That’s a very cool thing in my life. I’m glad we don’t have rule making committee’s. We have a code and we mostly follow it.

Some people don’t. They might put private gambling information on a website like Facebook when they shouldn’t. But people make mistakes.

Or in this case, the guy try’s and lays offf a loss on a backer that’s none the wiser.

The beauty of it all is at the end of the day it gets sorted out and money is still in action-legal, illegal who cares? Gambol!

Tails
Fatboy<——-loves street gambling, 🎰
 
I really don't relish gambling but when I did it was on the light or I had something else better to do.

It was my only rule. I'm a simple guy.

Fatboy said:
This thread touches on something that doesn’t have a rule book for. We can’t go to the “Street Gamblers Official Rule Book 32nd Edition” approved by the Street Gamblers Association and reference rule number 13.3.a in Chapter 4 page 74 and get a official ruling.

Either you know the ropes or you don’t and you learn them.

To me personally there’s something, some aspect of this unwritten set of rules that gamblers for the most part follow. That’s a very cool thing in my life. I’m glad we don’t have rule making committee’s. We have a code and we mostly follow it.

Some people don’t. They might put private gambling information on a website like Facebook when they shouldn’t. But people make mistakes.

Or in this case, the guy try’s and lays offf a loss on a backer that’s none the wiser.

The beauty of it all is at the end of the day it gets sorted out and money is still in action-legal, illegal who cares? Gambol!

Tails
Fatboy<——-loves street gambling, 🎰
Click to expand...
 
Washington state has a court ruling that two players playing for money is a contest of skill, not gambling. Two people betting on the side is gambling and uncollectible. Harry Plattis represented the Seattle team that got half of what the Portland team had stiffed them for.
Wonder if Judge Judy has ruled on a similar case.🤔
 
gregcantrall said:
Washington state has a court ruling that two players playing for money is a contest of skill, not gambling. Two people betting on the side is gambling and uncollectible. Harry Plattis represented the Seattle team that got half of what the Portland team had stiffed them for.
Wonder if Judge Judy has ruled on a similar case.🤔
Click to expand...


Every State, County & Cities have laws and those who get caught breaking get in trouble. Phoenix close MCSO's Tent City, but food in MCSO Jail will make you barf. Let's say people who have experence the chow hate it,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top