When a forum member doesn't pay
Quote: Baccaratfrom79A man's word is all he has, how it is interpreted only he and the one's he deals with knows.
I can walk anywhere too, but no matter how I deal with it, I'm likely to end up running in one way or another for the hills of sanity and common sense.
Good grief. I come back in a week, and this is what we're up to. Better take a month off.
Quote: KerkebetI can walk anywhere too, but no matter how I deal with it, I'm likely to end up running in one way or another for the hills of sanity and common sense.
Good grief. I come back in a week, and this is what we're up to. Better take a month off.
I haven't read any of this thread but my answer to the question of what to do when a forum member doesn't pay is to realize how profoundly stupid it is both to gamble with people on internet forums and to reveal one's stupidity by starting a 31 page thread on the subject.
Quote: bobsimsI haven't read any of this thread but my answer to the question of what to do when a forum member doesn't pay is to realize how profoundly stupid it is both to gamble with people on internet forums and to reveal one's stupidity by starting a 31 page thread on the subject.
So, you haven't read any of the thread but you risk suspension for insulting the OP?
Quote: bobsimsI haven't read any of this thread but ...
revealing stupidity ... yep that's food for thought.
For the most part the side betting on this forum has went well. Hopefully no one is making wagers large enough to be meaningful and its something done for fun. I doubt $100 is going too affect Anyone much(if so you have no business betting). So to say its stupid is harsh. It may not be something you like, but others like the competition and bragging rights. A few people have done well overall.Quote: bobsimsI haven't read any of this thread but my answer to the question of what to do when a forum member doesn't pay is to realize how profoundly stupid it is both to gamble with people on internet forums and to reveal one's stupidity by starting a 31 page thread on the subject.
I'm not even sure this was a bet, I think it was more of a side deal.
Quote: AxelWolfFor the most part the side betting on this forum has went well. Hopefully no one is making wagers large enough to be meaningful and its something done for fun. I doubt $100 is going too affect Anyone much(if so you have no business betting). So to say its stupid is harsh. It may not be something you like, but others like the competition and bragging rights. A few people have done well overall.
I'm not even sure this was a bet, I think it was more of a side deal.
I would look at it as a cheap lesson. Like Axel said if a hundred bucks is going to change your life, you shouldn't be betting. I know I have been screwed out of a lot more than that.
Quote: petroglyphI would look at it as a cheap lesson. Like Axel said if a hundred bucks is going to change your life, you shouldn't be betting. I know I have been screwed out of a lot more than that.
He didn't lose $100, he just didn't win it.
Quote: MoscaHe didn't lose $100, he just didn't win it.
I think that is the same thing as saying you are playing with house money when gambling.
Quote: AxelWolfFor the most part the side betting on this forum has went well. Hopefully no one is making wagers large enough to be meaningful and its something done for fun. I doubt $100 is going too affect Anyone much(if so you have no business betting). So to say its stupid is harsh. It may not be something you like, but others like the competition and bragging rights. A few people have done well overall.
I'm not even sure this was a bet, I think it was more of a side deal.
You nailed it here. I participate in the pools and make $25-$50 wagers just to have fun. I literally have received worse odds on all of my wagers at this site then I could have obtained by betting online or in Vegas. It's more fun for me to watch games when I have a little bet going. I also feel like these bets make me more a part of the board/community. I certainly don't come here just looking to make fiends, but it would be nice to have other members have a high opinion of me and respect me just in case we meet.
Quote: MoscaHe didn't lose $100, he just didn't win it.
Good point.
They both did better than me then, I actually lost real money that at one time was actually in my hand. Potentially losing theoretical money isn't the same thing at all.
The devil is in the details. That's why I like coming here. lol
Quote: rudeboyoiThis is how a stateless society functions. Reveal the welchers and the rest of the society knows to no longer give them action. Applies to any form of business.
I don't always agree with you, but this time you hit a home run IMO. Try stuff like this around here and you will be shunned.
Quote: MoscaHe didn't lose $100, he just didn't win it.
This is what I always say about people
who welch on a casino marker. The
casino comes unglued like they lost
a bunch of money. They didn't lose
any money, they just didn't win any.
The casino acts like the guy robbed the
cage.
Quote: EvenBobThis is what I always say about people
who welch on a casino marker. The
casino comes unglued like they lost
a bunch of money. They didn't lose
any money, they just didn't win any.
The casino acts like the guy robbed the
cage.
My understanding is that if one doesn't pay his/her marker it is a criminal charge which would be prosecuted. Personally I play on F.M. Deposits or cash but my hosts have told me that all credit is tied to your checking account and unlike days gone by, if you don't pay it would be 100% drafted and if bounced, charges are pressed.
Quote: GWAEI think that is the same thing as saying you are playing with house money when gambling.
Not in this case, when you are playing with house money you actually have it in your hand. It might be correct to call it lost income. Regardless, I think we agree it is heinous as all hell. Maybe it's like getting blackjack and then not getting paid.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79My understanding is that if one doesn't pay his/her marker it is a criminal charge which would be prosecuted. Personally I play on F.M. Deposits or cash but my hosts have told me that all credit is tied to your checking account and unlike days gone by, if you don't pay it would be 100% drafted and if bounced, charges are pressed.
This. When I got casino credit to travel to The Bahamas I had to release bank account info, and provide routing number and account number, and sign an agreement allowing wire transfer if I didn't pay up. (Also any winning session had to conclude with satisfying the marker.)
Quote: Baccaratfrom79My understanding is that if one doesn't pay his/her marker it is a criminal charge which would be prosecuted. Personally I play on F.M. Deposits or cash but my hosts have told me that all credit is tied to your checking account and unlike days gone by, if you don't pay it would be 100% drafted and if bounced, charges are pressed.
You can't be jailed for owing a debt, we no longer have a debtors prison.
Someone close to me works for the credit department at a local Indian casino.
They tell me stories all the time of odd stuff that happens. Recently there was a player who took a $20,000 marker. Person played $3,000, paid back $7,000 and settled the remaining $10,000 for only $5,000. $5,000 profit for a few hours work.
They forgave the $5,000 and started issuing credit to the player again.
It infuriates the hell out of them that the casino acts like this.
The best you can do for collecting is the same as any other collection agency. As long as there was no fraud, the player cannot be arrested for owing a debt.
Quote: BoulderDamItYou can't be jailed for owing a debt, we no longer have a debtors prison.
Someone close to me works for the credit department at a local Indian casino.
They tell me stories all the time of odd stuff that happens. Recently there was a player who took a $20,000 marker. Person played $3,000, paid back $7,000 and settled the remaining $10,000 for only $5,000. $5,000 profit for a few hours work.
They forgave the $5,000 and started issuing credit to the player again.
It infuriates the hell out of them that the casino acts like this.
The best you can do for collecting is the same as any other collection agency. As long as there was no fraud, the player cannot be arrested for owing a debt.
I could be wrong, easily, but it looks to me like they can get you for kiting checks (misdemeanor/felony based on amount and local laws), based on what Mosca said about the language and information they made him use to get a LOC.
Quote: BoulderDamIt
They forgave the $5,000 and started issuing credit to the player again.
It infuriates the hell out of them that the casino acts like this.
So the guy took 20K, and they said
he didn't have to pay back 5K of it?
Why would they do that.
Quote: BoulderDamItYou can't be jailed for owing a debt, we no longer have a debtors prison.
Someone close to me works for the credit department at a local Indian casino.
They tell me stories all the time of odd stuff that happens. Recently there was a player who took a $20,000 marker. Person played $3,000, paid back $7,000 and settled the remaining $10,000 for only $5,000. $5,000 profit for a few hours work.
They forgave the $5,000 and started issuing credit to the player again.
It infuriates the hell out of them that the casino acts like this.
The best you can do for collecting is the same as any other collection agency. As long as there was no fraud, the player cannot be arrested for owing a debt.
In Nevada you can be because you agree to allow them to withdraw it from your bank. Plus you have to pay a minimum of a 10% penalty to the state of Nevada.
http://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/dec/3/debtors-prisons-prevail-las-vegas-thanks-prosecutors-and-casino-markers-law/
and also better defined with statues:
http://www.legalmann.com/CriminalDefense/CasinoMarkerCasinoDebts/UnpaidMarkers.aspx
You get plenty of warning before they come for you, the same as vehicle repossession which for many years in the northeast I owned a repossession agency and made a tidy fortune working for he biggest banks. Sign today and tomorrow's unfortunate happenings are not pretty. Same thing.
Quote: EvenBobSo the guy took 20K, and they said
he didn't have to pay back 5K of it?
Why would they do that.
That is very common for big players. Basically they give you a discount when you lose. 25% is a big discount, they are usually smaller than that. They want to encourage you to take out more and lose more.
Quote: beachbumbabsI could be wrong, easily, but it looks to me like they can get you for kiting checks (misdemeanor/felony based on amount and local laws), based on what Mosca said about the language and information they made him use to get a LOC.
I know at the casino I go too, when you take out a marker you're technically writing a check which the casino will cash in 45 days (if not paid back sooner). So you can be prosecuted via all the same laws that govern writing bad checks to any other business
Quote: DRichThat is very common for big players. Basically they give you a discount when you lose. 25% is a big discount, they are usually smaller than that. They want to encourage you to take out more and lose more.
If I do in excess of $50k FM and lose there is 5% maybe slightly more as a bonus, could be 10%. The real discounts of 10% or more, but I never heard of 25%, start at $100k front money or credit line.
I have been offered as much as 10% 'quick bonus comp' and 10% bonus rebate (for losing) on 100k f.m. deposit, never more than that.
Quote: BoulderDamItYou can't be jailed for owing a debt, we no longer have a debtors prison.
Someone close to me works for the credit department at a local Indian casino.
They tell me stories all the time of odd stuff that happens. Recently there was a player who took a $20,000 marker. Person played $3,000, paid back $7,000 and settled the remaining $10,000 for only $5,000. $5,000 profit for a few hours work.
They forgave the $5,000 and started issuing credit to the player again.
It infuriates the hell out of them that the casino acts like this.
The best you can do for collecting is the same as any other collection agency. As long as there was no fraud, the player cannot be arrested for owing a debt.
Sorry, in Vegas it is not a civil debt, there is no longer straight credit. I play baccarat and many people I play with and have known for years do markers. They all have to do the check authorizations in advance and sign papers the casino property can draft the markers out if not repaid, usually 30 days. All of them are very clear and you sign papers you are knoweldabgle you would be issuing a worthless check if it fails to go through.
Quote: EvenBobSo the guy took 20K, and they said
he didn't have to pay back 5K of it?
Why would they do that.
No clue. The guy played for 30 min. Cashed out. Months of trying to collect. Customer still played but wasn't issued credit. Settled for $5,000 and the next week started issuing credit again.
The collection process was over a 6 month term.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Sorry, in Vegas it is not a civil debt, there is no longer straight credit. I play baccarat and many people I play with and have known for years do markers. They all have to do the check authorizations in advance and sign papers the casino property can draft the markers out if not repaid, usually 30 days. All of them are very clear and you sign papers you are knoweldabgle you would be issuing a worthless check if it fails to go through.
My apologies, I should have prefaced by saying California casinos.
I had no clue Vegas did it that way. It's obviously the smartest route.
Quote: EvenBobThis is what I always say about people
who welch on a casino marker. The
casino comes unglued like they lost
a bunch of money. They didn't lose
any money, they just didn't win any.
The casino acts like the guy robbed the
cage.
Bullshit Bob. This guy is the same guy who writes a bad check, no difference. Not sure why you think it is different. The marker is a CHECK. You used the money to purchase something, in this case CHIPS,,,which are money.
Why would you defend a deadbeat?
Nice to know you own a business that doesn't expect to be paid for goods or services. How is that working out for you?
At least we know where you stand. But most of us already knew that from your roulette posts. Making more money than most of us can ever imagine from a system makes all of us want to be just like you.
Quote: BozBullshit Bob. This guy is the same guy who writes a bad check, no difference. Not sure why you think it is different.
But it is different. The guy gave the money
back in losses. The casino gave up nothing
of value. They didn't lose anything, they just
didn't win.
Quote: EvenBobBut it is different. The guy gave the money
back in losses. The casino gave up nothing
of value. They didn't lose anything, they just
didn't win.
Are you dense?
They lost 100 percent of the money they loaned out that wasn't repaid.
Just because that money was used to gamble in their casino instead of used to buy a car makes no difference at all.
This might make it easier for you:
Person A borrows $10,000 from the casino, doesn't gamble, leaves with the $10,000, and doesn't pay it back.
That same day, Person B, unrelated to Person A, loses $10,000 gambling in the same casino.
By your logic, the casino didn't lose the $10,000 from Person A.
What about this:
Casino gives $10k markers to 10 players. 5 players win $5000 and pay back their markers. The other 5 lose $10k and don't pay back their markers.
Casino should have made $25,000 (-5k*5 + 10k*5 = +25k). But in reality, they lost 25k since no markers were paid back.
There's no way to win. You can only possibly lose.
Now it may be different when it comes to casinos since they have their own rules.
Quote: sodawater
Person A borrows $10,000 from the casino, doesn't gamble, leaves with the $10,000, and doesn't pay it back.
.
I'm assuming they gambled it back to the
casino, which is usually the case.
Quote: EvenBobI'm assuming they gambled it back to the
casino, which is usually the case.
The point -- which you seem to be missing -- is that it absolutely doesn't matter what the person does with the borrowed money. If they don't pay it back, the casino loses it, period -- whether they gamble and lose it at the casino or flush it down a neighboring property's toilet.
Quote: EvenBobI'm assuming they gambled it back to the
casino, which is usually the case.
Bob, loan me $1000. We will then make a bet on heads or tails on a coin toss. If I win you pay me $1000 and I will pay you back the $1000 i borrowed. If you win I will give you your $1000 back and we will be even.
You and I should do this every day.
Quote: rudeboyoiCan you not get a marker to play slots/vp then?
Yes you can.
Same MIstake many make who think something simple believed to be fundamental, but don't see the flaws and mischaracterizationS. If this were true as you suggest, not only would such governments exist, they would dominate. However we also know power consolidates and power colludes, and power would corrupt the process of self-regulation. End result would be a takeover destroying the anarchy with a new dichotomy.Quote: rudeboyoiThis is how a stateless society functions. Reveal the welchers and the rest of the society knows to no longer give them action. Applies to any form of business.
Quote: onenickelmiracleMarkers only give chips and not cash, so I do believe bob has a valid point. The casino loss would be minimal. It's not real, but the land of make believe, the loss is. Obviously the casino Doesn?t loan real cash out for a reason. the reason would be they would suffer a real loss.
WRONG on multiple fronts. First off you are defending a deadbeat. Then you are allowing every smart player to be able to play limited casino advantage games such as DP on craps and justify not paying back markers. YES, they are giving out real cash.
What part of this are people like you and Bob trying to justify??
Why would any legitimate gambler try to justify cheating other gamblers (or casinos, which are to a point gamblers) out of money? I just don't get it.
Far too many good people here who understand the responsibility of placing and taking a bet to allow thoughts like this to go unchallenged.
Smarter people than me would have argued and debated this in more civil ways, but I just will never get not paying back a debt or obligation. And yes, it pisses me off when people justify not paying.
Please try to prove me wrong because I believe a gamblers word is everything.
I think the actual loss is minimal to the claimed loss. absolute zero isn't the case but it's closer to zero than 100%. Can't take it to absurdity because the casino would take counter measures. This idea has little to do with friedly bets being in default. Only when the gambler walks with cash, can the loss for cash taken be real. However I'm pretty sure the casino has measures to prevent cash leaving like machines having limits and security watching them taking steps to thwart the money leaving. My understanding of markers only changes the end result by degree and not kind.Quote: BozWRONG on multiple fronts. First off you are defending a deadbeat. Then you are allowing every smart player to be able to play limited casino advantage games such as DP on craps and justify not paying back markers. YES, they are giving out real cash.
What part of this are people like you and Bob trying to justify??
Why would any legitimate gambler try to justify cheating other gamblers (or casinos, which are to a point gamblers) out of money? I just don't get it.
Far too many good people here who understand the responsibility of placing and taking a bet to allow thoughts like this to go unchallenged.
Smarter people than me would have argued and debated this in more civil ways, but I just will never get not paying back a debt or obligation. And yes, it pisses me off when people justify not paying.
Please try to prove me wrong because I believe a gamblers word is everything.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI think the actual loss is minimal to the claimed loss. absolute zero isn't the case but it's closer to zero than 100%. Can't take it to absurdity because the casino would take counter measures. This idea has little to do with friedly bets being in default. Only when the gambler walks with cash, can the loss for cash taken be real. However I'm pretty sure the casino has measures to prevent cash leaving like machines having limits and security watching them taking steps to thwart the money leaving. My understanding of markers only changes the end result by degree and not kind.
This is utterly absurd. Not being forced to payback markers is the equivalent of a 100% loss rebate basically. It is quite obvious that a casino would lose massive amounts of money if they gave away a 100% loss rebate same with if they don't get back markers.
Hence, "can't take it to absurdity." Enough with this stupid @@@@.Quote: TwirdmanThis is utterly absurd. Not being forced to payback markers is the equivalent of a 100% loss rebate basically. It is quite obvious that a casino would lose massive amounts of money if they gave away a 100% loss rebate same with if they don't get back markers.
they probably recognized he is a gambling addict with disposable money(the players casinos depend on) and made a business decision. I've heard a story, unverified, of Pete Rose unwilling to pay back an overpayment noticed by surveillance over a normal sized for him bet. Apparently he was 86'd and took his business elsewhere. If he was a degenerate gambler, with his disposable income, the casino may have been better off letting it go.Quote: EvenBobSo the guy took 20K, and they said
he didn't have to pay back 5K of it?
Why would they do that.
So, I agree, if we assume if the casino didn't lose anything, it also means you can't actually keep any winnings either.
That fixes that.
Quote: rxwineSo, I agree, if we assume if the casino didn't lose anything, it also means you can't actually keep any winnings either.
Pretty much. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's the
same with a bookie. If you owe a bookie a grand,
how much actual loss does he have if you don't
pay. Bupkis. He didn't lose, he just didn't win.
Quote: EvenBobPretty much. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's the
same with a bookie. If you owe a bookie a grand,
how much actual loss does he have if you don't
pay. Bupkis. He didn't lose, he just didn't win.
I knew quite a few from Staten Island in N.J. before I moved in 2002 out west. Might be true, but come Thursday I sure wouldn't want to not have their money. Their leeway was about a week, 2 at the most from what I witnessed at my bar and other business.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Their leeway was about a week, 2 at the most from what I witnessed at my bar and other business.
Of course, they have to collect. They
would be out of business if they didn't
because everybody would welch.
If they let everybody who didn't care about their credit not pay off markers, they would lose on markers.Quote: EvenBobPretty much. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's the
same with a bookie. If you owe a bookie a grand,
how much actual loss does he have if you don't
pay. Bupkis. He didn't lose, he just didn't win.
Add AP's to the mix and its light out for the casinos. That's exactly why it's a crime to not pay back a marker(it's equivalent to writing a bad check)
The only real way to figure this out is to find out what percentage of the markers people actually lose. You can then calculate what percentage of people it would take to skip out before the casinos would lose. I think if 35% of all markers didn't get paid back the casinos couldn't afford to give them out especially if APs took advantage of it.
If it wasn't illegal multiple APs and wannabes would purposely free roll the casinos.
A 100k marker, If you don't have to pay it back is worth over 40%. Whales could slaughter the casinos easily.
A bookie can fade a few people not paying, but not many, or bookies would just give everybody credit.( they don't) Usually someone has to vouch for you to get credit or you have to have a history or a really good income.
There's lots of agents for major reputable online sports books who give large amounts of credit. They won't send anyone to collect if you don't pay. that's why they are very picky who they extend credit to.
