[BigWoody]

In your ring games, how do you guys feel about someone playing from behind.

Say John wins a big all in pot against Greg and felts him. Greg doesn't have anymore money on him, but is still good for more money (he just doesn't have anymore with him). John pushes Greg twenty 's so he can continue playing. So, if the table agrees, John is playing behind $20. So he still has an imaginary $20 in his stack that he gets credit for. (Greg will just give him $20 at another time)


Has anyone ever played behind in your game?

[jbdanutz]

We have done it before, but the money never came from another persons stack, he would just be playing behind and square up later or someone would pull cash out there pocket to stake him and he would square up with that person later.

[Diamond_Don]

Originally Posted by jbdanutz

We have done it before, but the money never came from another persons stack, he would just be playing behind and square up later or someone would pull cash out there pocket to stake him and he would square up with that person later.

This is the way I would do it. If anyone wants to spot him 20 or what ever it should be cash. Let him buy chips then with the cash. (but not from the table)

[ACE'S FULL]

Originally Posted by jbdanutz

We have done it before, but the money never came from another persons stack, he would just be playing behind and square up later or someone would pull cash out there pocket to stake him and he would square up with that person later.

Originally Posted by Diamond_Don

This is the way I would do it. If anyone wants to spot him 20 or what ever it should be cash. Let him buy chips then with the cash. (but not from the table)

Agreed... That and to have everyone at the table agree to player 'X' playing behind.

[jojobinks]

the problem with this is that you're effectively shorting the bank.

what happens if the player "playing behind" goes busto? then he owes the bank that $20, right? two options:
1) he has it in his pocket
2) he'll get you later

if #2, then no, that's not okay. no credit. no sir.
if #1, then he shoulda given his buddy the 20 and had his buddy buy chips.

[99%evil]

We used to play "on the finger" when a guy was out of money, the pot was shorted then someone at the end of the night would take on the debt. One of the guys has recently been playing well so he's bankrolling any light players...not me though. I don't like to borrow and in the past four months or so, I've been on a pretty good upward swing.

[Quads]

In lower stakes games I'm not entirely opposed to it, but also not a fan of it. In higher stakes games, I'm more against it.

Reason being is that "John's" money, (that of which is fair game, and that of which John can lose to me) is now over in "Greg's" stack. So, now in order to win that same money, I have to play two different people for it. If I get into a choice situation with John, and we are both all in, I'm looking to double through him. That being the case, I want as much money in his stack as possible.

Again, in a lower stakes games, not a huge issue. But when you are sitting in a game where players are coming in for a few dimes, it becomes an issue.

In a home setting, my only concern would be (as already points out) the bank squaring up at the end of the night.

[Stocktrader]

My group allows this, At the end of the night, the "NOTE" is held by the biggest winner and needs to square up BEFORE buying any chips on subsequent nights.

This would be different if we weren't all a tight group.

[HarrysAllOut]

To me it's really all relative to the stakes being played. In a .25/.50 or .50/1 game $10 or $20 is not really a big deal since those stakes are usually just social poker. Any higher then that then it would be a bigger deal. Plus anything higher I'd rather take a strangers money at a cardroom or the casinos.

[legend]

I thought Big Woody was back...lol