The only real measure a bookie has is that degenerates are hooked to action

There are two camps that have gone back and forth over the years, the ones that insist that bookies do something if you stiff, and the other that uses reason and says, if I got a book of 20-50 guys, who I'm monitoring and who pay, why would I worry about one stiff not matter how much? Usually it's just a player who lost anyway in the past and rolled it up on tilt.

That said, the only real check in this game is that if a guy owes too much, he gives up, so make sure it's a smaller amount that he can get you. And he'll keep going. And you'll get paid. Otherwise, it's on you, because as the bookie it's not like you don't change menus, limit when guys win, etc and increase vig as a shady MF, yet you act like this is all honorable.

Is this incorrect? If so, please tell me

Don't you think? I can't believe a bookie would waste his time going after someone he extended too much credit to. So what if it was a free roll. The money never even existed (sorta like the bank fractional lending crap). The only time I think any dude would even bother risking his operation would be if a guy won a good chunk, then lost, and stiffed at that point. It's still probably shrugged off then, but that's a real case where I could see someone doing something on principle.

You ever heard of anyone "going after" someone in the modern day, with all of these degens who can't handle not having action? Books probably get stiffed all the time but ... that just shows you that they win on at least 90% of their clientele, consistently.

My argument is not that you shouldn't pay. The argument is that the appeal to "honor" and "word" is null and void when credit is part of the equation. Credit cards lend, sometimes too much, and if it gets too bad, bankruptcy is part of the game. If you don't watch a player and you take advantage of his tilt, don't be surprised when eventually (who no longer can even hope to get back in to bet with you) that advantage goes back to the player when he "vanishes." Acting like you gave him that money in physical wealth and he risked it on your manipulated vig game is just silly.

You can, and bookies do, get guys who are super reliable but get too big for their britches and just have to call it a day. That's why the books are just as happy to get a portion of the chased "debt" ... which proves the point --- it was never real money anyway.

Yes, yet the locals act like it isn't a risk. The reason they pay (generally) reliably is because the business cost is too much for them to stiff (nobody bets into a big vig without knowing they'll get paid on the other end when/if they score).

It's all "a man's word" and this and that, but they change menus on guys all the time to get more. Usually too, they do that to players who have won, even against the big advantage the bookies have.

I wonder if any locals use post up only and are reliable, or if they can only attract credit players. Hmm