When I was at Horseshoe Southern Indiana, a "regular" starts talking to a player at my table. This person had the physical characteristics of someone with Downs Syndrome. He also had a very pronounced speech impairment.

This particular person's father also plays in the poker room (from what I gathered from the conversation).

I'm certainly not an expert on Downs Syndrome, and different people have various levels of impairment, but it struck me as odd that the card room would allow this person to play for money. I do not know the specifics of this particular person. Perhaps the father discussed it with the management before he was allowed to play, etc.

The experience certainly prompted me to question if the cardroom had any moral, legal, or ethical obligation to not allow a person to play just based upon physical observations. I would certainly have a difficult time playing against such a person. I'm all for treating everyone equally, but at some point, doesn't society have a responsibility to protect those who MAY not be able to protect themselves? Again, this circumstances surrounding this specific person are unknown, but it certainly made me question the moral obligations of all parties involved.

ETA: For all I know, this guy's dad is loaded and said "I don't care if he loses or how much he loses -- he's here for entertainment". Also, for all I know, this person showed the physical signs but had no mental retardation at all.

What is a cardroom supposed to do? Give an IQ test to everyone who looks impaired? I would guess that there are some ADA liability implications if they didnt let him gamble. If his father is there, then its of less concern from an ethical standpoint.

Depends what kind of spin you want to put on it really, do disabled people want to be categorised into a group whereby they are classed as different and vulnerable or are they allowed as much free will as the next man but are open to the same risks as normal people. I mean it is such a circumstantial argument depending on the level of impairment and the vulnerability of the person in question.
From a casinos point of view, as long as they are over age,don't need held up and got money then it's probably not an issue.

Regardless of your intelligence level, every casino games are minus ev on the long run. Does the casino allow people, whatever the IQ, to gamble in the pit games even though they are losing money on the long run ? Yes. So it doesn't mather for casino games.

For poker it's basically the same thing. They will allow the old nits who slowly but surely lose their pension money every day to play, so they shouldn't forbid mentally-challenged to play on the sole argument that they suck.

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine this supercedes other concerns as far as the casino is concerned.

Maybe the guy just wants to have fun playing poker and has money enough!

My sister is mentally impaired and goes to the casino about two times a year and has a great time. Don't underestimate "handicapped" people, they have continued to surprise and inspire me over the years.

If casinos gave IQ tests at the door, they'd lose a lot of money...

Should mentally-challenged adults be allowed to gamble?


They let Hellmuth play . . . just sayin'

Yea and there should also be a financial check to make sure you are only allowed to gamble what you can afford to lose. After all it is the casinos job to make sure I don't lose my house and car. Also McDonald's needs to stop allowing me to order large fries when clearly they are responsible for my increase in body fat this year.

Yeah, he has every right to be there since he is of age. And if his dad was with him, I wouldn't worry about him very much. The only thing I would possibly worry about is he may gamble more than he possibly should because he possibly may not understand the concept of money as well as others. But there are plenty of non mentally-challenged problem gamblers with this issue as well.

Hell, if he's practiced enough with a decent player, I'm sure he could beat a reasonable portion of the table, especially on the weekend.

Harrahs and NV law prohibit casinos from allowing players from playing when intoxicated.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125996714714577317.html

There are plenty of moral codes that say people shouldn't be allowed to gamble period. But if you follow those, you won't be in a casino anyway.

In a game of chance, the house has to have an edge to make a profit. In a game of skill, somebody has to be an inferior player for others to make money. In either case, someone is losing money that they could do something else with. BJ is a better deal than Keno, but the difference is merely a matter of time. If taking advantage of someone who doesn't have a skill set equal to yours, let alone the average of the table bothers you, you should stop playing poker in a poker room.

At the casino I play at there is a semiregular who is also mentally challenged and gives away alot of money. IMO they should not be allowed to play (atleast not on a regular basis). BUT I dont feel that bad when I win pots of him (which I do most of the time) b/c if the casino let him in, his money is fair game.

I believe your confusing the word "challenged" with the word "disturbed" when describing Phils mental state.

No, I think he truly is challenged mentally . . . at least as far as adult behaviour at the table is concerned.