Maybe so, but Rapini isn't allowed to give infractions here. Also he probably just cares about game selection and has no ethics. Personally, I would feel bad unless I knew that whatever he lost at the poker table didn't affect his well-being significantly. In reality, probably only half of live players wins/losses don't affect their well-being significantly. But if the live player that's gambling away his pay/pension check isn't clearly disabled, I don't care as much.

Maybe his "father" was just a hustler who found a super ugly guy with a giant forehead and insane poker skills to pose as a retard and clean out losing 2+2 players who think they have an edge.

William of Ockham says otherwise.

If casinos didn't let mentally challenged people gamble then the poker room thati currently frequent would have no clientele.

If we set limits on someone in an effort to "protect" them, we may not be allowing them to live up to their full potential and that is a far worse crime than not setting limits.

I think this is a very sensitive issue, It should be handled on a case by case basis in conjunction with the legal guardian of the person in question and the poker room management, with the goal being to allow the person to have fun and enjoy themselves, without putting them into a position where they are being taken advantage of by players who are just playing the game normally.

Only in tournaments, where they will fit right in.

That seems to run counter to the very nature of poker and poker games.