Is it OK with you when a guy with obvious mental problems comes to play at your table? Not someone with just a low IQ but a clearly seen ******ed person.

I mean, if its up to you if he sits down or not, would you allow it?

He's free to do whatever he wants to. I would kindly step away and find another table, if i felt that it was immoral exploitation on my part. Just be careful...he may be some genius poker savant.

Is this not the holly grail of poker? The player we look for? He seems to have fewer math skills, fewer stack playing skills, fewer social skills. This is the player we search for because he will make more mistakes than you.

From a psychological perspective I would be uncomfortable and base my decision on what to do on the following:

1) Is he responsible for himself or is his proxy aware of what he is doing.
2) Can he take a possible hit financially.
3) How does the table react, are they going ape ***** to try to take advantage of the situation?
4) Can I take advantage of the situation that his presence has created?
5) Would I be able to play to the best of my ability.
And most important


We take or try to take advantage of those weaker than us in poker as well as life. To soft play this fella might hurt him more than help him. He might be a huge trust fund tard. Is he playing for enjoyment and not being exploited by those that should be watching out for him.

If you find it to be an ethical situation I see no reason not to play with him. He might get lucky and make his day.

Someone mentally ******ed cant be held entirely responsible for his actions. A drunk guy who comes to play poker is entirely his choice, because he got drunk and decided to sit down. If he looses a lot of money the next time he will think twice about doing this again.

A mentally deficient person does not possess the ability to analyze the situations and avoid repeating the same mistakes. That's why when they commit a crime the court takes into consideration his disability and sends them to a clinic rather than the jail.

If he could take a financial hit is entirely irrelevant imo. Chances are they cannot and if they can, is possibly because they have an inheritance or something.

I agree that poker is a predatory game where the strong take advantage of the weak. Alan Schoomacher in his books clearly states that one should exploit every opportunity to acquire money when playing poker, be the player you bust an old woman, a drunken fella or a ******ed child.

I agree with more of his points but taking the money from someone who is not and never will be capable of the fact that playing poker is actually bad for him just doesnt feels right for me.

The thinking that he might get lucky and win lots of money is a cheap excuse at best.

I will repeat the question: If its in your hand that this player sits down to play poker, taking into consideration the above and that he is not some rich unbalanced guy, would you allow it?

I don't think taking their money would bother me if it didn't bother them. But I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I made them feel bad.

To repeat the answer. Yes I would let him play if I thought it was an ethical situation. If he has money and supervised, sure why not as long as he is having fun.

What answer are you looking for?

If not?



I will give an example from an experience I had. A guy who is working in a kiosk to earn a living comes to my local casino and after ordering a drink, sits down at my table, 0.5/1, and asks for 50 euro chips.

I know this guy has mental issues and regularly comes to play for a buyin or two before he returns home.

That night when he draws a 50 bill I saw that his wallet was full.

Long story short, after about 4 hours and lots of drinks, he was drawing his last 50-bill to buyin once more. I counted that he asked for chips about ten times or so. I won lots of his money that night when he was calling allins to draw for runner-runner straights.

After he lost his last chips, he stood up, said: "There goes my salary", and walked away cursing his luck.

That night I couldnt sleep knowing that this man lost an entire month's money bacause they let him play poker and I was partially responsible for him being broke. This fella will probably come again at the casino when he gets some money on his hands and probably lose them again.
If it was up to me I wouldnt let him gamble again, not at least with someone to supervise him.

If that makes you feel better, he would probably waste it on blackjack or roulette and the money would go to the casino instead. There is nothing you can do if someone has a gambling addiction. One of the disadvantage of playing live, I suppose, is having to see cases like this.

rainman

I would have less concern about the player personally because there is nothing you can do about a random poker players personal situation/problems. What I would try to be aware of is how this player makes me feel as I am playing and are my emotions causing me to play less than my "A" game. I just feel like if I am too focused about someone else at my table and their money, I will be lessed focused on keeping and growing my stack.

I feel guilt playing against anyone but it is no different to a lion going after a baby buffalo. It is the way of warfare, perhaps 'unhonourable' is a better word to use rather than morraly wrong, all games of poker that will ever run contain those with the advantage, however slight.

Personbally it depends how much money it is... I wouldn't feel ok to play against a poker genius if the money meant that people lived or died based on the outcome. So it is relative.

I'd probablyy lose if I played a ******ed player...

Nope, if I knew the person was poor and ******ed I wouldn't play them for money. If they were well looked after and had money to blow I would play them.

The question of turning them away is hard, how do you tell someone is ******ed when you're busy running a card room? And even if you do think someone is ******ed, what do you say to them?

prolly faking it

do you not play a man whose just lost his wife?
do you not play an old woman donking off her retirement fund?
do you not play the kid who learnt the rules 10 mins prior?
do you not play the guys gf who was tired waiting for him?
do you not play the drunk tourist(whose clearly drawing out amounts he'll regret)?

all of the above are suckers in a game due to varying states of permanent or temporary 'mental illness'. just because modern medicine/psychiatry has deemed certain groups mentally ill and others not doesnt differentiate the typecasts in a poker game imo. they are all being irrational and are going to lose long term be it a condition from birth of one developed. you cant make others pples decisions for them, if its not u taking advantage who can bet ur ass someone else will. that said i wud make a point of having a word with any of the above if i see them regularly donking off more than is obviously comfortable for them to lose just to make sure they understand they will always lose

Yes to all. Regret is the magic word. If I win a player's money and he comes to play with me again, he probably deserves to lose until he sees that its unprofitable for him to play. Moreover he is more likely to control himself financially and doesnt a gamble a significant amount of money.


However a person's mental handicap prevents him from realizing that he had probably made a mistake playing poker (because he is not a good player etc.) and he will come again and again unless someone stops him or until he loses all his money.



If I can prevent in any way a ******ed person to gamble again, I would do it.
In the case I cannot do anything about it, and he sits down at my table, I admit that I would try to bust him before anyone else, even if that means he will lose money he really needs.

I would say you're prejudice if you're not doing your best to take his money. You could talk to him afterwards though.

Would you do your best to take a child's money?

"******ed" seems like a pretty open term. As long as he had the awareness of being there and what he was playing, etc, then I would play him. If he randomly appeared, didnt know the rules, etc, then I wouldnt.

The guy in your example had a job so I assume he wasnt unaware of what he was doing. And he could always be like a rainman ****** in which case he might well win.

There's a guy at my regular poker club who is (let's call it) mentally disabled. He doesn't really understand strategy, but he often gets away with bluffs against other weak players and it's fun when he shows his hand afterwards.

The way I see it - we play tournaments that cost $50-$100, so he isn't exactly going to lose a fortune. And I know he loves playing and interacting with others, so let him.

However, if he'd start playing in a casino cash game (say my local 2-4NLHE), then I would probably expect someone to persuade him not to, may even do it myself.

who let him out of the cage anyway?

why do you care so much about him losing his money? why was he out on his own if he shouldn't be? honestly if you have that bad of problems that you shouldn't be able to manage your own money, why should he ever be left alone? what you're suggesting basically implies and means a ******ed person should always have a seeing human for them.

I play with myself all the time

First of all, there arent any rainman ******s who are exceptional at poker. They may count cards but that's not so helpful when it comes to playing.

Second, it seems that its unusual for most of the ppl in this forum to see a mentally handicapped person not to have someone to look after him. Unfortunately where I live this is the most common case.
Moreover, the job I mentioned this guy has is not exactly a great responsibility, he just helps the owner who runs the shop with carrying stuff etc.


Nevertheless I agree that a ******ed man can "buy" some hours of fun by playing poker for small amounts of money and it is not so unethical if you play with him and win his stack. As long as he enjoys the game he would probably accept the fact he may lose and that would be ok with him.


However, if he cant control himself and there isnt someone to tell him when to stop, them playing with him is wrong I think.


...