So you either keep the ban in place now or ban him for the next inevitable outburst?

Not a hard choice here.

He isn't going to change.

Bad move letting him get away with this one.

On the ban.

If I'm low man on the totem poll I'm sending him home and telling him to
"Call tomorrow and we'll let you know if you can ever come back.".

Then I'm gonna discuss it with my boss or bosses and/or other floors.

Results are in.

Thanks guys for all the comments!

Yes I realize that letting him jump tables was wrong, and since no one complained I figured why light the match, which unfortunately got lit anyways. This is not a common thing I do and in fact is the first time I knowingly did. It wasnt a must move table, I ask players if they want to move based on how they sat at table, if all say no then unless new players arrive I force a balance by list until the number drops enough to combine all players. I guess its possible he asked all the players if it was ok, I didnt investigate which is bad on me.

Instead of wasting space on quoting I will say the two points that most influenced the decision were "did he get the come to Jesus speech" - which is a no for some reason, and "variable length bans - 30,60,90 days"

I told the group that I wanted a 30 day ban, and the next time he sees me he better act like I saved his life. All agreed. There is no next offense penalty besides perma ban because of his history, but I think we are now starting a new precedence here because I have never heard of anyone getting a temp ban of any significant length before in our rooms, its either apologize and come back - next offense you're done, or indefinite. I like 30,60,90, you're out.

Huh

to the best of my knowledge no one has told him 'one more and your out', again I have never had a problem with him while I was on duty aside from typical minor outbursts only worthy of a warning of being ejected for the night, which he calmed down at that time.

It really does work relatively well with the exception of those ones that just can't help themselves. I have a couple players now that have been given "the talk" and they have behaved for the most part ever since. Occasionally they will start to get out of line, like a few months after, and I just give them a friendly reminder and they are good little boys again. I usually just joke around with them so as not to bring attention to it and they get the hint. These types don't react well to confrontation so it's never a good idea to be blunt with them or call them out in front of the other children unless its too late and they have to go.

I'm not a fan of short term bans as a mandatory precursor to permanently bans. I think each situation should be judged independently and short term ban issued where warranted and permanently ban issued where warranted.

Last night: push into my first game, table is swapping high-stakes craps stories for several mins. During a lull, I interject, "Fellas, I've been here for about eight hands. I've spent that whole time listening to how much you like to gamble..but I haven't put out a flop yet!"

We saw a flop every hand from that point on.

gotta get the rake somehow i guess

DJ ... Tough spot if your SF says he's back in. This may give him a sense of entitlement that you 'will' have to deal with. The best thing you can do is kill him with kindness and make sure you treat him the same as all the others in the room.

I think you may have gone a bit too far in asking for a 'personal' apology. I totally agree that the charity room scene is more personal than a casino, but even if someone turns personal in their remarks you are still there as a professional in your role as Floor. I always 'love it' when someone starts to attack me and not the point at hand as that just means they know they are in the wrong (or beat) and can't come up with anything better to argue their point with!!

Granted we are all human and have our own buttons that can get pushed, but the better we are at keeping things about the room and about poker the easier it will be for us to be seen as fair and impartial in our rulings by the whole group of players. I saw an incident where a player enticed the floor into a situation and gladly accepted his 30 day ban in lieu of the floor getting fired!! (The player was leaving for 2 months anyway, so he set up the whole thing in an effort to get the floor 'exposed' and fired'.)

The one thing I might say about the list jumping is to be more worried about the 'next' player on the list than the player who actually made the move out of turn. As a small feature we don't call it a 'must' move, we call it a 'first option'. We have a list in the 'proper' order and when a seat opens we start at the top and ask if they 'want' to move, if not then we move to the next player and so on. Only if we get through the whole list with refusals do we 'force' the player on top of the list to make the move. I will sometimes ask the first person waiting if they want to go to the open seat in lieu of the 'must move' table. These are the types of things that charity rooms can do to make the experience a little more friendly and yet stay close to the line that we see in the casinos. GL

in lieu is like "instead", so what you said was the guy took a 30 day ban to save the floor from getting fired. I assume it was just a mistake, otherwise the next sentence doesn't make sense to me....or I've been up for like 30 hours and have no idea what's going on right now

Oops ... 'in lieu' was next on my list of unused phrases for the day ... wrong usage for sure.

1) V wanted Floor to get in trouble/fired.
2) V knew he was leaving for 60 days.
3) V knowingly got into an issue with Floor to entice a response.
4) Floor (over)reacted as V wanted.
5) V was given 30 days by Floor.
6) Floor was given walking papers by management. (Actually turned down an 'offer' to just deal and quit, which prevented Floor from collecting unemployment.)

The dynamic between player/dealer/floor/management is pretty unique. Someone loses every hand and yet it's almost impossible to not get personal when the game forces interactions so often and for extended periods of time. GL

Old players reminiscing about how draw used to be the dominant cardroom game, then stud, now hold'em. One asked, "what's going to be the next one?"

I gave this some thought, briefly considering the lowball draw games like Padugi...but quickly dismissed them.

Ten years ago, I worked at a place where, on slow nights, a bunch of dealers might occasionally EO and start a very low limit Triple Draw game. We'd be having so much fun, the regs would come over to our table to see what we were up to. They'd ask what we were playing. They'd watch a hand or two. They'd see everyone bantering, laughing, having fun, during the hand! They'd make a comment like, "Boy, this looks like a lot of fun, wish I could play with you." We'd encourage them to min-buy and try it--just TRY IT--and they'd run away, scared.

Of course, they passed because they didn't have a basic understanding of strategy. Why be the fish, when they're experts at hold'em?

I relayed that story from the past when I joined the conversation about "what game will be the next big thing?", and realized that hold'em, like blackjack, is so popular because it makes idiots feel like experts. It's two cards! Big ones are good, small ones are bad. It is literally simpler strategy than tic-tac-toe!

The only way a game usurps hold'em is if they dumb it down even more. One card?

Awesome idea.

3 card flop, 2 card turn and the river.

or?

4 card flop and the turn and river.

or add a betting round?

3 then 1 and 1 and 1.

Like Fast Eddie said, "Checkers sells better than chess."

No, one card preflop, standard streets, 2nd card @ showdown.

Call it DelMonte or Banana Republic (because they grow pineapples) and call the final hole card "The Tallyman".

TOURNEY PLAYER: Pot A! Finally!

YTF: We stayed playing five minutes ago.

New player sits down UTG, "I'll post behind. And get a set-up.".

Rejecting set-up requests is one of my favorite things.

"Sorry, we don't waste time here."

Double shift (12 hours) single rate floor/dealer on a high action/big tipper day - cha ching!

Damn auto correct.

Only time I get annoyed by setup requests is when the player announces that the only reason he's doing it is to punish the dealer and cut into his hands per hour.

I'm not annoyed by the punishment--it's his ridiculous logic behind it. "I just want you guys to know, I'm not changing the cards because I'm superstitious. Everyone knows superstitious people are stupid. I'm doing this because it's this dealer's fault I played a hand that lost. This is a cunning, devious plan, that had nothing to do with superstition..."

Does that happen to you often?

The closest i have seen to that is a spiteful player who likely asked for a setup to anger another player who complained about slow play.

No, just oneguy who does it.