"I don't have luck with blacks"

An African-American dealer comes to our table and the player on my right loses a pretty big pot on the river. The next hand is his big blind and he tells the dealer to deal him out, and turns to a friend standing behind him and says, loud enough for all to hear him, "I don't hve luck with blacks."


The dealer takes exception to the remark and tells the player not to talk "like that." They bicker back and forth a bit and finally the player gets up and mutters something about the "f**king cards." The dealer calls the floorman over and accurately relates the story. The floorman assigns the player a twnety mintue "time out." The time out was not for using the f-word, but for the "black" remark.


When the player gets back to the table, he notices the time-out marker on his chips, makes another comment using the f-word, picks up his chips and leaves.


What do we think?

Good riddance. I'm just surprised a floorman had the guts to back up an employeee and gave the penalty for the racial remarks rather than the profanity. I know it is inappropriate, but the hyper-sensitivity to "the f-word" seems to be getting a bit ridiculous. I'm not saying a bunch of profanity is acceptable, but the worst abuse can be delivered with no profanity. These tournaments that sit people out for saying "the f-word" (but not other profanity) in a private conversation on the break are taking "the image of poker" a bit too seriously. (Think of all the horrible stuff you can say to people with only one word banned.) Anyway, I am happy the floorman backed his employee up. By the way you describe it, the floorman assessed the penalty without talking to the player directly. I think in this case the floor should have called the player aside and told him exactly what was going on and what conduct was out of bounds.


P.S. I can't imagine why that guy "doesn't have luck with blacks."

I've heard players make similar comments about lefties, redheads and bald men.

Bigotry is the mental illness of the human race. At it's worst you get the WTC.


SPM,...it's a sad state of affairs...

its sad to have someone that predjudice. but that aside its not considered correct to say ones thoughts out loud in this world if it may offend someone. you have to keep it inside and hurt. some people say whats on their mind and that may be socially unacceptable but may not be wrong. but to use the f word is against the rules in most public places. would it be a better world if everyone really told everyone what we thought. maybe

z,


Sometimes you say things that scare me, because I'm not sure what you mean.


* its sad to have someone that prejudice.


Prejudice at any level is sad state of affairs.


* but that aside its not considered correct to say ones thoughts out loud in this world if it may offend someone.


With so many things to choose from, why would hurting someone even be considered?


* you have to keep it inside and hurt.


Keep what inside? What hurt?


* some people say whats on their mind and that may be socially unacceptable but may not be wrong.


No Prejudice statement is ever correct.


* but to use the f word is against the rules in most public places.


You would think we could get over the f word. To many religious nuts who think colorful words are a sin.


* would it be a better world if everyone really told everyone what we thought. maybe


Well it might bring out the closet bigots.


SPM,...bigotry is the mental illness of the human race...

SPM,


I think your use of "closet bigots" goes to Ray's point. He seems to be saying that American's prefer that people who are bigoted stay in the closet, thus not offending anyone else. Ray seemed to be wondering if having people walk around with these (and other unpopular/misguided/"abnormal") feelings bottled up is worse for society in the long run than a everyone being open about what they think, such as the gentleman in Andy's post. He has prejudiced feelings and now everyone knows that and can react to it as they wish. Before he made the remark, it was not known that he felt that way. Ray also speaks to other "socially unacceptable" feelings, implying that this "keep it to yourself" mentality prevents people from saying all kinds of things that they genuinely feel. To take his point a bit further--when people censor what they reveal about themselves our social discourse is stifled because people are afraid to be honest. Ray is therefore offering a choice--openness (including unpopular, even racist opinions) v. censorship (where no one is offended, but no one knows how people *really* feel either). Maybe the former is better, he seems to be asking.


Ray--I hope you don't mind my translation.


KJS (king of the parenthetical point)

I am amazed that people keep track of which dealers they think they do well with and which they think they don't do well with. To blame the dealer for a river card or for a bad flop is beyond my ability to understand.


To then compound this shallow thinking with the thought that a racial characteristic is important in this is even more incredible to me. To then deliberately let the dealer know that he felt the dealer's race was important was just plain ugly.


However. . .


There should be nothing illegal or punishable about having stupid thoughts. If the card room refused to allow blacks to play because they were black, this should be illegal and punishable. But if a player wants to make a remark to his friend, this should not be punishable, no matter how stupid and deliberately hurtful the remark (and I do believe this remark was both).


There is a rule in the cardroom that foul language is punishable by a 20 minute time-out. But the time-out in this case was not for the foul language, it was for the remark the player made to his friend who was standing behind him. While the comment he made was, in my judgment, reprehensible, it would be equally reprehensible to monitor or censor his right to say it.

Employees do not have to be subjected to flagrant racism. Title VII of the XIV amendment would permit a suit against the house if the house did nothing. That could take down the house. Think again.

1. The guy probably is prejudiced, and it is an insensitive, and possibly deliberately ugly remark.


2. He may, based on a limited sample size, really have had less luck with blacks...or it may just be his misperception.


3. He didn't blame the dealer, he merely stated an observation of his, right or wrong as it may be.


4. Of course there is no reason he should have worse luck with blacks, but he may indeed up to this point actually have had worse luck with them. So what?


5. I think giving the player a time-out is taking political correctness way too far. He did not make a disparaging or derogatory remark, nor did he use a slur. He just said he doesn't have luck with a certain segment of the population. Whether that is true or not in a historical sense, or whether he is just a dumb bigot, is not the point. He did not say anything really wrong...stupid, yes, insensitive, yes...but I don't think we should be so quick to censor what comes out of people's mouths. After all the right to free speech means a lot more to me (and it should to most people) than the whims of the moment or lesser issues.


I think the floorman could have instead pulled him aside, ascertained the situation, and warned him that he was treading dangerously close to making unacceptable racial remarks.


I think we should all pretty much be free to say almost anything we want, with the exception of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or things of that nature.


Free speech...it won't mean much anymore if the current trends to enforcing political correctness continue to grow in strength.


Finally, I realize that private institutions have the commonly accepted right to set their own standards for behavior, etc. That is not what I am talking about here. I just don't like what I see as the trend to continually reduce the permitted things people can say, and I feel that it controverts the spirit of our country and constitution, if not the letter of the law. I really feel anybody should be free to say damn near anything they want to, with the endangerment exceptions mentioned above. If they slander someone they should be free to do so at the time, and possibly face a civil suit later. We should not be a muzzled society.

I do not think this was flagrant racism. This was a comment made to another person. It was crass and deliberately provocative. But I don't think it's a violation of the law to say something stupid to someone. He was not speaking to the casino employee. The remark was overheard by the casino employee.

One problem in these situations is that the dealer doesn't have the right to free speech. If he correctly remarks, "That isn't bad luck, it's stupidity," he may jepordize his job. Since one person is restrained, perhaps all should employ some discretion.

...that has some merit.


Conversely, how about giving the dealer freedom to say just that?


muzzles are for vicious dogs, not people..;-)

Dealers, IMO, should never speak to players about anything. If a player is abusive, the dealer should call over the floorman and relate the situation to the floorman. Many times I see a player berating a dealer for doing something wrong and the dealers get into discussions or arguments with the player.


All employees are restrained from saying what they want no matter what customers say. I think the casino where I play (Commerce in L.A.) tolerates far too much player abuse of dealers. The customer is not always right. Had the player insulted or abused the dealer in any way (racial or otherwise) he should have been punished and warned that a repeat would result in him being barred.


In this case he was not even speaking to the dealer. But the way the remark was made, it was obvious he intended for the dealer to hear what he said. I like what M said above: since he didn't speak directly to the dealer, a floorperson should have taken him aside and told him the behavior was bordering on being insulting and abusive.

...but I really don't think the dealer should get involved in things like this, as Andy Fox said below. It hurts the flow of the game too much when the dealers say ANYTHING not related to the game, let alone getting involved in personal spats.


While dealers should not have to endure true abuse, one of the things dealers should do is try to develop a thick skin towards a great many types of comments...it just comes with the territory, IMO, and should be part of the job description.

no you did a good job- right on.

Doesn't matter. The casino boss probably should have let him know that further slurs would result in being banned. Title VII suits are real.The casino was being prudent. Its like asking how much sexual harassment does the casino permit? A smart boss will have a zero tolerance for verbal abuse.

Free speech does not exist as a patron of a business. If the language is offensive, then the casino is quite right in asking the customer to leave. That's how bouncers in bars make a living.

I don't understand this point of view. What if he had turned to his friend and said: (those with a dislike for bad language should skip this paragraph)


"This dealer's a real asshole. It's bad enough I get a string of bad cards but then i also have to put up with this fat piece of shit."


In this case there might be an argument that he was offending other patrons. You could also advance this argument in the case of what really happened, however. And this overlooks the real point, which is - the dealer doesn't have to put up with anything he considers abusive. So if you agree with the contention that the remark was deliberately hurtful, then it's no different from the example I gave above, surely.


Chris

Thanks you opened my eyes to a very good point. I some times have trouble reading between z's lines. Thanks for taking the time to explain him to me.


SPM,...good job play long and prosper...

z,


I'm not scared anymore KJS is very eloquent and he uses caps. Your friends know you well, I'm learning.


SPM,...understanding is a blessing...

Yes, in my post I acknowledged the commonly accepted rights of businesses to set their own standards for behavior. I'm not saying it was against the law or the letter of the law for the casino to do that; I'm just saying that I don't think it is a good trend we are seeing in general--that more and more speech is getting restricted, and political correctness is being taken too far. For instance, in the example Andy Fox provided, the patron made a crass and stupid remark, but he did not make a derogatory comment or use a racial slur. Yet the casino acted as if he had.

We don't have the facts. We have an opinion.

....Always looking for a scapegoat, when losing money.

This thread may as well been titled, "I don't win, when my wife is with me". A player, I know, recently sent his wife home, ON A GREYHOUND, (from a tournament), cause he couldn't win while she was there.

were i at the table i wouldve pointed out to him that (assuming floorman was white, or brown (non-black) ) apparently he doesnt have luck with whites, either. (re the timeout)


brad