Self Destructive Players Online

I recently $4-8 stud at Paradise with a player who played every hand (yes, 100%). I saw him lose $750 in about 90 minutes. I've seen other players play almost as badly online and lose large amounts in very short timespans. The mental picture this conjures up is of a dissheveled man or woman, hunched over a desk, cursing and sweating and swigging from a bottle of vodka.

In a casino, I think such extreme behavior would be more likely to attract intervention, either from the floor or from other players. Especially at lower stakes. The anonymity of online play seems to me to increase the ability of troubled players to lose everything fast.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

And there are $1,000 slot machines at Bellagio.

So what? Maybe the guy you saw is a Saudi prince with $$ to burn. I hope he comes to my table. I'll have no remorse taking his money. Free will & all that.

Why respond if all you have to say is "so what"? I think there is a point at which compassion dictates that I should try to help (or at least not participate in hurting) people who are sick. Just as bartenders are required by law in many places to stop serving obviously drunk patrons, casinos do in fact bar certain sick gamblers. My point is that there is less (or no) ability to do this on the Internet. I love bad players who lose money -- but I don't think I'm the only one who starts to feel uncomfortable when "bad" becomes mentally unbalanced.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Fine, if that's how you feel, but that wasn't my point. The point is, you made a judgment about the person based on nothing but your own view of the value of money. For all you know, that $750 could have been less significant to him than $0.75 is to you or me.

On-line, there is no way of telling what the person's circumstance is, thus (to me at least) it is irrelevant. Even in a casino, if a floor person took someone like that away from the table, unless I was assured that there was a personal relationship there that was the basis of the intervention, I would consider it unwarrented outside interference.

Sure, from a human standpoint, I would favor taking the person aside and trying to reason with him, but once that's done, if he chooses to sit at the table, he's fair game. The line beytween winning and losing is too fine to let emotion get in the way.

Often times I feel guilty when I sit at a table with someone who is clearly flushing money down the bowl, but a couple of things make me not worry about.

1)If they were taking my money, they would (almost always) have no remorse.
2)There are always better players than me at the tables I sit at. In a way, we are all "handicapped"(I use this word very liberally) when compared to better players, yet we still choose to sit-down.

Hell, I've known quite a few women (better than I'd like to admit), who continue to buy things that they can't afford. Maybe people out there should try to stop consumerism. I don't think you'll ever see a Lord & Taylor manager walk up to an irresponsible patron and say "Excuse me miss, but you have a sickness, and I think you need to put down the thousand dollar hand bag." Of course, not until the card is maxed out.

-Huh?

[AlanBostick]

I've seen such behavior as you describe in real-life games many times, and I've never known casino or cardroom management to intervene.

The players who do this sort of thing in real life appear to be enjoying themselves, and they don't fit the dissolute addict stereotype you imagine. I'm not a sociopath like KurnsonofMogh, but I don't have any ethical qualms about taking their money. (I'm much more uncomfortable about taking money from the genuine dissolute compulsive gamblers in the game, but there is usually much less of it to take.)

[bernie]

"In a casino, I think such extreme behavior would be more likely to attract intervention, either from the floor or from other players"

in the room where i play, the attention form the other players would be that of encouragement. 'your cards are bound to turn bud, hang in there!'

the casinos arent intervening at all. if they were, they wouldnt put the GA pamphlets next to the cashier. theyd put them next to the ATM.

b
b

[bernie]

"Just as bartenders are required by law in many places to stop serving obviously drunk patrons, casinos do in fact bar certain sick gamblers"

the reasons bartenders are required to intervene is due to liability should the drunk go out and injure somebody. the bar can be held liable for damages. a problem gambler is only a danger to themselves.

also, you cant help someone who doesnt want to help themselves. what are you going to do if the guy refuses help? leave the table?

sure, it's sad. but man are they good for the profits...

b

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, I can now add another name I've been called online.

>I'm not a sociopath like KurnsonofMogh, but I don't have any ethical >qualms about taking their money.

I am a competitor, who believes in playing to win. I believe a sociopath is one who will do anything to achieve his ends, including cheating (like Worm in Rounders). If I have posted anything that indicates that I am a cheat, please point it out to me. Otherwise you owe me an apology.

I am a modestly winning low stakes, recreational player and might feel differently if my livelihood depended on poker winnings. When I play live and online, most of the horrible players do seem to be enjoying themselves according to their own lights. But some people have a problem. Roy Cooke, a strong, winning pro for many years has written some interesting columns about losing players. I find his point of view admirable, in that he tries to win and play well without losing his perspective and humanity. I think this is a form of winning in life, too.