How many BB you feel comfortable taking off a drunk at 10/20?

[climber]

So new experience for me..not sure if this is standard or not.

Last night I was playing 2-3 tables of 10/20 6MAX.

I found this one amazing table. One weak tightie, one semi-LAG, and three total LAGS. Two of the LAGs are taking turns berating each other and it eventually becomes clear that one of them (if not more) appears to be drunk.

Very drunk! He would regularly raise, 3-bet and cap with absoultely anything. 94o, T3o, no problem. All the way to the river. Every time. I took down five 20-26 BB pots against this guy with A high, bottom pair, an underpair and a couple legit hands. I was playing 35/23/2 poker and had a pretty dominant table image. I bought in at $500 and cashed out at $3028. Up 126 BB. 67 BB against the drunk alone.

The other uber-LAG had been seated at the table longer than me and eventually began telling the drunk guy to call 1-800-GAMBLER and to leave the table and stop playing even though he was also profiting from the guys play. He was saying the guy was down 2500 when I only had him down 1200 in my PT/PV. I tried asking the guy casually if he was rich/did the money mean anything to him, etc? At one point I echoed the LAGs sentiment and told him in chat that I also thought he should stop if the amounts of money meant something to him.

I never got a response to my questions and I left the table because I didn't feel comfortable taking his money any longer.

FWIW, I'm a Christian and I feel a sense of concern for my fellow man's wellbeing. I know someone else will just sit and take his money but at this point it was starting to feel similar to taking dollar bills out of a guy's wallet who passed out on the street.

Anyone ese ever experience this kind of thing? How would you deal with this scenario?

[Joe826]

Take as much as he's willing to give. IMO the ethical line is between playing poker or just not playing at all. If you want to play, you're going to have to live with the fact that you'll be winning money from people who probably can't afford to lose it. It doesn't matter if you're taking it all in 30 minutes or if you're just one of many players who's slowly bleeding him dry.

I don't tend to have these types of ethical problems. The fact that someone else will be taking the money if it's not you seems like justification enough to me. Especially if you do something constructive with atleast some of the money you win.

[Bizot]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't tend to have these types of ethical problems. The fact that someone else will be taking the money if it's not you seems like justification enough to me. Especially if you do something constructive with atleast some of the money you win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen bleed that guy for all he is worth.

[climber]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to play, you're going to have to live with the fact that you'll be winning money from people who probably can't afford to lose it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm...... do others agree with this?

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to play, you're going to have to live with the fact that you'll be winning money from people who probably can't afford to lose it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm...... do others agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's sort of a part of the game. Not everyone is an intelligent bankroll-managing poker player. Many are degenerate gamblers who get paid on friday and take it to teh table drunk so they can gamble it up.

I've been casino whoring lately, and it definitely makes me more comfortable to be pulling money away from the house.

Reading articles like this one shows you the range of players you can be up against. You won't know if it's some executive having a good time with a couple hundred or a guy like "Tom" who has a gambling problem that has ruined his life.

Freakin

[Francis]

[ QUOTE ]
I never got a response to my questions and I left the table because I didn't feel comfortable taking his money any longer.

FWIW, I'm a Christian and I feel a sense of concern for my fellow man's wellbeing. I know someone else will just sit and take his money but at this point it was starting to feel similar to taking dollar bills out of a guy's wallet who passed out on the street.

Anyone ese ever experience this kind of thing? How would you deal with this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]

Q) How many big bets should you take off a drunk?
A) All of them!

Seriously, if someone is foolish enough to play drunk, they're foolish enough to pay the price. Would he feel guilty about sucking you out on a 1-2 outer for a big pot?

As a Christian, I believe it's out job to be honest and straightforward with our fellow man. A sound drubbing at the tables will show him that 1) maybe he shouldn't play drunk or 2) maybe shouldn't be at these limits or 3) try a different game.

Up $2500 is a wonderful night. Would I be bad person if I prayed I ran into this guy at 2/4? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Blarg]

Feel bad only where it's appropriate. Feel bad about taking your fellow man's money in an unfair arena, not a fair one. You know, something more like what lots of people do at work every day, not at the poker table. The poker table is a completely fair arena where everyone knows the rules and nobody has a head start or undue influence, unlike pretty much the entire rest of life.

One of the things that makes it fair is that it is clearly understood by eery player that the entire object of the game is winning money from other people. Therefore, not playing accordingly would be making a special, disadvantageous rule set just for yourself that nobody else is making for themselves and which everyone else would find absurd to make for themselves. Not competing fully is entirely against the whole concept of the game in the first place. If you are going to sabotage yourself by playing according to rules that don't exist and that other people do not play by, have no reason to play by, and cannot be expected to play by, the one game you should NOT be playing is poker. Go play something else.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most people do not play poker for money. If they did, they would all be reading 2+2 books, studying them repeatedly, playing within their bankrolls, probably not drinking while they play, and doing all sorts of things that the vast majority of them do not do. They don't, though, because winning money is only one reason to play poker, and probably not the most popular one. Other goals based around the game include socializing, excitement, the pure allure of mere gambling, and, for live casinos, getting out of the house and drinking with friends and strangers, and meeting new people.

So if people lose money, most don't even care that much. Even if they make a bit of a fuss at the time -- after all, winning is always more fun than losing. But they don't care enough to stay away from poker, or to learn how to play it. Their concern is cursory. Money is not their goal. So don't sweat it when they lose it; all bickering and whining aside, they usually don't sweat it much either. And, quite often, win or lose, they'll happily come back the next day or next week, just as unconcerned, just as happy to play.

If you see someone live who is obviously incapacitated mentally by drugs or booze, it's one thing, but even there, most drunks are well aware of what they are doing; they just give themselves more permission to do it than they ever would while they were sober. Doing so is one of the main reasons people like to get drunk in the first place. Being out of control is different than even being very drunk. If the Christian in you flares up when someone is merely drunk, it's premature. Save your conscience for when you need it.

[Etric]

5,000. Then I would post about it on the 2+2 forums in a brag/probability post.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I've pondered this often, especially because I treat people with addictive disorders in my practice. As a forensic psychologist, I also do competency and sanity evaluations for the courts, and it is there that I find some authority for my decision. In evaluating sanity, voluntary intoxication is not considered a defense or a mitigating factor. That is, when choosing to get drunk, the individual is fully aware that there are consequences to his/her behavior. I did not cause the drunk to drink. I did not cause him to play poker. He made those choices. I see no ethical problem with relieving him of his money, and feel no obligation to protect him from the consequnces of his decision.

Should he approach me at any time and ask for my help, I would give him the appropriate referrals and discourage him from playing. Until then, it is his choice to lose his money.

[Nikla]

Online I'd take him for as much as I could. Live I'd draw the line somewhere depending on how much the money meant to him.