Nasty People

Several people, including myself, have written recently, urging readers to control themselves, but you and I are not the major problem. We rarely get out of line, and when we do, we feel embarrassed, apologize, and stop it.

Unfortunately, some people become much nastier than we will ever be, and they do it again and again. They either don't realize how much they aggravate others, or they don't care. There have always been hateful players, and there always will be. However, there is no reason for us to accept them passively.

Because I am so troubled by bad behavior, last year I wrote a two-part series, "Obnoxious Jerks" (Card Player, Nov. 8 and Dec. 6, 2002). Now, I'm concerned with more extreme nastiness.

A woman threw a chip and deliberately hit a female member of our Wednesday Poker Discussion Group (WPDG). The member complained to management, but nothing was done.

Years ago I played with an extremely drunk man who became abusive when people told him to stop slowing down the game. At times he deliberately refused to act, telling us to wait until he had found his cigarettes, lighted one, and so on. He even left the table in the middle of a hand, then screamed at the dealer for mucking his cards. He also showed his cards to other players, tried to make impossible bets, such as pushing in his stack (in a limit game), and challenged various people to play heads up for much higher stakes. I complained to the floorman, but nothing was done.

On a twoplustwo.com forum, Cero Zuccarello posted about a man who was not drunk, but "was acting borderline psychotic. He was a huge man who muttered about the joint cheating him, the particular dealer cheating him, and so on. When he'd lose at showdown, he'd just stare at his cards, shaking his head and gritting his teeth. Then, he'd explode, slamming the table and standing up, looming over the dealer (he was in the No. 1 seat). He'd turn as if to walk away, get one step behind the dealer, and sit down again. Then, he'd repeat the process. Seriously, he did this four times before I said something to the manager. He really was scary. I believed there would be some violence in a public cardroom." Nothing was done.

There are disgusting people everywhere, but they are worse at poker tables.

First, people act outrageously because they can get away with it. Far too many cardrooms let people take actions that most businesses would severely punish. If those horror stories happened in a restaurant or store, somebody would get thrown out or even arrested.

Second, losing at poker implies that you are not just unlucky, but that you don't play well. Instead of accepting responsibility, some people blame the "idiots" and "cheaters" who "caused" their losses.

Third, it is much easier to change games in the pits. If someone bothers us in a blackjack or craps game, we can just move. The odds are the same wherever we're playing. If we're in a good poker game but have some rotten people, we probably can't find another game like it.

Fourth, they have a huge impact. They slow down the game, change the atmosphere, chase away some weak players, and can often destroy the entire game.

Because nastiness is so troublesome, it should not be allowed, but effective action is rarely taken. As an industrial psychologist, I naturally ask:

First, they may not know what is happening or how people feel about it. Many dealers resist calling for help. They don't want to stop the game, then be forced to complete an incident report, and so on. Besides, they rely on tips, and know that disciplining a player can cost them money. Some vicious people tip well, almost as if their tips buy them the right to act outrageously. Many of them are drunk, and they build large pots that increase the dealers' tips.

In addition, some managers do not keep a close watch on their rooms, while others may think that nobody cares as long as the nasty people are losing money. Of course, not all the problems come from losers; some winners – including a few famous professionals – are notorious. The solution to this problem is quite simple: Send management an absolutely clear message. Tony Wuehle told our WPDG that several people got so sick of one nasty player, they all left the table when he sat down. When the manager asked why, they told him they would not play with him. He was immediately barred.

Second, the pest may be a "valued customer" of the pits or hotel. That drunk was holding a conference at the hotel, spending big bucks on rooms and meals for his people, and losing heavily in the pits. Even if the poker room management had wanted to eject him, they might have been afraid that the pits or hotel would retaliate.

The effects of this pressure were made clear to me recently by a request to complete an "incident report" to protect a dealer. She had called the shift manager to her table because one drunk had been continuously outrageous. Of course, I completed the report, but I was appalled. Why should she need protection when she was just doing her job, and he had angered everyone for hours? This incident raises the next question.

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I had not objected forcefully (but had asked him tactfully and ineffectually to behave). He was losing lots of money, and I was getting my share. He was not as bad as that other drunk, but he did go on and on. I'm sure he chased away some of the less greedy players.

I am usually much less tolerant of nastiness than many players. I have made my share of complaints to management, and I have left dozens of games to avoid confrontations. Other members of our WPDG will accept extreme nastiness if someone is losing enough. For example, we once discussed whether a man should be barred because he had thrown a water bottle against the wall. He had $10,000 in front of him and was so completely on tilt that he would have lost all of it. I and some others agreed that management was right to eject him, while others thought they should let him "throw a party."

A few, very few, cardrooms have these policies. Because Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher, and Mark Tenner are WPDG members, I am most familiar with Card Player Cruises. The pre-cruise newsletter says: "Because we want everyone to have a good time … we do not tolerate abuse in the poker room." This position is reiterated at the welcome-aboard party, and it gets appreciative applause. Players with nasty reputations are warned in advance, and in extreme cases have been refused passage on the ship. Also, a few players have been told, "You've got two strikes against you. If you get out of line, you will not get the benefit of the doubt. We will just bar you from playing on this and future cruises."

I once thought they could enforce this hard line only because they have a monopoly. If you get barred on a cruise, you can't go down the street to another game. But there is also a different atmosphere. Because everyone is on vacation, relaxing, and spending lots of time together for meals and excursions, the relationships become stronger and friendlier. People are reluctant to abuse others, partly because of friendship bonds, and partly because it could isolate them from everyone.

Jan Fisher recently told us that a few brick-and-mortar cardrooms have zero tolerance. They have realized that the pests chase away good customers and create more trouble than they are worth. I could not agree more. In fact, I'm embarrassed about that second drunk. Instead of waiting to be asked to file an incident report, I should have demanded that management tell him to act decently or leave. And if management refused, I should have left and taken a couple of friends with me.

Management does not want to lose us, the ones who usually act decently. Given a choice between us and the nasty ones, they will usually choose us. Let's all make sure management knows that they really must make that choice: Let them know we won't stay if they don't insist that everyone acts decently.

If you would like to learn more about yourself and other players, you can order Dr. Schoonmaker's book, The Psychology of Poker.