Poll Results on Offensive Language and Bad Behavior

Most poker players agree that foul language and bad behavior should be prohibited in cardrooms. The real question is – when do such offenses cross the line? Furthermore, when that line is crossed – what is the appropriate punishment for an infraction? This was the primary focus of the poll questions, posted earlier at the Card Player website. The poll results taken from the website have been used to form a consensus of opinion within the poker community on several important issues relating to questionable player behavior.

Of all the surveys I have conducted to date, I expected this to be one of the most divisive. This is because what is offensive to one player may be completely acceptable to another. Let's examine the poll results, along with some comments:

Question 1: Is it ever appropriate to use a dirty, four-letter word when sitting at a poker table in a public cardroom?

Yes – 46 percent

No – 54 percent (1,994 votes cast)

Comments: By a slight majority, most poker players consider bad language to be totally inappropriate at all times in poker rooms. What was most interesting about these numbers is that they reveal a decisive "no tolerance" policy toward offensive language. Note that 54 percent of respondents said "no" when asked if it is ever appropriate (emphasis mine). Poker has clearly come a long way in recent years toward changing its outlaw image, and the majority of players do not want to return to the days when foul language was acceptable.

Question 2: Should those who violate rules on bad language be given a warning first before punishment is given?

Yes – 93 percent

No – 7 percent (1,213 votes cast)

Comments: While a majority of players clearly support a crackdown on foul language, these same players are willing to administer a warning first before punishing the guilty.

Question 3: In the Avner Levy case, is it appropriate for a player to holler and scream loudly, particularly when he wins a key pot?

Yes – 40 percent

No – 60 percent (1,431 votes cast)

Comments: These results are mildly surprising. Recall that in the "Avner Levy example," the player celebrated his winning hand with a loud (and some would say, obnoxious) outburst. Such antics are considered unacceptable by 60 percent of those polled. One might have expected greater support for Levy's cause, but (as one respondent pointed out) players' negative track records may influence the degree of enforcement toward certain individuals. In other words, players with a history of abusive behavior won't be getting much slack from tournament personnel, or their peers.

Question 4: In the Mike Laing case, is it appropriate for a player to talk as much as he wants (assuming he does not talk while others are involved in a pot)?

Yes – 69 percent

No – 31 percent (1,407 votes cast)

Comments: These results are even more surprising. While most players say they are opposed to loud, obnoxious outbursts, the issue of incessant table chatter is not considered inappropriate by a sizable majority of those polled. Recall that in the "Mike Laing example," the player talked nonstop at the table. It's interesting that Laing-type antics are defended by a significant margin, while Levy-type antics raise much stronger objections. Perhaps the fact that Laing's conversation is normally in a restrained tone (Levy's outbursts are loud) makes it more acceptable. However, the big surprise is that readers tend to support Laing – whose talking is clearly intended to badger opponents.

Question 5: Is it appropriate for a player to "bait" an opponent at the poker table – that is, to make taunting remarks and use other derisive tactics?

Yes – 50 percent

No – 50 percent (1,486 votes cast)

Comments: This was one of the most intriguing poll questions of all, since the results reveal our attitude toward what exactly constitutes appropriate behavior in terms of using intimidation at the table. Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, there is no clear consensus of opinion about this issue. The numbers were split right down the middle, with "yes" answers gaining a tiny majority – 746-740.

Question 6: Europeans tend to have much stricter rules on issues involving player behavior and talking. Most games in Europe have little or no conversation while a hand is being played. Would you like to see the same thing happen in the United States?

Yes – 30 percent

No – 70 percent (1,446 votes cast)

Comments: Most (American) players apparently favor a more relaxed attitude toward table conversation. While we can't be sure what the percentages are amongst European players (favoring or opposing table talk), there appear to be some vast cultural differences in what is considered "acceptable" in the United States as opposed to Europe. It's also worth noting that nearly a third of all players prefer silence at the poker table.

Question 7: Should players be allowed to use headphones (listen to music) when playing in live games?

Yes – 68 percent

No – 32 percent (1,735 votes cast)

Comments: Some cardrooms forbid headphones – foremost among them, casinos in New Jersey and Connecticut. There is discussion in some poker circles as to whether headphones (listening to music) are appropriate in cardrooms. However, by a 2-to-1 majority, players believe that headphones should be permitted in live games.

Question 8: Should players be allowed to use headphones (listen to music) when playing in tournaments?

Yes – 76 percent

No – 24 percent (1,729 votes cast)

Comments: It's interesting that an even higher percentage of voters believe headphones should be permitted during tournaments. One must ask – why? Given that poker tournaments are now widely considered to be sporting competitions, we might expect a more strict overall attitude toward wearing headphones. For instance, athletes cannot and do not wear headphones while playing. Why, then, do larger numbers of players favor headphones in tournaments – which would also mean allowing them at final tables? It's difficult to interpret why more players favor headphones in tournaments than in live games. Frankly, I can't explain this apparent discrepancy.

Question 9: At the present time, do you believe the degree of enforcement on player misbehavior is about right or needs to be more strict?

About right – 46 percent

More strict – 54 percent (1,066 votes cast)

Comments: While the poker community is clearly divided on this question, the most notable fact that stands out is that a whopping 54 percent want enforcement on misbehavior to be more strict! So, the majority of poker players believe that not enough is being done to combat these problems.

Question 10: Do you agree with adopting a more relaxed attitude regarding player behavior?

Yes – 38 percent

No – 62 percent (939 votes cast)

Comments: This poll question was inserted to give those with a more relaxed attitude toward player behavior an equal opportunity to express their level of dissatisfaction with strong codes of enforcement. From the results, we see that among those opposed to strict rules (46 percent in the previous question), a sizable majority of them favor relaxing codes of enforcement. Nevertheless, this is the minority view within the entire poker community, as nearly two-thirds of all players do not favor lax rules when it comes to player behavior.

Question 11: From a spectator point of view, would you prefer to see a final table comprised of players like Avner Levy and Mike Laing (meant to denote players who are demonstrative and excitable) or players like Howard Lederer and Phil Ivey (meant to denote players who are deep-thinkers, quiet, and rarely show emotion)?

Levy and Laing – 26 percent

Lederer and Ivey – 74 percent (1,672 votes cast)

Comments: Of all the poll questions that were asked, this was the most stunning disparity of opinion. This question was intentionally designed to measure our attitudes – as spectators – toward controversial behavior. One might expect our attitudes – as players – to favor strict rules. But when it comes to viewing a poker event, three out of four spectators prefer to watch a more restrained intellectual exercise. On the surface, these results contradict mainstream society's obsession with symbolic "train wrecks" and other disasters – which clearly whet our appetite for controversy and carnage. I suspect that since Lederer and Ivey are two of poker's hottest names right now, using them in juxtaposition to Levy and Laing might have influenced the poll results, which may not be indicative of our real preferences as poker spectators. On the other hand, a strong case can be made that poker players want to immerse themselves in tournament strategy while watching poker tournaments, rather than be entertained by tawdry sideshows.

Question 12: If forced to choose one extreme versus the other – if you were playing in your average poker game, would you prefer a table full of talkers or a completely silent table?

Talkers – 61 percent

Silence – 39 percent (1,396 votes cast)

Comments: These results are consistent with the previous poll numbers, which suggest that most players consider poker to be a "social" game that includes talking and other manifestations of personality. However, it is again worth noting that a sizable minority does exist that prefers silence at the poker table. Perhaps we talkers should keep this in mind when we are playing.

I play almost exclusively online, so "table chatter" is limited to the chat window and can be easily ignored. But having said that, I do play "live" games on occasion.

In normal ring games, I have never found table chatter to be a problem. Quite often, I can gain information that I can use to my advantage later on. Even when a person is the type to verbally celebrate a win and be rude or even unsportsmanlike about it, that is information for later use. In other words, if a person is that emotional, I can probably turn the tables on him when the time comes and put him on tilt.

I have played in exactly one "live" tournament. We had a field of about 350 players. I was doing well and had survived to where we had only seven tables going. I was in seat No. 7 at my table and we had become shorthanded, with open seats at positions 3, 6, and 8. A nearby table broke and we acquired some of those players. Immediately upon joining my table, all three of the newcomers began to talk constantly about the table they had just left. I found this annoying, to say the least, and was unable to ignore it. The players on either side just talked right through me, even when I was in a hand. I won't blame my busting out on this, but I am sure it contributed to mistakes I made.

If I had been a more experienced "live" tourney player, I might have been able to cope with it. In conclusion, I think chatter is a normal, even good, thing for ring games. In a tourney setting, I can see the need for some restraint at least while a hand is in progress. I do not see a need to restrain celebrations, even when rude. As I said earlier, that is merely more data to be used.

- Jim Bacon, Glendale, CA

On the surface, the mere fact that Avner Levy screamed his "signature" phrase, albeit obnoxious, should not be a penalty – for that alone. We all have made similar joyous shouts at some time or another. The real issue is – many of these players have a terrible track record. I have played with annoying players numerous times. In my 40 some years of playing poker, both live and tournaments, I have seen them force seemingly nice players into verbal and borderline physical fights. I have seen them make dealers cry, and engage in countless other disgusting behaviors.

If all Levy said was "Come to Papa," which I sincerely doubt was the only thing he said, he still deserves any penalty coming to him, because he has a serious track record of abuse that deserves notice and condemnation.

I am one of the most liberal people you will ever meet. I am 54 and consider free speech a fundamental right. It is also a privilege, and our responsibility to use it honorably.

- "Hollywood" Bob Schuch

Writer's note: I believe it's appropriate that David Lamb, tournament director, be given the final word on this issue. I'm printing Lamb's response in its entirety.

I will offer the follow-up to our conversation with Levy receiving a 10-minute penalty for disruptive conduct at the World Poker Open. Understand that I do not advocate mandatory silence at the tables. Players are entitled to be expressive, emotional, and enthusiastic in their celebrations or disappointments. Television cameras materialize from nowhere to soak up the outburst and emotional displays that finally offer a deviation from what some describe as "watching rust happen." It has its place in poker!

When does that invisible line between enthusiastic, emotional outpouring cross into abrasive and unwelcome behavior?

1. When "expression" occurs at an obnoxious, ear-splitting level. Screaming is unacceptable at the table.

2. When those around you are alarmed or fearful that some emergency has erupted, your celebration is excessive. I expect a safe place to play, one that is free of hostility and unnecessary distraction.

3. When the "joy" of winning a hand is shown in a manner more taunting than celebratory. "Did you see how badly she played that hand?" or, "Wow, you really are dead money!"

4. When conduct or comments are "unsportsmanlike." Players should be allowed to maintain their dignity in the face of defeat.

To badger and belittle opponents or their play is abusive. Therefore, expect a penalty. Insist on a bit of decorum at the table; it is as much your right as it is theirs to celebrate.

- Dave Lamb, Reno, NV