Dealing with a banned player (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

Shoe man is a loser.

^^ Epic quote of the day.


go old-school -- just off the guy and be done with it. solves everything.

 

[liftapint]

Make the phone call to ban him. If he asks about the fees, pay him so he goes away. If he doesn't ask, keep the fees where they belong -- with the league. FWIW, I'm against the refund, but understand the theory of the path of least resistance when it comes to asshats.

 

[TexRex]

Grandnu is right about court settlements. Paying his fees back give him no reason to do anything else. It isn't a matter of whether additional action on his part is justified -- it would not be. It's a matter of the hassle factor. If he did show up, or sent someone, and slashed everyone's tires, he'd be the prime suspect. If he came/sent someone and randomly got one or two a night, the cost would be far greater and not as easy to pin on him. Why would you run the risk?

As for in writing, I did write my player a letter. I communicated that letter with only two other people -- a couple who I turned to for advice and were actively involved in it. But don't send the letter to everyone. That makes his indiscretion and your action public and only would embarrass him with no gain to you. If he makes it public (my guy did), that's on him and not you. Also, consider that making it public might constitute libel. Go back to Grandnu's point about settling out of court. If the guy sued you for libel, you very likely end up paying him money to make it go away. It's not worth it. Do that privately. It might even depend on where you live. If you live in Texas, you might use BG's method and get away with a justifiable homicide. If you live in a left-leaning state, he could bust you for everything you've got that's not protected by bankruptcy. If you are seriously considering making it public to the league, SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL IN YOUR STATE FROM AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA OF LAW! Also, consider this. If you did get involved in a lawsuit, it's going to involve others in the group. If your friends haven't ever been deposed, trust me, they'd prefer to avoid that bit of fun. And imagine going to court and being up on the witness stand.
"What were you doing at Mr. A's home?"
If poker is illegal, they are going to have to take the 5th Amendment, and there goes your defense. It could lead to all kinds of fun -- Does your employer have a personal conduct policy or will they allow you to commit other crimes on your private time too? What other crimes have you committed other than playing poker? The plaintiff's lawyer, if he doesn't succeed in raising doubts about whether the plaintiff actually took the shoes outside, is going to show that's mere child's play compared to other things. And making everyone else involved look silly is going to be part of his point.
"What exactly do you allege the plaintiff did to harm you?"
"He took my shoes and put them out in the snow?"
"Why did you have your shoes off?"
"The host makes all of us leave them at the door."
"So if the host had allowed you to wear your shoes like normal people do, would this have happened?"
Hmmm, probably not?
"Did you actually see plaintiff taking your shoes outside?"
Maybe you will get lucky and it will be seen on a video camera. Or maybe you are just blaming him because of the other.

And as the host, you are now at least partially at fault in the mind of the jury. On closing, the defendant's attorney will argue, "The defendant made this letter public, over a minor act, causing my (poor) client to have his reputation destroyed. [They may cite all kinds of negative responses -- other games they were removed from, his wife was banned from the ladies Bunco group, his kids got teased on the playground at school, he got demoted or fired, etc.] The defendant is involved in illegal/immoral/unsavory activity. [They may attack the background of other players, and trust me, there's likely someone in the group who would like to avoid the scrutiny.]"

Seriously not worth the risk in my opinion of making it public.

 

[DarPodo]

Give crazy guy his league fees back and ban him. If anyone in your league has a problem with it, throw their shoes across the lawn.

 

[Mojo1312]

Sometimes people settle out of court because it's a lot cheaper and less time-consuming than a protracted legal battle. I see this in a similar vein. The villain isn't being paid back all of his buyins for games played in, just the league fees that contribute to the end-of-season prize pool that he is no longer eligible for (and thus has wasted his time playing all those events earning points)

Great analogy Grandgnu, although I think your reasoning on why Mr. Sneakers deserves a refund is weak. To me, there is no reason why someone should be entitled to a refund after being evicted from the game.

In my view, the fundamental problem with people who wish to run a league is that they want to have fun with their friends and be one of the guys. They don't want to have to deal with the more serious aspects that their job entails, which is fine to a point. However, once an individual's interest is giving precedence over the league's, then you no longer have a league, what you have is a club or a gang.

 

[TheDeezer]

I would have the next game he goes too and take him to the side and let him know if he ever gets on the books and owes.. shows his true character again, and as so much causes one bit of drama he is OUT ..Period. Action or not it does not matter if you lose his money to lose 20 other guys because they don't show up to your game due to this douche. I run a game a few times a month and there are others in my area that run three times a week .. its a small group of rounders and we all know everyone that plays and who the bad seeds are .. Sounds like this knucklehead is one of them. Short lease from now forward and then kick him out if he continues to display classless behavior. Good luck

 

[ChaosRock]

@TexRex: My original idea was to just mentioned to the other players in the league he disrespected me and my guest (no details) so he is not welcomed at my house anymore... Since the league is run here, he can't play anymore... I really don't like hear-say and I try to be as low profile as I can... But as my wife mentioned, people will ask anyways, so she suggested I'll just write a quick summary now and make no more comments afterwards...

My game is legal in Michigan since it's deemed a "social game" but regardless, I want the least possible amount of headache in getting rid of Mr. Shoe Man...

- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -

That's another possibility another player suggested although it's a little easier for him since it's not his house... But if it was my choice, the guy is DONE!! This option might cause the least amount of headache as he would have at least a warning...

I try to be as flexible as possible and as accommodating as possible with everyone at my house... My house is their house... But the counter part to that is that if you f*ck up, that is it... Kinda like my dad raised me if you will.. I always had all the freedom in the world but I better not f*ck up otherwise I was toasted...

Btw, my wife now is in your camp... She was getting home when folks were picking up their shoes and she was like WTF!!! She's super pissed as well, and it's her house also She thinks the guy won't have any excuses after a warning...

I would have the next game he goes too and take him to the side and let him know if he ever gets on the books and owes.. shows his true character again, and as so much causes one bit of drama he is OUT ..Period. Action or not it does not matter if you lose his money to lose 20 other guys because they don't show up to your game due to this douche. I run a game a few times a month and there are others in my area that run three times a week .. its a small group of rounders and we all know everyone that plays and who the bad seeds are .. Sounds like this knucklehead is one of them. Short lease from now forward and then kick him out if he continues to display classless behavior. Good luck

 

[Poker Zombie]

Deezer is right. If you allow any ass-hat at any game, you will lose players. A warning is often warranted, but the lines can be grey. Shoe-man's "joke" was disrespectful. Allowing him back may chase other players away. After-all in most social games, players are attending to hang out and have fun. That fun just happens to be at your house and around a poker table. They have options for fun, including hanging out with other friends (with or without the poker table) or just a quiet evening at home. Moreover, your friends may never tell you why they aren't showing up anymore. It would take a very close or secure friend to say "I'm not coming because your have ass-hat friends". More likely, they will feign excuses until you stop inviting them.

As a host of a social game, it is important to be aware of how your pools of friends mix. Work friends, drinking friends, friends of friends, and poker friends are all cut from different cloths. Most of the time they will all get along. Real human beings usually filter their more outrageous behaviours in less familial surroundings. In the right scenario, the shoe joke might be acceptable. This was not the case. No warnings... just gone.

 

[TexRex]

Good points made by several. If you are not going to give his money back, you better have clearly written rules that he violated that are automatic grounds for removal AND loss of fees. Without both, you either need to let him come and give him a stern warning, or boot him and give his money back. The situation I had the player violated several WSOP and TDA rules, and those rules are specifically part of our rules. But there were no league fees involved. If there had been, I could have both removed him and kept the fees, but even if you are within the rules to keep the fees, just realize that could cost you way more than expected.

I understand about people asking. I think you could safely answer questions, but I'd think about what I'd say before they came up and be prepared. It's the writing that goes to others that's the bigger problem.

Zombie's point above about gray lines is good. When the lines are gray, if you opt for removal, I'd also opt for paying him back. You could put it up for league vote and tell them either we remove him and pay him back, or we allow him to continue but give him a warning. Anything like a league vote to remove and keep his money, especially if he isn't present, isn't going to look good.

Sometimes it's hard to know how removing or no removing someone will affect your game. In my situation, I had 3 people tell me they weren't going to come back because of the incident, but did when I removed him. On the other hand, I had a couple of people who didn't come back who never explained why. Others who didn't come back were more understandable -- they worked with the host who removed me, or they worked with the offending player.

Sadly, no host volunteers for a situation like this. It is thrust upon you. Regardless of what you do, it will affect your game. So it pays to think it through as much as possible and be able to defend your position.

 

[grandgnu]

My post wasn't implying that villain will take this to court to recoup the league fees if you don't pay him back. I was using a legal issue settled out of court (to avoid the time and financial costs associated with it) as an analogy.

In this example, you're paying him back his fees (not his buyins) that went to the championship event that he can no longer participate in to avoid the potential for even messier, more headache-inducing (and costly) issues in the future (that may or may not happen, such as slashed tires, visits to your home, calling the cops on you - even if the game is legal, don't ever underestimate the law from looking at ways to confiscate you and your players funds on hand plus all of your equipment and to have the media publicize it as an illegal underground casino/card room)

I think the league fees from one player are a paltry sum compared with the potential for headaches if this player feels like you've "stolen" his money, he's already shown he lacks proper judgment so I wouldn't expect him to act reasonably and understanding if you boot him and tell him he isn't getting reimbursed the league fees.

I get where Mojo is coming from, the principle of the matter. But sometimes the potential cost of principals is too great, and I think this situation has a -EV if he requests his league fees back. I'm fine with contacting him and letting him know that because of his actions you can't have him back in your home, as they were inappropriate and upset many of your players. Then if HE broaches the subject of the league fees offer to refund them. Who knows, maybe he will understand and be reasonable about it and apologize and take his licking like a man, but I doubt it given his behavior.

By allowing him to bring up the issue of league fees being reimbursed, rather than yourself, you make him feel like he's won a victory by getting you to cave (when you intended to reimburse them anyway)

You could obviously poll your players who were affected during the game and see what they feel is appropriate, so that you have a hive-mind decision that can be presented.

 

[TexRex]

Grandnu, I agree with you. I knew you weren't suggesting he might sue, but you made a good point. Cases are settled out of court because of costs. This is one of those settle out of court type issues.

You made a great point about who brings it up. In a letter, "Bill, you are removed from the league due to [specific behavior]. If he violated specific rules you can point to, say, "You act of [act] violated Rule # [#], which states, [quote rule]. Violations of Rule # are grounds for removal from the league, and regrettably, that is the action taken here. Please contact me to handle me reimbursing your league fees." Don't send the money in the mail -- it would be hard to prove he got it, but the letter makes clear the intent. It doesn't leave room for an appeal. He might be so embarrassed he won't take the money back, but you clearly have the high ground here. If he has to bring up a refund, really he's won something of a victory regardless of what you do. I wouldn't give him the satisfaction, and it gives him no reasonable grounds to take any other action.

 

[BGinGA]

If it is decided to refund the league fees, it should be pro-rated, not in-full. If the league fee is $100 and he played in two of ten tournaments, he gets $80 back -- not $100.

However, I still think stranding him in the middle of the UP in January with no shoes will get your point across, with no math required.

 

[Strike1st]

I live in Michigan. ..who the hell does something like that? I'd pay him to avoid issues and send his ass packing.

 

[Mojo1312]

Very interesting thread. I may have been too strident in defending my position. Clearly, there are many ways in which you can run a league.

The league I hosted played 15 games over a 32 week period. (We took a break over the Christmas/New Year Holiday) I also hosted a weekly cash game during this same timeframe. I had to kick out two players from our cash game who belonged to our league for whipsawing. One of the other players also suspected them of chip dumping. I had no way of knowing at the time whether that was the case, because I usually threw away the sheet of paper on who knocked out who after I recorded everyone's finishes and knockouts at the end of the evening. Sure enough, I came across my sheet of paper later in the week and saw that the first player eliminated from our last tournament had lost his stack to his whipsawing friend.

One of them was a bodybuilder, and the other a MMA fighter. The latter had an assault charge and a D.U.I conviction, which I knew about beforehand. I found out after the fact that they both had juvenile records for breaking into a string of homes together. I shared my experience with Dr. Strange through a series of pm's while seeking his counsel. So I have practiced what I preached. I took care of everything as quietly and expeditiously as I could, by telling the offending player over the phone that he and his friend were no longer welcome. No refund was given to either player.

I also had to kick another player out of our league due to his habit of flying off of the handle whenever he got felted. (Slamming the door on his way out, loudly berating players, etc.) He also received no league refund.

I consciously minimized the involvement of other members as much as possible, because I understood that my duty as the host of the league was to provide a setting where everyone could come and play and enjoy themselves free of any drama.

In the end, no tires were slashed, no one was found floating face down in a river, and the police didn't show up at my doorstep. Those were not considerations, because preserving the integrity and the atmosphere of the game for me was far more important than worrying about a worse case scenario.

I think some people overlook the fact that when you host a league, you are the acting treasurer. By definition, you are responsible for the rakes and fees that you collect on behalf of the league. Therefore, I don't think someone who runs a league should be handing out refunds willy-nilly. I question whether they even have the right.

As far as your situation goes, good luck if you think a firm reprimand or warning is going to do the trick. (If that is the direction you are leaning towards) People like your friend are going to push the envelope if they think they can get away with it. And you have given me reasons for believing that is just what he will do.

 

[ChaosRock]

I cannot thank you guys enough for all the replies... Every single one of your comments helped me immensely... I was a bit m.i.a. yesterday watching my Broncos and later on too pissed with their performance to jump back online. Yes, I know I had posted on the Lions/Cowboys thread passionanately, but the Lions are actually only my second team, and I love them dearly as well. I was a Colorado guy before becoming a Michigander through and through...

Okay, it will be hard to comment on all the points you guys have made one by one as I was doing, but all the points are extremely valuable and the arguments very sound. That's why it's such a tough call... As I have said, if it was a semi-pro league, Mr. Shoe Man would be packing without any of his money, but then again, we'd have rules written for it. (Any of you guys can point me to specific rules about behavior so I can incorporate in mine?)

I had decided to write the guy an email after talking to one of the players (I know some people suggested a call but a, I hate phone conversations and b, I never called Mr. Shoe Man in my life so this won't be the first). This morning I sat down and did exactly that. Finished saying that because of our mutual friends and the fact I don't want to rock the league's boat, he would be allowed to finish the season and if there was an OUNCE of disrespect towards me, my wife, my house or other players, he would be asked to leave ON THE SPOT! However, after writing the email, once again I find myself in doubt. Being the guys that he is, that email could prompt him to show up, steal things (my dear chips!!!!), messing things up, etc... So it's kinda like damned if I do, damned If I don't... And that's beyond the 'giving the fee money back or not' issue...

Maybe Dave's suggestion of dropping him barefoot in the U.P. is the ONLY right approach! For those that don't know, the U.P. is the REAL home of Yeti!!! Oh, and of Coach Tom Izzo as well...

Thanks again guys! Keep 'em coming if it doesn't pollute the forum too much...

*Btw, again, my fees are 'per game' and not charged upfront so he only paid for the games he played, I think 6 out of 8 games this season so far.

- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -

Welcome Strike!!!

And good question... The answer, Mr' Shoe Man!

I live in Michigan. ..who the hell does something like that? I'd pay him to avoid issues and send his ass packing.

 

[grandgnu]

If you do let him finish out the league season I would make him apologize personally in front of everyone for what he did, in the least.

 

[ChaosRock]

It's a different league Tony... Friday's game was from a rotating league I'm part of, and was hosting... Villain is a regular of MY league, every other Wednesday... There was NO overlap of players whatsoever other than me and Mr. Shoe Man... He is NOT part of the rotating league, he was just a guest of mine for that particular game... Twists and turns, hahahaha...

If you do let him finish out the league season I would make him apologize personally in front of everyone for what he did, in the least.

 

[TexRex]

Both the TDA and WSOP rules are available online, and both are copyable into Word. Both have sections dealing with player behavior. Some is irrelevant to a home game, but much of it is really good. For example, it talks about casino personnel, which homes don't have, but you can substitute other terms to fit. I'm going to post our entire section (Section 1.06 for the North Texas Poker Group) so you can see how we did it. Because of these written rules, I had a lot to work with in my situation. It's long, but when something comes up, it's helpful.

Section 1.06Player Conduct – Etiquette & Penalties

1. The one-player-to-a-hand rule will be enforced. WSOP 2012-102 and 104; TDA 2011-50 and 51
2. The competitive integrity of tournament events is paramount. All Players must adhere to the spirit and letter of the Official Rules which forbid play or any action that is illegal, unethical, or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form. WSOP 2012-39A
   1. Cheating is defined as any act a person engages in to break the established rules of play to gain an advantage. WSOP 2012-39A
   2. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: collusion; chip stealing; transferring non-value Tournament chips from one event to another; card marking; card substitution; or the use of any kind of cheating device. WSOP 2012-39A
   3. Collusion is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more players to engage in illegal or unethical acts against other players. WSOP 2012-39A
   4. Collusion includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: chip dumping; soft play; sharing card information with another player; sending or receiving signals from or to another player; the use of electronic communication with the intent to facilitate collusion; and any other act that NTPG deems inappropriate. WSOP 2012-39A
   5. Chip dumping is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more Players for one or more of the Players to bet chips with the intent of increasing another Player’s stack. WSOP 2012 2012-39A
   6. Soft play is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more Players to not bet or raise each other in order to minimize the number of chips lost by those Players participating in the agreement. WSOP 2012-39A
   7. Penalties and Disqualification -- A penalty may be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, throws a card off the table, violates the one-player-to-a-hand rule, or similar incidents occur. Penalties will be invoked in cases of soft play, abuse, disruptive behavior, or cheating. Penalties available to the tournament director include verbal warnings, “missed hand” penalties, and disqualification. Except for a one-hand penalty, missed hand penalties will be assessed as follows: The offender will miss one hand for every player, including the offender, who is at the table when the penalty is given multiplied by the number of rounds specified in the penalty. For the period of the penalty, the offender shall remain away from the table but will continue to be dealt in. TDA 2011-50
   8. Exposing Cards -- A player exposing his or her cards with action pending will incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand. All players at the table are entitled to see the exposed card(s), if requested. WSOP-105; TDA 2011-52
   9. Ethical Play -- Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties, which may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping and/or all other forms of collusion will result in disqualification. WSOP-106; TDA 2011-53
   10. Etiquette Violations – Repeated etiquette violations will result in penalties. Examples include, but are not limited to, unnecessarily touching other players’ cards or chips, delay of the game, repeatedly acting out of turn, or excessive chatter. TDA 2011-54
3. Table Talk / Disclosure: Players are obligated to protect the other Players in the Tournament at all times. Therefore, whether in a hand or not, Players may not: WSOP 2012-104; part of this is also ; RROP 2011-§15

1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands,
2. Advise or criticize play at any time,
3. Read a hand that hasn’t been tabled,
4. Discuss strategy with an outside source.
5. Special Exceptions:

1. A Player is allowed to mention the strength or content of his/her hand if no other Player in the hand will have a decision to make.
2. In heads-up events or when down to the last two Players in a Tournament, Players may speak freely regarding the contents of their hands.
3. The Floor Person reserves the right use his/her judgment to determine if one Player intentionally helped another Player. Players who violate this rule are subject to penalty according to Rule 1.06D.

1. All Players are entitled to expect civility and courtesy from one another at every Tournament table and throughout the Tournament area. Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous -- or is abusive in any way -- is encouraged to immediately contact a Tournament official. This shall include, but is not limited to, any player whose personal hygiene has become disruptive to the other players seated at their table. The determination as to whether an individual’s personal hygiene is disruptive to other players shall be determined by the NTPG which may, in its discretion, implement sanctions upon any such player who refuses to remedy the situation in a manner satisfactory to NTPG. WSOP 2012-39B
   1. NTPG will penalize any act that, in the sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion of NTPG, is inconsistent with the official rules or bests interests of the Tournament. WSOP 2012-39D
   2. Anyone found to have engaged in or attempted to engage in any act that the NTPG believes in their sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion compromises or could compromise the competitive integrity of the tournament will be subject to sanctions imposed by NTPG. The nature and extent of the sanctions imposed shall be in the sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion of NTPG and may include, but shall not be limited to the following:
      1. 1-hand penalty; 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-round penalties; or disqualification. A player who is disqualified shall have his or her chips removed from play. Repeat infractions are subject to escalating penalties. WSOP 2012-103; TDA
      2. Forfeiture of chips. WSOP 2012-39E; TDA 2011-53
      3. Forfeiture of prize money. WSOP 2012-39E; TDA 2011-53
      4. Ejection from the tournament. WSOP 2012-39E; TDA 2011-53
      5. Loss of privilege to participate in future NTPG events. WSOP 2012-39E
      6. Exclusion from entering the premises. WSOP 2012-39E
   3. Any and all violations of this Code of Player Conduct may be publicly disclosed in an effort to deter future violations and to assist other poker Tournaments in identifying players who engage in play or any action that is illegal, unethical, or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form. WSOP 2012-39F
2. In addition to penalties authorized in Rule 1.06D, NTPG may impose penalties of any kind or nature upon any person who engages in inappropriate conduct during Tournament play. WSOP 2012-40
3. NTPG, in its sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion, reserves the right to exclude any individual(s) acting in a disruptive or inappropriate manner or counter to the best interests of the Tournament. WSOP 2012-41
4. All decisions regarding the interpretation of Rules, player eligibility, scheduling, and staging of the Tournament, and penalties for misconduct lie solely with NTPG, whose decisions are final. WSOP 2012-43
5. NTPG will use reasonable efforts to consider the best interests of the Tournament and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process, with the understanding that “best interests of the Tournament and fairness” shall be determined by NTPG, acting in its sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion. NTPG decisions are final and cannot be appealed and shall not give rise to any claim for monetary damages, as each Player understands that, while poker is primarily and largely a game of skill, the outcome of any particular hand or event is dependent on many factors, including but not limited to the cards dealt, the cards retained, and the actions of other Players. WSOP 2012-44
6. NTPG prohibits the use of obscene or foul language at any time. Any player who uses such language or makes a foul, profane, obscene, or vulgar statement, or speaks abusively or in an intimidating manner to another player, a dealer, or a Tournament staff member, will be penalized. Penalties will be levied based on Rule 1.06D. WSOP 2012-45
7. Excessive celebration through extended theatrics, inappropriate behavior, or physical actions, gestures, or conduct will be subject to penalty. Any player that engages a member of the Tournament staff during the celebration or utilizes any property of the NTPG host home will be penalized according to Rule 1.06D. Host home property includes but is not limited to chairs, Tournament tables, and other tournament related items. WSOP 2012-46
8. Player or staff abuse will not be tolerated. A player will incur a penalty up to and including disqualification for any abuse towards another player or staff member, and the player could be asked to leave the property. Repeated etiquette violations such as touching another player’s cards or chips, delay of game, and excessive chatter will result in penalties. WSOP 2012-47
9. Where a situation arises that is not covered by these rules, NTPG shall have the sole authority to render a judgment, including the imposition of a penalty, according to the best interests of the Tournament and the maintenance of its integrity and public confidence. WSOP 2012-50
10. A player who is disqualified shall have his or her chips removed from play and no refund will be provided to that disqualified player. Any player who forfeits play for health or other personal reasons after the start of a Tournament will have his or her chips blinded off accordingly. WSOP 2012-103; TDA 2011-50
11. Chips in Transit: All chips must be visible at all times. Players may not hold or transport Tournament chips in any manner that takes them out of view or out of the Tournament area. A player who does so will forfeit the chips and face disqualification. The forfeited chips will be taken out of play. WSOP 2012-98; TDA 2011-47
12. Players found to be transferring chips from one event to another or from one player to another will be subject to penalty according to Rule 1.06D. WSOP2012-37

Sorry, the formatting is messed up. It's easy to follow in the Word document format. I'd post that if I knew how.

 

[ChaosRock]

Thanks TexRex!!! I do have a copy of RRP and TDA printed but they don't necessarily deal with a league situation... I will definitely use some of your language and incorporate in my league rules... Very, very helpful... Thanks a lot!

Both the TDA and WSOP rules are available online, and both are copyable into Word. Both have sections dealing with player behavior. Some is irrelevant to a home game, but much of it is really good. For example, it talks about casino personnel, which homes don't have, but you can substitute other terms to fit. I'm going to post our entire section (Section 1.06 for the North Texas Poker Group) so you can see how we did it. Because of these written rules, I had a lot to work with in my situation. It's long, but when something comes up, it's helpful.

Section 1.06Player Conduct – Etiquette & Penalties

1. The one-player-to-a-hand rule will be enforced. WSOP 2012-102 and 104; TDA 2011-50 and 51
2. The competitive integrity of tournament events is paramount. All Players must adhere to the spirit and letter of the Official Rules which forbid play or any action that is illegal, unethical, or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form. WSOP 2012-39A
   1. Cheating is defined as any act a person engages in to break the established rules of play to gain an advantage. WSOP 2012-39A
   2. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: collusion; chip stealing; transferring non-value Tournament chips from one event to another; card marking; card substitution; or the use of any kind of cheating device. WSOP 2012-39A
   3. Collusion is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more players to engage in illegal or unethical acts against other players. WSOP 2012-39A
   4. Collusion includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: chip dumping; soft play; sharing card information with another player; sending or receiving signals from or to another player; the use of electronic communication with the intent to facilitate collusion; and any other act that NTPG deems inappropriate. WSOP 2012-39A
   5. Chip dumping is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more Players for one or more of the Players to bet chips with the intent of increasing another Player’s stack. WSOP 2012 2012-39A
   6. Soft play is defined as any agreement amongst two (2) or more Players to not bet or raise each other in order to minimize the number of chips lost by those Players participating in the agreement. WSOP 2012-39A
   7. Penalties and Disqualification -- A penalty may be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, throws a card off the table, violates the one-player-to-a-hand rule, or similar incidents occur. Penalties will be invoked in cases of soft play, abuse, disruptive behavior, or cheating. Penalties available to the tournament director include verbal warnings, “missed hand” penalties, and disqualification. Except for a one-hand penalty, missed hand penalties will be assessed as follows: The offender will miss one hand for every player, including the offender, who is at the table when the penalty is given multiplied by the number of rounds specified in the penalty. For the period of the penalty, the offender shall remain away from the table but will continue to be dealt in. TDA 2011-50
   8. Exposing Cards -- A player exposing his or her cards with action pending will incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand. All players at the table are entitled to see the exposed card(s), if requested. WSOP-105; TDA 2011-52
   9. Ethical Play -- Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties, which may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping and/or all other forms of collusion will result in disqualification. WSOP-106; TDA 2011-53
   10. Etiquette Violations – Repeated etiquette violations will result in penalties. Examples include, but are not limited to, unnecessarily touching other players’ cards or chips, delay of the game, repeatedly acting out of turn, or excessive chatter. TDA 2011-54
3. Table Talk / Disclosure: Players are obligated to protect the other Players in the Tournament at all times. Therefore, whether in a hand or not, Players may not: WSOP 2012-104; part of this is also ; RROP 2011-§15

1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands,
2. Advise or criticize play at any time,
3. Read a hand that hasn’t been tabled,
4. Discuss strategy with an outside source.
5. Special Exceptions:

1. A Player is allowed to mention the strength or content of his/her hand if no other Player in the hand will have a decision to make.
2. In heads-up events or when down to the last two Players in a Tournament, Players may speak freely regarding the contents of their hands.
3. The Floor Person reserves the right use his/her judgment to determine if one Player intentionally helped another Player. Players who violate this rule are subject to penalty according to Rule 1.06D.

1. All Players are entitled to expect civility and courtesy from one another at every Tournament table and throughout the Tournament area. Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous -- or is abusive in any way -- is encouraged to immediately contact a Tournament official. This shall include, but is not limited to, any player whose personal hygiene has become disruptive to the other players seated at their table. The determination as to whether an individual’s personal hygiene is disruptive to other players shall be determined by the NTPG which may, in its discretion, implement sanctions upon any such player who refuses to remedy the situation in a manner satisfactory to NTPG. WSOP 2012-39B
   1. NTPG will penalize any act that, in the sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion of NTPG, is inconsistent with the official rules or bests interests of the Tournament. WSOP 2012-39D
   2. Anyone found to have engaged in or attempted to engage in any act that the NTPG believes in their sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion compromises or could compromise the competitive integrity of the tournament will be subject to sanctions imposed by NTPG. The nature and extent of the sanctions imposed shall be in the sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion of NTPG and may include, but shall not be limited to the following:
      1. 1-hand penalty; 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-round penalties; or disqualification. A player who is disqualified shall have his or her chips removed from play. Repeat infractions are subject to escalating penalties. WSOP 2012-103; TDA
      2. Forfeiture of chips. WSOP 2012-39E; TDA 2011-53
      3. Forfeiture of prize money. WSOP 2012-39E; TDA 2011-53
      4. Ejection from the tournament. WSOP 2012-39E; TDA 2011-53
      5. Loss of privilege to participate in future NTPG events. WSOP 2012-39E
      6. Exclusion from entering the premises. WSOP 2012-39E
   3. Any and all violations of this Code of Player Conduct may be publicly disclosed in an effort to deter future violations and to assist other poker Tournaments in identifying players who engage in play or any action that is illegal, unethical, or constitutes cheating or collusion in any form. WSOP 2012-39F
2. In addition to penalties authorized in Rule 1.06D, NTPG may impose penalties of any kind or nature upon any person who engages in inappropriate conduct during Tournament play. WSOP 2012-40
3. NTPG, in its sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion, reserves the right to exclude any individual(s) acting in a disruptive or inappropriate manner or counter to the best interests of the Tournament. WSOP 2012-41
4. All decisions regarding the interpretation of Rules, player eligibility, scheduling, and staging of the Tournament, and penalties for misconduct lie solely with NTPG, whose decisions are final. WSOP 2012-43
5. NTPG will use reasonable efforts to consider the best interests of the Tournament and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process, with the understanding that “best interests of the Tournament and fairness” shall be determined by NTPG, acting in its sole, absolute, and unreviewable discretion. NTPG decisions are final and cannot be appealed and shall not give rise to any claim for monetary damages, as each Player understands that, while poker is primarily and largely a game of skill, the outcome of any particular hand or event is dependent on many factors, including but not limited to the cards dealt, the cards retained, and the actions of other Players. WSOP 2012-44
6. NTPG prohibits the use of obscene or foul language at any time. Any player who uses such language or makes a foul, profane, obscene, or vulgar statement, or speaks abusively or in an intimidating manner to another player, a dealer, or a Tournament staff member, will be penalized. Penalties will be levied based on Rule 1.06D. WSOP 2012-45
7. Excessive celebration through extended theatrics, inappropriate behavior, or physical actions, gestures, or conduct will be subject to penalty. Any player that engages a member of the Tournament staff during the celebration or utilizes any property of the NTPG host home will be penalized according to Rule 1.06D. Host home property includes but is not limited to chairs, Tournament tables, and other tournament related items. WSOP 2012-46
8. Player or staff abuse will not be tolerated. A player will incur a penalty up to and including disqualification for any abuse towards another player or staff member, and the player could be asked to leave the property. Repeated etiquette violations such as touching another player’s cards or chips, delay of game, and excessive chatter will result in penalties. WSOP 2012-47
9. Where a situation arises that is not covered by these rules, NTPG shall have the sole authority to render a judgment, including the imposition of a penalty, according to the best interests of the Tournament and the maintenance of its integrity and public confidence. WSOP 2012-50
10. A player who is disqualified shall have his or her chips removed from play and no refund will be provided to that disqualified player. Any player who forfeits play for health or other personal reasons after the start of a Tournament will have his or her chips blinded off accordingly. WSOP 2012-103; TDA 2011-50
11. Chips in Transit: All chips must be visible at all times. Players may not hold or transport Tournament chips in any manner that takes them out of view or out of the Tournament area. A player who does so will forfeit the chips and face disqualification. The forfeited chips will be taken out of play. WSOP 2012-98; TDA 2011-47
12. Players found to be transferring chips from one event to another or from one player to another will be subject to penalty according to Rule 1.06D. WSOP2012-37

 

[Mental Nomad]

Shoe-Man has made himself unwelcome in your home, and unwelcome to your guests. I say ban him. Inviting him to finish the season but issuing an ultimatum like that is a formula for disaster - he's inevitably going to have some sort of incident in the course of poker, since it's an emotional game and he's an emotional person. And then you'll be put on the spot to judge everything he does as worthy of ejection, or not. Don't put yourself in that position, I say.

Figure out what portion of his paid league fees apply towards prizes he can longer vie for, and/or which pay for amenities he'll not get to experience, and refund that portion. (For example, if X dollars is being put towards the buffet for the final game or something, refund his share of that, too.)

Bodybuilders and MMA fighters in general aren't scary to me, because they know where to focus their aggression. They may make a bad snap-judgement in the heat of the moment, but they rarely do pre-meditated violence. Pranksters, on the other hand, pre-meditate all their pranks - both playful, and malicious. I'd worry more about repercussions from Shoe-Man than from a real fighter.

I definitely agree with the advice to keep it quiet, outside of a couple of witnesses to the refund. Letting the guy save face, to whatever degree possible, will also reduce the chance of flats.

I have to point out that both I and Grandgnu posted at the exact same moment about the flat tire thing - I imagined air being let out, he imagined slashed tires. We didn't see each others' posts. I think we just both have "known the type" and can easily see it going that way.

I think you should be as discreet as possible while having witnesses, be as fair to him as possible by way of refund, but be completely firm on giving him the boot now, so that he doesn't continue to ruin your game.

If you insist on letting him back in with a "no more strikes" approach, you have to word it less confrontationally than your post above, or you're practically challenging him to face off with you. It's going to be very difficult to word it in a way that is very firm, but which he's unlikely to take as a challenge.

 

[ChaosRock]

Players in my league do not know what Shoe-Man did MN... It was a different league Friday... It is an issue with me as the host and a personal issues not necessarily an issue with my league players... Is there a strong likelihood he'll f*ck up my league, yes, but not sure the players know it...

I agree having him finish the season might be disastrous... And that's exactly my feeling after I finish the email... I would be taking a huge risk for the benefit of not involving my league's players in this mess... Don't know man... Next game is Wednesday... Sent the invites already but removed Show-Man from the list... I have a day or so to make my mind up...

I agree also with the type of personality we're dealing with here... He is the EXACT type who'd do something like slashing tires, breaking things at my place, steal chips, through sh!t at my door steps, etc... If not worse... Regardless, I am not afraid of those things... Not trying to be the 'tough' guy here but every time we stand against something like that we run that risk, I don't mind that if it's done to me... Problem becomes when he's at my house with my wife, my dog and my chips!!

Shoe-Man has made himself unwelcome in your home, and unwelcome to your guests. I say ban him. Inviting him to finish the season but issuing an ultimatum like that is a formula for disaster - he's inevitably going to have some sort of incident in the course of poker, since it's an emotional game and he's an emotional person. And then you'll be put on the spot to judge everything he does as worthy of ejection, or not. Don't put yourself in that position, I say.

Figure out what portion of his paid league fees apply towards prizes he can longer vie for, and/or which pay for amenities he'll not get to experience, and refund that portion. (For example, if X dollars is being put towards the buffet for the final game or something, refund his share of that, too.)

Bodybuilders and MMA fighters in general aren't scary to me, because they know where to focus their aggression. They may make a bad snap-judgement in the heat of the moment, but they rarely do pre-meditated violence. Pranksters, on the other hand, pre-meditate all their pranks - both playful, and malicious. I'd worry more about repercussions from Shoe-Man than from a real fighter.

I definitely agree with the advice to keep it quiet, outside of a couple of witnesses to the refund. Letting the guy save face, to whatever degree possible, will also reduce the chance of flats.

I have to point out that both I and Grandgnu posted at the exact same moment about the flat tire thing - I imagined air being let out, he imagined slashed tires. We didn't see each others' posts. I think we just both have "known the type" and can easily see it going that way.

I think you should be as discreet as possible while having witnesses, be as fair to him as possible by way of refund, but be completely firm on giving him the boot now, so that he doesn't continue to ruin your game.

If you insist on letting him back in with a "no more strikes" approach, you have to word it less confrontationally than your post above, or you're practically challenging him to face off with you. It's going to be very difficult to word it in a way that is very firm, but which he's unlikely to take as a challenge.

 

[grandgnu]

Problem becomes when he's at my house with my wife, my dog and my chips!!

Thou mayest violate mine bethrothed and mine animal companion, but yeh shall not takest advantage of mine chips! Kindly removest thine naughty bits from ye olde paulsons and prepare to be thwarted villainous cur, I demand satisfaction!

 

[Trihonda]

Boy... I'm very leery of inviting this guy to finish

I've had incidents of misconduct from particular players at my game, and then been tempted to allow them back to play (even after a year unofficial ban) because of friendships, etc... This has NEVER worked out well. Even when these players knew they were under the microscope and were specifically warned what conduct caused them to be taken off the invite list for such a long time, they couldn't help themselves, and reverted to their old antics, which has turned off many of my newer players (who I might not ever recover).

 

[Poker Zombie]

I've only given warnings to one player for their conduct. The next event he was strictly sober and manageable. The next event he was back to loud, troublesome, and drunk. The event after that even more-so, and at the end of the night was removed from the invite list.

I like to think people can change, but anytime you are dealing with "that guy", it is going to take more than a threat of being banned from a poker game. It is going to take a life-changing experience (or therapy). To put it another way...

A scorpion and a fox meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the fox to carry him across on its back.
The fox asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?"
The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The fox is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the fox.
The fox feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."

 

[ChaosRock]

One of my favorites parables Zombie, hands down... I know it as the "Parable of the Scorpion and the Frog", but frog, fox, it's all the same...

A scorpion and a fox meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the fox to carry him across on its back.
The fox asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?"
The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The fox is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the fox.
The fox feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."

I agree completely... The only caveat being if Mr. Shoe Man had realized he had screwed up and reach out with a sincere mea-culpa and apologies... It didn't happen... And in a lot of cases, even a life-changing experience does't do it...

I've only given warnings to one player for their conduct. The next event he was strictly sober and manageable. The next event he was back to loud, troublesome, and drunk. The event after that even more-so, and at the end of the night was removed from the invite list.

I like to think people can change, but anytime you are dealing with "that guy", it is going to take more than a threat of being banned from a poker game. It is going to take a life-changing experience (or therapy).

 

[Mental Nomad]

Players in my league do not know what Shoe-Man did MN... It was a different league Friday...

I didn't miss that (important) detail. But he disrespected the house.

He disrespected your players in your house.

I think you need to stop thinking of this personally (which includes thinking about whether you're brave enough to deal with this person), and think of it as League Manager and Floorperson. Is this person a risk to the game? If you want to continue to have players, they have to enjoy the game and feel safe with The House. Your job is to protect The Game, and he's a risk.

Think of it this way: if someone gets themselves ejected from a casino because of their behavior at a craps table, they're not still welcome in the poker room. They're just not welcome any more.

 

[Trihonda]

....I agree also with the type of personality we're dealing with here... He is the EXACT type who'd do something like slashing tires, breaking things at my place, steal chips, through sh!t at my door steps, etc... If not worse... Regardless, I am not afraid of those things... Not trying to be the 'tough' guy here but every time we stand against something like that we run that risk, I don't mind that if it's done to me... Problem becomes when he's at my house with my wife, my dog and my chips!!

I deal with crap-birds all the time... and educating people how to deal with them.

My number one piece of advice is to follow your gut instincts.. They're designed to keep you safe. When people fail to listen to their gut, is when bad things happen to them. Your read on this guy's potential is profound. Listen to your gut man.

A good analogy is the dumbasses in bad horror movies: They say "Hey, look at that scary deserted mansion in the middle of the forest, it looks like a nice place to shelter from the rain"... It never has a happy ending

 

[Strike1st]

I like the U.P. idea...but seriously with a guy with a short fuse like this do you have plans in case he or other nut job goes nuclear in your home?

 

[ChaosRock]

I hear you TH, you're absolutely right...

My number one piece of advice is to follow your gut instincts.. They're designed to keep you safe. When people fail to listen to their gut, is when bad things happen to them. Your read on this guy's potential is profound. Listen to your gut man.

- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -

No plan really, Strike... But that can happen at any gathering here really, although when there's money involved chances grow exponentially... The best I can tell you is that I'm used to having people over, poker or otherwise, and kinda have managed situations alright... Best to put the work upfront and try to foresee possible issues...

Yep, Dave's U.P. idea was the best so far...

I like the U.P. idea...but seriously with a guy with a short fuse like this do you have plans in case he or other nut job goes nuclear in your home?

 

[MeridianFC]

Mr. Shoe Man has not apologized? WTF? How is this any kind of discussion now?