What do you think about the "blacklist" of players: is it a necessary solution or a dangerous exercise in censorship in poker?

A recent surge in cases of cheating, misconduct, and scandals in poker rooms (both land-based and online) has reignited the debate about creating a shared registry of banned players. On the one hand, an industry-run "blacklist" would protect honest players and staff from cheaters, aggressors, or debtors, sending a clear message that misconduct has consequences beyond a single room. However, the other side of the coin is alarming: Who watches the watchers? The lack of a neutral and transparent regulatory body could lead to arbitrary lists, based on personal grudges or errors, without the affected player having a clear recourse to appeal or defend themselves.

I think the “blacklist” of players is a very tricky topic. On one hand, it can serve a practical purpose by protecting online or live poker communities from known cheaters, colluders, or extremely unethical players. In that sense, it helps maintain fairness and trust at the tables.

On the other hand, it can easily become a dangerous exercise in censorship if not handled transparently. Mistakes, rumors, or personal grudges could unfairly damage someone’s reputation or prevent them from playing. There needs to be clear rules, evidence, and a fair appeal process to avoid abuse.

In short, blacklists can be useful if applied carefully, but they should never replace proper regulation, oversight, or ethical enforcement. Transparency and fairness are key; otherwise, it risks creating more problems than it solves.

A blacklist of players can be useful in some situations, but it must be handled carefully. In poker, a blacklist is usually meant to warn others about cheating, collusion, or unethical behavior. When there is clear evidence, sharing this information can help protect the community and maintain fair play.

However, blacklists can also become dangerous if they are based on rumors, personal conflicts, or incomplete information. A player’s reputation can be damaged unfairly if accusations are not verified.

The best approach is transparency and proper investigation. Platforms and forums should rely on verified proof and moderation before labeling someone publicly.

So, a blacklist can be helpful for security, but without fairness and evidence it risks becoming censorship rather than protection.

I like it when everything is honest and transparent!

i like people writing answers without using AI..

The idea itself isn’t the problem, poker needs rules and enforcement.
The key issue is how it’s implemented: clear evidence, consistent rules, and some form of review or appeal.

The black list should be specific and used only for the casino which have made it.

I think a blacklist can be useful if it’s implemented in a fair and transparent way. Poker rooms definitely need tools to deal with serious cheating, collusion, or abusive behavior, especially when the same players move between different platforms.
However, the biggest concern is accountability. If a shared blacklist exists, there should be clear evidence standards, a proper review process, and a way for players to appeal decisions. Without transparency, it could easily become unfair or abused.
So in my opinion, the idea itself isn’t bad — but it only works if there is strong oversight and due process to protect both the community and individual players.

I think a blacklist can be useful in some situations, especially when it comes to serious issues like cheating, collusion, or abusive behavior. Having a system that protects honest players and poker rooms from repeat offenders could help keep the game fair.
However, the real concern is transparency and fairness. If such a blacklist exists, there should be clear evidence, proper investigation, and a way for players to appeal decisions. Without those safeguards, it could easily become unfair or be used against someone by mistake.
So in my opinion, a blacklist is not necessarily a bad idea, but it should only exist with strong oversight and clear rules to protect both the community and individual players.

dariana Orasma said:

A recent surge in cases of cheating, misconduct, and scandals in poker rooms (both land-based and online) has reignited the debate about creating a shared registry of banned players. On the one hand, an industry-run "blacklist" would protect honest players and staff from cheaters, aggressors, or debtors, sending a clear message that misconduct has consequences beyond a single room. However, the other side of the coin is alarming: Who watches the watchers? The lack of a neutral and transparent regulatory body could lead to arbitrary lists, based on personal grudges or errors, without the affected player having a clear recourse to appeal or defend themselves.

Click to expand...

It’s a complicated issue, and I can see both sides of the argument.

A shared blacklist could definitely help protect the poker ecosystem. If someone is proven to have cheated or seriously violated the rules, it makes sense that they shouldn’t simply move to another room and continue playing as if nothing happened.

At the same time, the biggest concern is fairness and transparency. Without a neutral and well-regulated system, there’s a real risk of mistakes, personal bias, or players being added to a list without proper evidence or the chance to appeal.

In my opinion, a shared registry could work, but only if there are clear standards, solid evidence requirements, and a formal appeal process. Otherwise it could end up causing as many problems as it tries to solve.

A player “blacklist” in poker can feel like a double‑edged sword: on one hand, the industry already uses blacklists for operators—not players—to protect customers from unsafe or fraudulent sites, so the idea of protecting the game isn’t new.
But when the target becomes individual players rather than rogue platforms, the risk of unfair exclusion and opaque decision‑making grows quickly.
A centralized list could help keep out proven cheaters, yet without transparent standards it can slide into a form of private censorship that harms honest players.
The gambling industry shows that blacklists do exist—mostly for casinos or poker rooms that fail to pay out winnings, lack licenses, or manipulate games—so the concept is familiar but traditionally aimed at protecting players, not punishing them.
That’s why a player blacklist is both tempting and dangerous: it could strengthen integrity, but only if governed with strict evidence, oversight, and the right to appeal.

How casinos handle banned‑player lists
• Every major casino maintains its own internal exclusion list. These include people caught cheating, using advantage‑play techniques the casino dislikes, causing disturbances, or violating house rules.
• These lists are not centralized, but within a casino group (e.g., MGM, Caesars, Genting), the list is usually shared across all properties. If you’re banned at one MGM casino, you’re typically banned at all MGM casinos.
• Casinos do talk to each other informally. At industry conferences, security‑director meetups, and private networks, information about known cheaters or scam groups is often exchanged. It’s not an official “industry blacklist,” but it functions like a professional grapevine.
• There are centralized lists, but only for serious cases. For example, Nevada’s “Black Book” (the List of Excluded Persons) is a state‑run, public list of individuals permanently banned from all Nevada casinos due to organized crime ties or major cheating operations. Other jurisdictions have similar regulatory lists.
• Online gambling operators also share data, especially through fraud‑prevention networks, anti‑money‑laundering systems, and identity‑verification services. Again, not a public blacklist—more like shared risk databases.

What this means for the original question
So when people debate a “blacklist of poker players,” it’s happening in a world where blacklists already exist—but historically they target criminal behavior, not just “players the community dislikes.”
That’s why the idea feels both familiar and dangerous: the infrastructure for exclusion already exists, but expanding it to community‑driven lists risks abuse, bias, and opaque decision‑making.

I don't have a formed opinion yet!