A few weeks ago, poker vlogger KDog stirred debate by claiming that Texas poker games are drying up due to an influx of European grinders. According to him, these players arrive for a few months at a time, log marathon sessions day after day, and drain the fun—and the money—out of the games. His conclusion was blunt: poker rooms should ban them.
The topic quickly gained traction. Even Sarah Herring weighed in with a dedicated episode of The Showdown. The discussion taps into a familiar anxiety in poker: when games get tougher, someone must be to blame.
Here’s my take.
The Short Answer
The idea that any group of players should be banned from a public poker room is absurd.
Let’s Fix the Language First
Calling these players “Euros” is lazy and imprecise. Not all Europeans grind for a living, and not all for-profit grinders are European. A more accurate term is For-Profit Tourists (FPTs): players who travel, set up temporary living arrangements, and play poker full-time for weeks or months at a stretch.
With that out of the way, there are two main reasons why banning FPTs makes no sense.
Keeping Them Out Is Completely Impractical
Public poker rooms—those licensed and regulated by the state—would be stepping onto very dangerous ground if they tried to exclude players based on where they’re from or how they play. The regulatory and legal headaches alone make this a nonstarter.
Even Texas card clubs that label themselves as “social clubs” function, in practice, as public accommodations. They advertise openly, accept nearly anyone as a member, and cannot legally discriminate based on nationality, gender, or race. The idea that a club could deny access because someone is from Spain and plays a tough, disciplined style of poker is unrealistic at best.
And once you start down that road, where does it end? Do you ban players from out of state? From outside the city? Only winning players? Only those with certain statistics? The policy becomes impossible to define, let alone enforce.
This kind of proposal might sound appealing in a short video, but it collapses the moment you think through how it would actually work.
Banning FPTs Is Just Protectionism
At its core, this argument sounds like an old refrain: “Those people are coming here and taking what should be ours.”
But the FPTs are doing exactly what capitalism rewards. They study hard, put in long hours, manage their bankrolls, and compete aggressively. That’s not cheating the system—that is the system.
Protectionism has never worked, in poker or anywhere else. You can’t block intelligence, discipline, preparation, and work ethic with rules or borders. All you accomplish is slowing progress within your own ecosystem.
No player is entitled to exclusive access to weaker competition. Poker doesn’t work that way. You’re entitled to buy in, take a seat, and compete with whoever else sits down. If someone is beating you consistently, the answer isn’t to ask management to remove them. The answer is to study more, fix leaks, manage your life better, or accept that the games have gotten tougher.
Asking poker rooms to shield you from strong opponents isn’t just unrealistic—it runs against the competitive spirit that poker is built on.
So What’s the Actual Problem?
None of this is to say that KDog is wrong about conditions at higher stakes. Many players have reported that tougher, grinder-heavy lineups are becoming more common—not just in Texas, but in other major live poker hubs as well.
The uncomfortable truth is that this isn’t new. Online poker followed the same trajectory. In the early 2000s, competent players printed money. Over time, the edge narrowed. Eventually, only the very best could earn consistently. Now, in 2026, a small group of elite players dominate online poker profitably.
Is live poker heading down the same road, just on a slower timeline? Maybe. Live poker has structural advantages—slower hands, more social players, fewer tools—but it’s not immune to the same forces.
Where That Leaves Us
The best players will continue to make a living. But who qualifies as “the best,” and how many of them there are, keeps changing. That’s always been true.
What hasn’t changed is this: poker rewards those who adapt. Not those who complain about passports.
If the games are tougher, the only real response is to get better—or find a different game. That’s poker.
