Oregon

[Rezvani]

Here are some links to Oregon laws re: gambling/poker/etc.

Statutes:
Offenses: ORS 167.108-167.167
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/167.html
Highlights:
ORS 167.109: the prohibition against "internet gambling" applies to persons running an "internet gambling business)

ORS 167.121: Counties and Municipalities may legalize "social" gambling.

167.122 and .125: Unlawful gambling requires that the player "knows" the event/game is illegal. If the game was advertised as legal, and appears to be legal from the players perspective, the player would not normally be prosecuted in Oregon-- only the promoters.

ORS 167.167 -- Cheating is punishable as a class C Felony, even in a "home" game.

167.117(21) definition of social game (no house profit)

[My personal favorite]:
30.740 Right of gambling loser to recover double losses. All persons losing money or anything of value at or on any unlawful game described in ORS 167.117, 167.122 and 167.127 shall have a cause of action to recover from the dealer winning the same, or proprietor for whose benefit such game was played or dealt, or such money or thing of value won, twice the amount of the money or double the value of the thing so lost. (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/030.html)

As for recent legislation, an "emergency" measure recently passed allowing NONPROFIT organizations to hold poker tournaments at a small profit, but NO CASH PRIZES.
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb0300.dir/sb0355.en.html

This was passed and now some nonprofit organizations are allowed to run tournaments where the house takes a small rake/surcharge.

Many municipalities and counties in Oregon allow social gaming (i.e. home games are legal in those jurisdictions). Check with your local police.

[goofyballer]

I played at the Sky Box bar in Redmond when I was visiting my parents over break, and noticed a sign saying no tipping the dealer, and another saying that 100% of the rake is refunded to players in jackpots (and there were a lot of jackpots - bad beat, quads, daily high hand). So, um...how do they make money? Or do they run it solely for fun? I can't understand why they'd do that, as it's not like players are purchasing enough alcohol for the bar to show a profit after what they pay the dealers.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
I played at the Sky Box bar in Redmond when I was visiting my parents over break, and noticed a sign saying no tipping the dealer, and another saying that 100% of the rake is refunded to players in jackpots (and there were a lot of jackpots - bad beat, quads, daily high hand). So, um...how do they make money? Or do they run it solely for fun? I can't understand why they'd do that, as it's not like players are purchasing enough alcohol for the bar to show a profit after what they pay the dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "rake" was just referring to the jackpot drop. A lot of casinos take an "administraive fee" from the jackpot pools and then distribute the rest in jackpots.

[Rezvani]

Believe it or not Oregon bars ARE counting on you to buy enough food/beer for them to pay the dealers, if they are "on the level". If they are skimming any fees out of jackpots then that is clearly illegal under ORegon law.

The only current ordinance that allows the house to charge ANYTHING is a Springfield Oregon ordinance that allows the promoter to charge $8 a head cover charge to the owner of the bar. Most attorneys in my area agree that ordinance actually violates state law, but the state isnt prosecuting and neither is the county. Here's the Springfield ordinance:
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Building/Library/080105%20Social%20Gaming%20Ordinance.pdf

The reason they say no "tipping" dealers is because of an Oregon case where the judge ruled that tipping dealers was illegal even if it was voluntary-- but in that case the "promoter" was illegally taking a % cut of the tips, and in my opinion THAT is what made it illegal, not just the tipping....

...but most bar owners are being safe rather than sorry, although there are definately some that are breaking the law.

The best thing to do is to check the municipal ordinance before you go out and play. Or better yet, call the City police and ask them if the game is legit. They'll probably guve you some BS non-committal answer but they could point you to the ordinance I bet.

Anyway-- I'll try and find a copy of that case I was talking about...

[Rezvani]

Ok, here's that case. I'm posting this for education and political purposes and I am in no way affiliated with 2+2 Forums. The text of the court's opinion is a matter of public record, though the formatting and other elements are claimed as property of "Lawriter Corporation" (whoever the hell THEY are?). Incidentally this is the only appreciable judicial decision relating to Poker laws in Oregon that I can find:

108 Or. App. 609; State v. Hansen;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 609
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES H. HANSEN, Appellant.

(90-1597; CA A67711 (Control))

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CLARA DAY, Appellant.

(90-1598; CA A67712)

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RONALD RAY BENOIT, Appellant.

(90-1599; CA A67713)


(Cases Consolidated)
Argued and submitted July 29, affirmed September 4, 1991

816 P2d 706

Defendants were convicted in the Circuit Court, Clackamas County, Raymond R. Bagley, J., of promoting gambling and possession of a gambling device and they appealed. The Court of Appeals, Warren, P. J., held that percentage of poker dealers' tips paid to defendants who managed operation of poker tables constituted house income directly resulting from games and poker games accordingly qualified as "unlawful gambling," so as to support defendants' convictions.

Affirmed.

Gaming --- Criminal responsibility --- Offenses

Percentage of poker dealers' tips paid to defendants who managed operation of poker tables constituted house income directly resulting from games and poker games accordingly qualified as "unlawful gambling," so as to support defendants' convictions for promoting gambling and possession of a gambling device, although dealers' sole compensation was tips which were customary on part of winners of each hand and it was argued that tips were proceeds of detached and disinterested generosity of players and were not mandatory. ORS 167.117(4)(c), (13), 167.122, 167.147.

CJS, Gaming § 96.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 610
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County.

Raymond R. Bagley, Judge.

Woodrow W. Pollock, Vancouver, Washington, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Cynthia A. Forbes, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

WARREN, P. J.

Affirmed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 611
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WARREN, P. J.

Defendants appeal their convictions for promoting gambling, ORS 167.122, and possession of a gambling device. ORS 167.147. The cases were consolidated for trial and appeal. We affirm.

The trial was tried on stipulated facts. Defendants Day and Benoit contracted with the owner of the Safari Club, a restaurant and lounge, to manage the operation of poker tables. Defendant Hansen also helped manage the games. Players bought poker chips from defendants for $1 a chip and could exchange them after playing at the same rate. They played a kind of poker called "hold-em." Dealers at each table dealt the cards, but they did not deal themselves a hand or in any way bet on the outcome. They also performed other services, such as officiating and selling chips. After each round, it was customary for the winner to tip the dealer one chip. A dealer could deal between 30-40 rounds an hour, and the tips were the dealers' sole compensation. Defendants received 25 percent of the tips that the dealers collected.

The statute defining promoting gambling, ORS 167.122,(fn1) and the statute defining possession of a gambling device, ORS 167.147,(fn2) require the existence of "unlawful gambling." Defendants argue(fn3) that they should not have been convicted of either crime, because the poker games did not constitute "unlawful gambling." " 'Unlawful' means not



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 612
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



specifically authorized by law." ORS 167.117(15). "Gambling" is broadly defined to include the kind of poker played here, except to the extent that the game is a "social game." ORS 167.117(4)(c).(fn4)


" 'Social game' means:

"(a) A game, other than a lottery, between players in a private home where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game; and

"(b) If authorized pursuant to ORS 167.121, a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game." ORS 167.117(13). (Emphasis supplied.)
Defendants argue that the money they received as 25 percent of the dealers' tips was not income from the operation of the games, because the tips were "the proceeds of detached and disinterested generosity" of the players. The record does not support defendants' characterization of the tips as gifts, wholly distinct from the poker operation. The fact that tips were not mandatory does not make them a gift. Be that as it may, the dealers provided services for the poker game and for which the players compensated them. The money defendants received from the dealers was income to defendants directly resulting from the games. The games were not "social games," but "unlawful gambling."(fn5)

Affirmed.

_____________________
Footnotes:

1 ORS 167.122(1) provides:


"A person commits the crime of promoting gambling in the second degree if the person knowingly promotes or profits from unlawful gambling."
2 ORS 167.147(1) provides:


"A person commits the crime of possession of a gambling device if, with knowledge of the character thereof, the person manufactures, sells, transports, places or possesses, or conducts or negotiates a transaction affecting or designed to affect ownership, custody or use of:

"(a) A slot machine; or

"(b) Any other gambling device, believing that the device is to be used in promoting unlawful gambling activity."
3 Defendants assign error to the court's "finding" that they promoted and profited from unlawful gambling. The state does not contend that we cannot review that assignment of error. Defendants' contention, in effect, is that the court should have granted their motion for judgments of acquittal, and we review the case accordingly.

4 ORS 167.117 provides, in part:


"(4) 'Gambling' means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. 'Gambling' does not include:

"* * * * *

"(c) Social games."
5 Because we conclude that the percentage of the tips paid to the house constituted house income, we need not address the state's alternative argument that the games were not "social games" because defendants operated a house bank. ORS 167.117(13)(b).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawriter Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Rezvani]

Portland has a really bizarre ordinance, which appears to allow only $1 to be bet "per game", and yet I hear that many bars in Portland have ring games going...I dunno if those are legal or not, but here's the ordinance:

14A.70.040 Social Games Authorization Limited. - Printable Version


A social game between players in a private business, private club, or place of public accommodation is authorized only when each of the following conditions are met:

A. No house player, house bank, or house odds exist; and

B. There is no house income from the operation of a social game; and

C. The game cannot be observed from a public right of way; and

D. Persons under 18 years of age are not permitted in the room or enclosure where the social game takes place; and

E. A valid permit issued pursuant to this Chapter is conspicuously displayed in the room or enclosure where the social game takes place; and

F. The room or enclosure where the social game takes place is open to free and immediate access by any police officer. Doors leading into the social game room must remain unlocked during all hours of operation; and

[b]G. No player shall bet more than $1 in money or other thing of value in any one game, and the amount awarded the winner of a game shall not exceed $1 in money or other thing of value multiplied by the number of players in the game.[b]

[BobJoeJim]

In Eugene social gambling is legal, and can occur in a place of business, rather than being limited to just home games. However any of the following features will make the game illegal: A rake, tipping the dealer (even if it's optional), or ANY offer of different prices to the poker players as opposed to other patrons (meaning no discounts or price gouging, that beer has to cost the same for the poker player as for the guy on the barstool).

http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.p...d=1&page=91 (http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_5848_319_0_43/http%3B/cesrv501/weblinkcitycode/index.asp?DocumentID=2083&FolderID=65&SearchHandle =0&DocViewType=ShowImage&LeftPaneType=Hidden&dbid= 1&page=91)