FLORIDA ALLOWING POKER GAME STAKES TO BE RAISED IN JULY!

[nineinchal]

Good news, bad news, which do you want first?

Good news, stakes are increased by 250%.

Bad news, that's now going to be $1 to $5.

Hey, I just got the inside info from a world famous fat guy who has inside info from the Hard Rock management.

I even said that's it? So please don't bust my balls. I'm just communicating the info I got.

[Truthiness24]

Instead of rumors from a fat guy, read the bills, HB 1377 and SB 752. They are in committee this week.

One raises the stakes from $2 to $10, and the other raises it to $5 limit and $100 NL. Both dramatically increase the possbilties for buyin amounts WRT tourneys. Unless the session expires, they will work out the differences in committee.

It looks likely to go through -- FL needs the tax dollars.

You could also call your reps and encourage them to pass these bills. B.S.ing with a fat guy isn't helping anyone.

[flafishy]

FYI: Legislative session ends May 4.

[GtrHtr]

$5 limit and $100 NL


gogogogogogo

[Russ M.]

Thank god you started a new thread for this.

[Packard]

Pass the Bill Pass the Bill!!!!

100 NL sounds good!!

Florida needs some bigger stakes!!

[VOX]

The bills have cleared committee and are on the floors of both chambers. The Senate bill was on the calendar today, and it was amended and "ordered engrossed", which sounds like it got merged with another bill. House bill is on the calendar for tomorrow.

Links for tracking goodness:
HOUSE: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=36480&

SENATE:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35084&

[Jeff_B]

omg $100NL seriously this could be very bad for me as I might actually enjoy playing at the casino and spend too much time there

[NY60]

FU - man WE'RE GETTIN' NL CASH GAMES BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VOX]

I spoke with a friend of mine who has worked in the Florida Legislature. He read the links and he says, based on the speed at which these bills moved through committee and the committee votes, these bills will pass by the end of next week.

This, obviously, doesn't mean anything to you all, but I think come July 1, the price of poker will be going up in Florida.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
I spoke with a friend of mine who has worked in the Florida Legislature. He read the links and he says, based on the speed at which these bills moved through committee and the committee votes, these bills will pass by the end of next week.

This, obviously, doesn't mean anything to you all, but I think come July 1, the price of poker will be going up in Florida.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally, my sources are saying the same thing. Nothing gets done faster than revenue raising legislation in a cash poor government.

By the way- - WE'RE GETTIN' NO LIMIT CASH GAMES BABY!!!!!!!!

[Flacks]

If this all turns out for the best it will take some of th sting out of the online situation since I am in Florida. IM PUMPED

[dozer]

Based on how the FL gov't has been over the past 5+ years, I am merely going to just cross my fingers. Remember the Marlins' ballpark debacle (which is still going on)? They also have to work on property tax stuff to make that more palatable, not to mention stop the gouging of home insurance (my home insurance is nearly $4000, for all of you living elsewhere and paying 10% of that).

The fact is, making the poker rooms go to a $5 max bet and a $100 NL game is not going to be as great as you all think, nor will it bring in the kind of tax dollars you all think. While it will raise interest in poker in Florida, making the poker rooms more full than normal, the amount of money it will bring in to the state will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they need (just like the U.S. legalizing online poker -- the federal tax benefits just isn't enticing enough).

Furthermore, seeing as how these rooms charge the most insane rakes in the universe on their games and tourneys now, I can see a MINIMUM $6/pp time charge per dealer in the no limit game, which makes the $100NL a farce unless you get lucky and build a monster stack. And to do that, you'll have to sit in for a few hours, then stay for a few hours, which will cost you quite a bit, all things considered.

The only positive is that the play down here is so downright awful that anyone with any sense of what they are doing should do moderately well in a $100NL game.

[Flacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on how the FL gov't has been over the past 5+ years, I am merely going to just cross my fingers. Remember the Marlins' ballpark debacle (which is still going on)? They also have to work on property tax stuff to make that more palatable, not to mention stop the gouging of home insurance (my home insurance is nearly $4000, for all of you living elsewhere and paying 10% of that).

The fact is, making the poker rooms go to a $5 max bet and a $100 NL game is not going to be as great as you all think, nor will it bring in the kind of tax dollars you all think. While it will raise interest in poker in Florida, making the poker rooms more full than normal, the amount of money it will bring in to the state will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they need (just like the U.S. legalizing online poker -- the federal tax benefits just isn't enticing enough).

Furthermore, seeing as how these rooms charge the most insane rakes in the universe on their games and tourneys now, I can see a MINIMUM $6/pp time charge per dealer in the no limit game, which makes the $100NL a farce unless you get lucky and build a monster stack. And to do that, you'll have to sit in for a few hours, then stay for a few hours, which will cost you quite a bit, all things considered.

The only positive is that the play down here is so downright awful that anyone with any sense of what they are doing should do moderately well in a $100NL game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me started on the rake /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Truthiness24]

Don't troll. We've been asking for this, and it seems likely to happen. Let's take the improvement and work with it, and in a year or two ask for more.

FWIW, the bill also raises tourney stakes to "ten times the amount" that can be risked in an individual hand. This would be either $800 or $1600 for entry in a tourney depending of which version passes.

So enough with the trolling. This isn't Vegas (we don't want it to be), and I am personally happy that we are getting SOMETHING.

[moose47]

We are one step closer. The Senate just passed this bill 29-10.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
We are one step closer. The Senate just passed this bill 29-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

SHIP IT

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
We are one step closer. The Senate just passed this bill 29-10.

[/ QUOTE ]
nice

[moose47]

Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[TruFloridaGator]

holla!

[DonButtons]

can't wait till they have big games

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

house insurance in florida is absurd. hurricanes or not, people are getting raped down there.

[VOX]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2007/04/27/0427gamble.html

The interesting part of the article:
The Florida House is less likely to approve the measures, however, and Gov. Charlie Crist was non-committal about a so-called expansion of gambling, which his predecessor, Gov. Jeb Bush, opposed.

"It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. It depends on whether or not they're things that already exist. I think my approach to it is to see what passes and then have a chance to evaluate it," Crist said.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You lost me here???

[NY60]

It looks like the Senate Bill that passed on Friday raised the maximum bet to only $5 instead of $10 which means the maximum buy in for tournaments will be $800. The language about re-buys remained in the bill.

Also, the bill preserved the language about NL cash games with a maximum buy in of $100 but limited the language to only Texas Hold'em games.

Also, (more disappointing) the hours of operations remain at 12 hours daily and the language about allowing the local municipalities to extend the hours by majority vote was stricken...so 12 hours is all. However, the language about only allowing poker operations on days when wagering is allowed at that facility's daily event was stricken so it appears that Dania can have poker on Mondays.

The language about jackpots was preserved.

[NY60]

The hours of operation (max 12) is disappointing because unless they begin at 2:00 PM and end at 2:00 AM, the tournaments will continue to have their "Turbo" blind structures in order to get the game completed before the place must close.

I don't know about anyone else, I am not going to plop down several hundred dollars let alone $800 to play in a tournament with $2500 in starting chips with blinds starting at $50 and $100 with 15 minute levels. That may be OK for the current $45 but not for $800.

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You lost me here???

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, max required buyin on a Stars $1k table is $200 I believe.

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You lost me here???

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, max required buyin on a Stars $1k table is $200 I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be interpreted that a minimum buyin can be set, not a maximum. If required buyin is, say, $80, that would mean that you would need at least $80 to buyin with no mention of maximum you can buy in for.

[maromb78]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how this reads to me. The reguired players buy in should be the minimum. The house should be able to set the maximum where they want since the player is not required to buy in for that amount.

[sapol]

Question: When will I be able to sit at a 100 max game at the Hollywood Hard Rock for the first time?
Is this official or am I too excited to read correctly?

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how this reads to me. The reguired players buy in should be the minimum. The house should be able to set the maximum where they want since the player is not required to buy in for that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine that's what was intended, but that's how it reads to me.

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: When will I be able to sit at a 100 max game at the Hollywood Hard Rock for the first time?
Is this official or am I too excited to read correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The House has a week to pass it. There seems to be some doubt that that's going to happen.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: When will I be able to sit at a 100 max game at the Hollywood Hard Rock for the first time?
Is this official or am I too excited to read correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The House has a week to pass it. There seems to be some doubt that that's going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who said that a constitutional amendment was necessary to raise the betting limits....
@#%&head

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: When will I be able to sit at a 100 max game at the Hollywood Hard Rock for the first time?
Is this official or am I too excited to read correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The House has a week to pass it. There seems to be some doubt that that's going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who said that a constitutional amendment was necessary to raise the betting limits....
@#%&head

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who seems to think this is an issue of some importance in Tallahassee. You probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.

[CybrPunk]

When this bill finally passes I'm going to laugh a little on the inside about the comments made in this thread... as well as the other about FL legislation... and then I'm going to go out and enjoy playing at the casinos...

without the need for a constitutional amendment or public referendum....

[CybrPunk]

[ QUOTE ]


This coming from the person who seems to think this is an issue of some importance in Tallahassee. You probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you missed the part in the statutes where they doubled the licensing fees per table from $500 to $1000.

That's a lot of money for the State. In a time where they're looking to reduce property taxes and not create a deficit for the state I'd imagine this is something they do care about.

I'm just amazed that the law is this close to being passed and yet you don't want to acknowledge or show support for it. This isn't like the past rumors where some guy in a cardroom who has a brother who knows a guy said it's happening. It's an actual bill that's already been passed in the Senate and has a week to be finalized and passed in the House. This is for real. Open your eyes. Show some support for this. It's an opportunity for poker to grow in our state and you're being a complete and total ass about the issue for no apparent reason except, perhaps, that you hate that you may be proven wrong.

[flafishy]

I'm looking at reality. This is like all the baseball fans down here who every year think the state's going to pay for a baseball stadium and then every year they don't. That's not to compare the two issues, but to point out the blind optimism of those folks who can't see past their nose to understand the reality of the situation.

Believe me, I'd love to see it happen. I'll be out at the cardrooms every day playing if it does. But I just don't think it will. In the current situation, the House has five days to deal with three huge issues -- property taxes, homeowners insurance, a baseball stadium. They also are getting a lot of pressure on the no-fault auto insurance issue.

The poker issue has no support in Tallahassee. None. Cardrooms do not support this particular bill because, as you pointed out, it would double their licensing fees for something that wouldn't come close to doubling their revenues. From the legislative standpoint, the extra revenues the state would get from doubling license fees on poker tables is a drop in the bucket.

I'd love to see this happen. But if I were betting on it, I'd give 10:1 that this bill just dies under a pile of other ones this week.

[Lord_Strife]

Something that you guys may not have known is this bill originated in the house so they see little resistance to this getting passed. My sources have gone so far as to say he would be absolutely shocked if this didn't pass. Someone's going to be like "stop saying your sources who are they" dont worry about it. This is an internet forum and if you can't take it at face value and with a grain of salt then you should re-evaluate your situation

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: When will I be able to sit at a 100 max game at the Hollywood Hard Rock for the first time?
Is this official or am I too excited to read correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The House has a week to pass it. There seems to be some doubt that that's going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who said that a constitutional amendment was necessary to raise the betting limits....
@#%&head

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who seems to think this is an issue of some importance in Tallahassee. You probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said ....... @#%&head !!!!

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: When will I be able to sit at a 100 max game at the Hollywood Hard Rock for the first time?
Is this official or am I too excited to read correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The House has a week to pass it. There seems to be some doubt that that's going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who said that a constitutional amendment was necessary to raise the betting limits....
@#%&head

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the person who seems to think this is an issue of some importance in Tallahassee. You probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said ....... @#%&head !!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way...when this gets passed...you are paying the first buy-ins for both Cybrpunk and ME !!!!!!!

[CybrPunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Cardrooms do not support this particular bill because, as you pointed out, it would double their licensing fees for something that wouldn't come close to doubling their revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you seriously think that an extra $500 annually per table touches the cardroom profits? I'd be shocked if that change in licensing accounts for one half of one percent of their revenue. The cardrooms support this bill because it will bring in new customers and more money. If you seriously think for a second that the licensing fees would stop them from supporting the bill you have a lot to learn about... well... a lot. I can count business and government so far that you've proven to know nothing about. I can only hope that your knowledge of poker is inline with everything else you spout off about... in which case I'll look forward to seeing you at the tables.

[mmbt0ne]

So wait, the casinos pay an extra $500 annually per table. Tables have a $6 rake. Table paid off in 84 hands.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
So wait, the casinos pay an extra $500 annually per table. Tables have a $6 rake. Table paid off in 84 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the guy is a total putz.

[moose47]

The house has this on its calendar for tomorrow (Monday). The session begins at 2:00pm so expect a vote shortly after. I would be astonished if it did not pass. There are 120 members in the house. This bill went to 3 seperate committees where it passed all three by a combined 32-6 margin. You can view the proceedings at www.myfloridahouse.gov (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov)

[Shocker101]

Go go go gogogogogogo

[Russ M.]

[ QUOTE ]
Go go go gogogogogogo

[/ QUOTE ]

[Packard]

YES YES YES!!! GO GO!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[dozer]

Stay classy, Broward County.

[bocablkr]

This would be an awesome start to higher limits....

Just played in a SNG using the Pokerpro computer table at the Hard Rock yesterday and actually enjoyed it. Big plus is not having to tip the dealer after you cash.

[UATrewqaz]

Ok explain it to me slow cuz I'm dumb.

I'm mostly a limit player. The current laws in Florida only allow them to spread 2/2 limit (as opposed to 2/4, 3/6, 5/10, etc.).

if this bill gets passes and signed, what will card rooms be able to spread, as far as limit goes? Will they be able to spread 2/4 or 3/6? What about 5/10?

And if I'm reading correctly there are currently no NL cash games in Florida, only some god awful SNG's, but this bill will allow for like 1/2 NL with a 100 max buy in?

[moose47]

2/4 would be allowed but not 3/6. This bill would increase the max limit to $5 from $2 so I guess they could spread as high as 5/5.

As for no-limit, 1/2 with a 100 max buy-in would be allowed.

[ekdikeo]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, seeing as how these rooms charge the most insane rakes in the universe on their games and tourneys now, I can see a MINIMUM $6/pp time charge per dealer in the no limit game, which makes the $100NL a farce unless you get lucky and build a monster stack. And to do that, you'll have to sit in for a few hours, then stay for a few hours, which will cost you quite a bit, all things considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the table charge in Detroit. Plus contribution to the Bad Beat jackpots.

Kinda sick, $6 per half hour, really.

[bocablkr]

Moose47 is correct - note, I said a start to higher stakes.

By-the-way, the SNG's are not that bad at the Hard Rock. The vig is a little high, but there is some big money there as well as a lot of tourists.

[CORed]

If this passes, I'm going to be upset. This will leave Colorado as having the undisputed worst legal poker in the country. ($5 max bet, no NL or PL). I've always been able to console myself by sayin "At least I don't live in Florida". No more.

[NY60]

Coming up for vote RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!

[moose47]

Passed! 77-38

[TOPTWO]

please!please!please!please!please!

[NY60]

PASSED PASSED PASSED PASSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking at reality. This is like all the baseball fans down here who every year think the state's going to pay for a baseball stadium and then every year they don't. That's not to compare the two issues, but to point out the blind optimism of those folks who can't see past their nose to understand the reality of the situation.

Believe me, I'd love to see it happen. I'll be out at the cardrooms every day playing if it does. But I just don't think it will. In the current situation, the House has five days to deal with three huge issues -- property taxes, homeowners insurance, a baseball stadium. They also are getting a lot of pressure on the no-fault auto insurance issue.

The poker issue has no support in Tallahassee. None. Cardrooms do not support this particular bill because, as you pointed out, it would double their licensing fees for something that wouldn't come close to doubling their revenues. From the legislative standpoint, the extra revenues the state would get from doubling license fees on poker tables is a drop in the bucket.

I'd love to see this happen. But if I were betting on it, I'd give 10:1 that this bill just dies under a pile of other ones this week.

[/ QUOTE ]


PASSED PASSED PASSED PASSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU OWE ME ONE BUY IN THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TOPTWO]

wooooohooooo! thaaaaaaaannk yooooooouuuu!

[Atomic]

Okay, Charlie - sign it now!!

[UATrewqaz]

Any idea when the bill will be signed and/or take affect? Or approximations as to when card rooms will begin spreading the new games?

Anyone got friends in high places in the card rooms down there?

[Atomic]

It would take effect July 1st.

[NY60]

Law takes effect................JULY 1, 2007

[Atomic]

Write Gov. Charlie Crist - you can use this contact form.

http://www.flgov.com/contact_form

[SpleenLSD]

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/B...lSearchIndex=13 (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35084&SessionIndex=-1&SessionId=54&BillText=&BillNumber=&BillSponsorIn dex=0&BillListIndex=0&BillStatuteText=&BillTypeInd ex=0&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=H&BillSearch Index=13)

[dspade]

do you guys think this will open the door for higher staked NL games?

[Packard]

[ QUOTE ]
2/4 would be allowed but not 3/6. This bill would increase the max limit to $5 from $2 so I guess they could spread as high as 5/5.

As for no-limit, 1/2 with a 100 max buy-in would be allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this correct? A $5 max on a limit game? If these laws changed from a $2 to a $5 bet- thats still lame /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I want to see the rake structure for the NL games.

[Russ M.]

Yeah the bump from $2 to $5 is kinda gay but maybe it'll open some doors. They might as well make it $6 so we can have 3-6 but whatever. NL100 is nice though.

Sign it Crist gogogo

[Truthiness24]

The key is the increase in tourney stakes. Games will now be very much worthwhile.

[1p0kerboy]

So are we expecting to see a 2/5 structure?

What do you think the blinds will be for the no-limit game?

[NY60]

If I recall the last time the laws were changed to allow the $2 limit, the Seminoles only waited until the Governor signed the bill into law and therefore did not wait until the effective date of July 1st which is when all newly enacted legilation takes effect in Florida. If so I think we can see games sooner than the July 1st effective date.

[PokerAmateur4]

The hardrock was open 24 hours before for poker sngs, yes? Does this bill make it so that now it's only 12 hours?? Or was cash games only open some lesser amount of time?

Also are the 1050-1100 games now gone? That's what someone above said this bill indicates? $800 max?

What's going on, if someone can clear up how this affects hardrock MTT and STT I would appreciate it very much.

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
The key is the increase in tourney stakes. Games will now be very much worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]I thought it reduces it, someone said it brings it down from unlimited to $800.

[Atomic]

The two Hard Rocks have always run 24 hours even though the pari-mutuel card rooms could only operate 12 hours a day. The new poker bills at one time had a provision to allow pari-mutuel cardrooms to be in operation up to 16 hours a day but that was stricken. I do not think the new bill will change the Hard Rock hours of operation.

The limit games at the Hard Rock follow the current rule of $2 max but as for max buy-in in tounaments - that has always been a gray area since tournaments were never really authorized by statute. The pari-mutuel card rooms have always run at $45 while the Hard Rock has had $1000 tournaments. Now that the bill actually sets a limit, currently interpreted at $800, I don't know if the Hard Rock will fall in line or continue to operate as they are now.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
The hardrock was open 24 hours before for poker sngs, yes? Does this bill make it so that now it's only 12 hours?? Or was cash games only open some lesser amount of time?

Also are the 1050-1100 games now gone? That's what someone above said this bill indicates? $800 max?

What's going on, if someone can clear up how this affects hardrock MTT and STT I would appreciate it very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are excellent questions the answers to which, in all likelihood, can only be found at the top echelon of the Seminole Tribal Counsel and the State's Attorney's Office and Attorney General and/or Governor's Office.

Lets face it, the tribe has always taken the position that under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, they could conduct any gaming that is allowed under State law.

Remember they used to run games for a quarter ($.25) when the law set the maximum pot level at ten dollars.

After the law was changed to max $2 bet they started to run no limit tourneys with buy ins up to $500 (and later $1050).

However limt games always followed State law on the max $2 bet. Even when the State regulations came out that pari-mutuals could only hold tourneys with a $45 buyin, an issue that was extensively litigated, the tribe didnot follow the State regulations on tournaments but continued to honor the State Statute on the max $2 bet for limit games.

Here is the "kicker" which leaves everyone scratching their heads. The Federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, has a specific exemption for poker which says that the tribes must follow State law regarding both "hours of operation" AND "betting limits".

So, the issue presented, and this has been written about in many of the poker periodicals, is whether the 24 hour operation and no limit tourneys with buy ins greater than $45 is illegal which it appears so after reviewing the federal amd state laws.

Now what could have been done about this? The only recourse would have been either the State filing suit to enjoin the games or worse, an actual raid of the casinos. I am not sure what are the legal ramifications of an actual raid given both the indian sovereignty issue (they are a seperate country) as well as the political fallout from such action. But it would appear that the tribe was concerned about some type of political pressure otherwise they would have never followed the max $2 bet to begin with.

It appears that perhaps an unwritten compromise was reached at the top law enforcment and executive levels.

Going forward it doesnt appear that anything will change.

I'm sorry that's the best I could ever find out after speaking with the top management at the Hard Rock or figure out after reviewing the laws in this area.

[VOX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The hardrock was open 24 hours before for poker sngs, yes? Does this bill make it so that now it's only 12 hours?? Or was cash games only open some lesser amount of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are excellent questions the answers to which, in all likelihood, can only be found at the top echelon of the Seminole Tribal Counsel and the State's Attorney's Office and Attorney General and/or Governor's Office.

Lets face it, the tribe has always taken the position that under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, they could conduct any gaming that is allowed under State law.
...
Here is the "kicker" which leaves everyone scratching their heads. The Federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, has a specific exemption for poker which says that the tribes must follow State law regarding both "hours of operation" AND "betting limits".

So, the issue presented, and this has been written about in many of the poker periodicals, is whether the 24 hour operation... is illegal which it appears so after reviewing the federal amd state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alternatively, we could look at the text of the law.

"Any horserace, greyhound race, or jai alai permitholder licensed under this section may operate a cardroom at the pari-mutuel facility on any day for a cumulative amount of 12 hours if the permitholder meets the requirements under paragraph (5)(b)."

This section of the law doesn't apply to the Seminoles, as they do not run horses, dogs, or jai-alai players. As a result, the gaming should still run 24 hours.

If the law was written such that it said that "Poker may only be played from XAM to YPM", then the Seminoles might be stuck. That's not the case, however.

That would be my argument anyway. How long does Crist have before he can no longer veto and it goes into law without his signature?

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]


Alternatively, we could look at the text of the law.

"Any horserace, greyhound race, or jai alai permitholder licensed under this section may operate a cardroom at the pari-mutuel facility on any day for a cumulative amount of 12 hours if the permitholder meets the requirements under paragraph (5)(b)."

This section of the law doesn't apply to the Seminoles, as they do not run horses, dogs, or jai-alai players. As a result, the gaming should still run 24 hours.

If the law was written such that it said that "Poker may only be played from XAM to YPM", then the Seminoles might be stuck. That's not the case, however.

That would be my argument anyway. How long does Crist have before he can no longer veto and it goes into law without his signature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...I guess you could look at it that way....But, (you knew there was going to be a but), since these are the ONLY laws dealing with cardroom poker and operating hours in a commercial establishment, I think a Judge would be hard pressed to accept this argument. If you follow this logic to its natural conclusion then you would also be able to argue that the max $2 bet limit doesn't apply to the Seminoles either because they do not run horses, dogs, or jai-alai players either!!

Lets be realistic, a Judge or the Secretary of the Interior or whoever, would ask "What are the existing Florida laws regulating commercial establishments who are allowed to offer poker?", and then he/she would, at least under Federal Law, apply those same standards to an Indian Tribe.

[TPaulk99]

Ok, so now I am confused. Does this law allow for a NL cash game or just raise the stakes for NL tournies?

[NY60]

Oh, sorry, I also forgot to mention that the Governor has seven days (if the legislature is still in session otherwise ten days if not in session) to sign the bill "ONCE THE BILL IS PRESENTED TO HIM". Now I'm a little unsure how one tracks when a bill is presented to the Governor once passed by both Houses.

The best I could find out from the House and Senate Websites is that once a bill passes in must be "Enrolled" which means that the Clerk of the Chamber where the bill originated must gather the Attestation from the fellow chamber as to the authenticity of the bill's written contents before it can be presented to the Governor.

I don't how long this whole process takes but I can only imagine that it shouldnt take more than a couple of days.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so now I am confused. Does this law allow for a NL cash game or just raise the stakes for NL tournies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both - NL cash games (Texas Hold'em only no Omaha Stud or otherwise) with a buyin of $100, and Tourneys with a maximum buyin of $800.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so now I am confused. Does this law allow for a NL cash game or just raise the stakes for NL tournies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, also the law allows re-buys so we can see $100 buyin tournaments or more with multiple re-buys. Remember rebuys were prohibited under the prior statute.

[Truthiness24]

The law really only applies to the cardrooms at the tracks.

The Indians have a separate deal, and I expect them to maintain the status quo.

IMO, the bill was brought so that the tracks, who were limited with the 32+13 MTTs, could compete with the Indians.

[Jzo19]

ZOMG...i cant wait to kill the donks at the hard rock in NL ...

playing 40 hands an hour is going to suk tho compared to playing 500 an hour online 6 tabling ....

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is exactly how it reads, 25/50 NL with a $100 buyin should be allowed.

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought. This is the plain text from the Senate version that has passed.

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

It seems to me that technically this could open the door for buy-ins greater than $100. Say for instance a cardroom lets you buy-in for anywhere from $100-$300. In that case no player is required to buy-in for more than $100. I don't think that is the spirit of the law but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is exactly how it reads, 25/50 NL with a $100 buyin should be allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this makes sense.

The law says the maximum buy-in is $100. What that means is that a player can buy in for $100 and can only buy-in again when he or she loses it all. This is currently the law in Michigan based on when I was there 2+ years ago.

What I think we're likely headed for is a $100 NL game with $1/$2 blinds and either a $6 rake or a $6/pp time charge per 30 mins. They will also spread 2/4 limit and 5/5 limit. We're also going to see more $100+$20 NL tourneys. All of this is good news except for the horrible rakes.

End result: These poker rooms are going to be making a fortune compared to what they HAVE been making. But I won't play anywhere without an autoshuffler, and my dealer tips will be limited.

[soulvamp]

I am friends with some dealers at Pompano, and they say almost exactly what Dozer said. They are expecting 2/4 and 5/5 limit games with 10% rake up to $5 plus $1 jackpot drop and $100 NL games with $5 rake plus $1 jackpot drop per dealer shift (every 30 minutes). In the NL games, you can only top off your stack if you go bust or at the beginning of a new dealer shift.

Also, blind structures in the tournaments won't be much different than they are now. They still only have limited time to complete tourneys because they must end by closing time and they can't be carried over to another day.

After all the excitement about opening up the game here somewhat, it's still not going to be very playable from everything I'm hearing. 2/4 will be on the high side with rake, but at least that could be manageable. I don't think the NL is going to be playable at all.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
The law says the maximum buy-in is $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

The law says the 'required buy-in'. In order to play 100NL online, the required amound is only $20, or 1/5 of the maximum buy-in.

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law says the maximum buy-in is $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

The law says the 'required buy-in'. In order to play 100NL online, the required amound is only $20, or 1/5 of the maximum buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Also, my dealer friends told me that the required buyin means you will be required to buy in for $100, no more, no less.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh. Also, my dealer friends told me that the required buyin means you will be required to buy in for $100, no more, no less.


[/ QUOTE ]

That could very well end up being the case if that's the policy the casino adopts.

I'm not saying they won't, but the wording in the legislation certainly has a hole.

[soulvamp]

One more thing: The $100 NL will have 1/2 blinds.

[RobertC]

Does anyone know when the Governor is expected to sign the legislation or where to go to find out when and if he signs it?

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law says the maximum buy-in is $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

The law says the 'required buy-in'. In order to play 100NL online, the required amound is only $20, or 1/5 of the maximum buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has already been some talk of this issue and as an attorney who has extensively covered and counseled clients on the Florida State laws in this area, I have to say that this interpretation is a perversion of the intended meaning and spirit of the legislation.

Lets face it, this legislation is a long awaited step in the right direction for poker players and I think everyone would agree that there is still alot more room for improvement.

Having said that I dont think it wise to jeopardize future legislative concessions by pushing the envelope too far too soon. The ink isnt even dry on this bill (let alone signed by the governor).

I know that the problems already experienced by the pari-mutuals and indeed the center of their previous litigation centered on the interpretation of tournament buyins.

The State took the position that the maximum bet being $2 with a maximum amount of 3 raises per betting round would add up to a possible total amount a person could possibly lose on one hand as $32. This is why the maximum tournament buyins was $45......$32 being the total amount possible to lose on the very first hand of the tournament plus $13 fee for the poker room to cover overhead.

This new legislation sets a maximum required buyin of $100 meaning that the most a person could possibly lose on the very first hand after buying in would be $100. To allow a person to buy in for more (lets say $500) would in theory mean that they could lose more than $100 on the very first hand which I dont think complies with the "spirit" of the statute.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just saying how the State has interpreted its own laws in the past as a guide for how they will interprete this law in the future.

Also, with the max $5 bet for limit players does not conincide with allowing NL player to buyin then bet an unlimited amount say $5000 if they wanted to. You have to read the legilation in context of the spirit of the statute.

I know alot of folks are looking at this new law and reading it in light of how internet poker was traditionally set up where a site would post a required buyin while allowing the person to actually buyin for more up to and including their entire account balance if they so wanted giving them a huge deep stack advantage.

As poker players we all know the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy but I remind you that the folks in Tallahassee are just getting up to speed on this "new" poker craze centered on Texas Hold'em (they even call it that the law itself), and I assure you they are not that poker savy to know the dichotomy between a buyin and a required buyin.

Believe me they are looking at this and saying the most we want a person to lose at one time is 100 bucks up from the original $32 we allowed under the previous legislation.

Besides I dont think the cardrooms would push this the envelope that far without at least a written attorney general's opinion on how the State would view this.

The conservative political base is none too happy about the expansion of slot machines and the impending release they have to give the Seminoles by taking their handcuffs off now that slots are legal and the federal laws that help the indian tribes when it comes to gaming, so I dont suggest we pissed in their ears too much too soon.

Also, this is of course just my opinion.

[1p0kerboy]

NY,

I agree with what you said.

I do think the intent of the bill is to have players buying in for no more than $100. Unfortunately it is not quite worded that way.

Doing something otherwise might be considered an angle-shoot, but while you say the poker rooms won't take on the risk of doing that, I might disagree based on their past actions. They started running tournaments before the new legislation, thereby actually not abiding by the $2 bet rule in the past.

[soulvamp]

I kind of agree with pokerboy. I think if it occurs to one of the cardroom managers what the bill actually says, I don't think he would have any hesitation to open up the buyin. Just like what happened with the tournament issue a year or so ago, it's not going to cause any laws to be repealed or anything. They just shut down the tournaments for a week or so while things got clarified in Tallahassee. I think if they lifted a max cap on the buyin, they might be told to bring it back down to $100 and then a bunch of lawyers will huddle for a few days until they come up with some sort of compromise.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
NY,

I agree with what you said.

I do think the intent of the bill is to have players buying in for no more than $100. Unfortunately it is not quite worded that way.

Doing something otherwise might be considered an angle-shoot, but while you say the poker rooms won't take on the risk of doing that, I might disagree based on their past actions. They started running tournaments before the new legislation, thereby actually not abiding by the $2 bet rule in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. This has historically been the problem with the Florida State Legislature. The language of their bills are usually not written very well. We see this all the time. You even see all the gramatical error corrections in this very bill.

Try arguing with a Judge when a bill is not very clear. It also makes bad law because it allows too much room for interpretation. What one human being reads is not necessarily what another sees and you get caselaw decisions all over the place on the very same topic and statutory language.

[Russ M.]

Thanks NY60 for your continued updates, as well as others who have provided links and not made everybody search for info. Much better than "OMG DEALER TOLD ME YADDA YADDA" that's been posted here a few times. I'd also rather not see ambiguous language result in cardrooms trying to take advantage of it. There's no way legislators would go from $2 max to uncapped NL, so obviously that's not the intention. I did notice though that it does say in my cardroom for the LHE games "$40 buy-in is required" but obviously I can buy-in for anything, but that's limit. I'm sure it'll be straightened out, just hopefully it won't prevent the bill from being signed by the Governor.

[NY60]

Thank you. I am grateful for having this open forum. There are a lot of well informed and well intentioned individuals who post here regularly and I am thankful for their enthusiasm in support of poker. Hopeful we can reach our goals not only here in Florida but with internet poker as well.

[dozer]

I echo my thanks to NY60. We should all meet somewhere on 7/1/07 and celebrate together.

Now then, enough with the fuzzy bullcrap.

We have all played in the 2/2 games here. Does anyone really believe that the 2/4 or 5/5 fixed limit games will be in any way different from how the idiots play 2/2 here? In my mind, the answer is no. People will still crack AA with 68o. People will still chase gutshot draws. The pots will be bigger, but so will the swings. It's going to be exactly the same, except for more moolah. If you've been a consistent winner at 2/2, then you should be confident. You should also consider yourself lucky.

The $100NL game will also be a wreck, but one that can be beaten by anyone with a decent knowledge of NL poker. But, you're going to want to double up or win several pots within the first 90 minutes or else you'll be down to around half your stack thanks to the rake. I guess if the topping off is allowed, then that can offset the rake. But it's still a monster pain in the butt.

Like I said, we should plan a 2p2 meetup at one of the poker rooms on Sunday July 1. I'd like to play in the first NL cash game hand at a place.

[Grasshopp3r]

[ QUOTE ]

playing 15 hands an hour (if you are lucky) is going to suk tho compared to playing 500 an hour online 6 tabling ....

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

This is great news. I now have a better reason to vacation in your state.

[dstab]

Why does everyone interpret the tourney limit to be $800? The way I read it, It says A tournament shall consist of a series of games The entry fee for a tournament, including any re-buys, may not exceed the maximum amount that could be wagered by a participant in 10 like-kind, nontournament games under paragraph (b). Paragraph b sets the no-limit game max at $100. That means that a no-limit tourney can be set at 10x the most that can be wagered in a no-limit game (like-kind), which is 10x100 or $1000. I'm a Florida lawyer and that's how I read it.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
If you've been a consistent winner at 2/2

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to beat the 2/2 with the rake at 10% and dealer tips?

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've been a consistent winner at 2/2


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



Is it possible to beat the 2/2 with the rake at 10% and dealer tips?


[/ QUOTE ]

It is. But it isn't fun or worthwhile.

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone interpret the tourney limit to be $800? The way I read it, It says A tournament shall consist of a series of games The entry fee for a tournament, including any re-buys, may not exceed the maximum amount that could be wagered by a participant in 10 like-kind, nontournament games under paragraph (b).

[/ QUOTE ]

The stakes will now be $5 limit, The most you can lose in a hand will be $80 at those stakes ($5 x 4 bets x 4 betting rounds). Ten times that would be $800.

If you interpret "like kind" to mean $100NL, then ten times would be $1000.

FWIW, I interpreted the $100 NL language to mean that it would be a cap NL game like Tilt has, but I could be wrong.

There is a lot of room for interpretation, and surely each cardroom will try to push the envelope in its own way. I'm a FL lawyer too ... my guess is that it will come out differently than any of us are thinking ... but it's still fun to talk about.

[dstab]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone interpret the tourney limit to be $800? The way I read it, It says A tournament shall consist of a series of games The entry fee for a tournament, including any re-buys, may not exceed the maximum amount that could be wagered by a participant in 10 like-kind, nontournament games under paragraph (b).

[/ QUOTE ]

The stakes will now be $5 limit, The most you can lose in a hand will be $80 at those stakes ($5 x 4 bets x 4 betting rounds). Ten times that would be $800.

If you interpret "like kind" to mean $100NL, then ten times would be $1000.

FWIW, I interpreted the $100 NL language to mean that it would be a cap NL game like Tilt has, but I could be wrong.

There is a lot of room for interpretation, and surely each cardroom will try to push the envelope in its own way. I'm a FL lawyer too ... my guess is that it will come out differently than any of us are thinking ... but it's still fun to talk about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that the casinos will initially interpret the statute to max their profits. I think its pretty clear though that since they included the language "like kind", and a player can lose up to $100 in a NL hand, the max NL tourney should be $1000. If you want to push it even further, since $100 is only the max buy-in, a player that is up from his/her buy-in can technically lose a lot more than $100 on a single NL hand, but this is probably going too far with the intent of the statute. I think they ought to hire someone that knows poker to help them write this language.

BTW, what happened to the bill regarding allowing major televised tourneys? I can't imagine pros wanting to come to a locale that did not allow high stakes cash games anyway.

[SpleenLSD]

[ QUOTE ]
We have all played in the 2/2 games here. Does anyone really believe that the 2/4 or 5/5 fixed limit games will be in any way different from how the idiots play 2/2 here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The play may not be, but the EV may. Currently many players chase draws or 2-4 outers and have the pot or implies odds to do so, whether they know it or not. An escalating bet structure on the turn and river will allow chasing players to make more bad decisions.

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have all played in the 2/2 games here. Does anyone really believe that the 2/4 or 5/5 fixed limit games will be in any way different from how the idiots play 2/2 here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The play may not be, but the EV may. Currently many players chase draws or 2-4 outers and have the pot or implies odds to do so, whether they know it or not. An escalating bet structure on the turn and river will allow chasing players to make more bad decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ain't no escalatin' in a 5/5 game.

[facepull]

i will be in monticello florida at the jckc on july 1st.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have all played in the 2/2 games here. Does anyone really believe that the 2/4 or 5/5 fixed limit games will be in any way different from how the idiots play 2/2 here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The play may not be, but the EV may. Currently many players chase draws or 2-4 outers and have the pot or implies odds to do so, whether they know it or not. An escalating bet structure on the turn and river will allow chasing players to make more bad decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ain't no escalatin' in a 5/5 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you say...enough of the warm fuzzy stuff......and also, if that is your real cleavage, please stay away from my table, that's just an unfair advantage!!

Anyway, if I could suggest something. At the Palm Beach Kennel Club they play[ed] $1/$2 hold'em with only one blind AND as a spread limit for the first two betting rounds meaning you could bet $1 or $2 preflop and on the flop.

It allowed the pots to get bigger before the increased level and with the one blind you are able to better beat the rake because it only cost you $3 dollars to see thirty (30) hands as opposed to $9. Plus with the spread limit you could force someone preflop to pay $7 dollars for a crappy hand instead of just $4 under the structured betting.

Once we go to $5 limit maybe the cardrooms can experiment with $1 - $5 spread limit for the first two betting rounds? You can better control pot odds and set up bluffs alot easier.

[NY60]

The $100 NL buyin cash game will be insanely profitable. I made a poker mecca trip to LA a few months back and spent 7 days doing nothing but checking out all the cardrooms.

At the Bicycle Casino and the Commerce I exclusively played the $100 NL cash buy in with $1 / $2 blinds and made over $4000.00 It was insane and they play a very aggressive loose game out there and everyone knows how to play.

Let the games begin here!!!!!!!

By the way, in LA the food quality and prices, as well as, the service was out of this world. We're talkin massages at table at 3:00 AM. Shoe shines 24hrs. At the Bicycle, cash games with a $100 or more buyin received automatic comps of the entire menu (except the Sushi). We're talkin free steak dinners everynight at the table. Absolutely the best Chinese food I have ever ever had. It was totally unreal. I doubt we will ever get to that level here but hey one can always dream.

[facepull]

they comp you [censored] at kennel clubs. you play for everything. the way i see it you are gonna have to call a lot with top pair top kicker hands because they will be going al-in with top pair 5th kicker. trust me on this. i played a lot of the stupid tournies florida had and couldnt believe the things i saw. also at first with only 50 times the big blind i guess its wait to your are dealt a real big hand then double up and start to play real poker. its real funny on how they want to limit the loss of one hand to 100 yet i have seen some players lose 1000 playing 2-2 limit hold'em in florida. also what happens if one player had 500 and the other has 550 and they get it all-in?

[Russ M.]

lol @ comps at the tracks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I remember the first time I ordered something and got a price afterwards. I was like, "Huh?" I only order something to drink at the cardroom if I'm about to pass out and all the water fountains are down. And its not raining.

I agree with having the betting rounds structured normally. Same blinds on every street is f'ing retarded, and of course having $10 max rounds would have been ideal, as it would have allowed 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, and 5/10. Now we will only get 1/2, 2/4, and then some kind of oddly game, either 2/5 or 5/5. I'd much rather have 2/5 so that the game maintains the betting structure that it's supposed to have. Same limit on every street is OK for $2, but meh to $5.

[NY60]

I totally agree, $10 max would have given so many more options and 2/5 is going to be a little kooky.

If only the blinds stay in after the flop and rake there will be a $3 pot (must be $10 before jackpot gets raked). If both players check the flop they will have to create an additional $10 pot to win $2 after having to pay the extra jackpot rake! That is so stupid.

I really like the spread limit because preflop you can protect a hand by potentially making the crazies pay $23 to see the flop.

[onadraw]

[ QUOTE ]


If only the blinds stay in after the flop....

[/ QUOTE ]

These are Florida players we are talking about. Rarely only the blinds in after the flop. Often 5 or more at showdown.

[NY60]

Yeah, I guess that is kinda funny isnt it!!!!

[Russ M.]

My buddy was in a 1/2 game and had JJ in the blind. Folded all the way around to the button (!!!) who limps (lol). Buddy raises. Button gets agitated and says "You 'gun raise me when it just us two?" My buddy shrugs. Guy calls. Flop is T-9-2r. Bet, call. Turn 4. Bet, call. River 3. Bet, call. T3o good, sir.

I love this state.

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
My buddy was in a 1/2 game and had JJ in the blind. Folded all the way around to the button (!!!) who limps (lol). Buddy raises. Button gets agitated and says "You 'gun raise me when it just us two?" My buddy shrugs. Guy calls. Flop is T-9-2r. Bet, call. Turn 4. Bet, call. River 3. Bet, call. T3o good, sir.

I love this state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever seen a hand folded around to the button in a Florida B&M ring game.

[NY60]

I cant wait to be able to punish these players at the no limit tables...hopefully they stick around.

[Russ M.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My buddy was in a 1/2 game and had JJ in the blind. Folded all the way around to the button (!!!) who limps (lol). Buddy raises. Button gets agitated and says "You 'gun raise me when it just us two?" My buddy shrugs. Guy calls. Flop is T-9-2r. Bet, call. Turn 4. Bet, call. River 3. Bet, call. T3o good, sir.

I love this state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever seen a hand folded around to the button in a Florida B&M ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw it once (not the hand I posted). I asked for the tape.

[NY60]

Ok lets do the meet up thing for July 1, 2007!!

I've already emailed all the local cardrooms in Broward including Seminole but not Pompano, their website seems to be down. I've also emailed the Palm Bech Kennel Club as well. I've asked all the poker room managers to explain how they plan to handle the betting structures and the NL games.

Once I start to get some responses, I'll post them and we can move from there. I'll also try to find out if Seminoles plans to start at midnight since July 1st is a Sunday so they might start on Saturday night at midnight which might make it extremely crazy.

I don't know how they will handle that unless they plan on opening new tables instead of converting up and running tables. Their Saturday night tournament ($65 buyin) should be getting close to the last couple of tables so they should have the room to hold vacant tables in anticipation of opening them up at midnight. I'm sure its going to be nuts. I guess they would have to maintain an early sign up board which means the cash table desk is going to be working overtime. I hope they dont get nasty again like they used to be.

The Hard Rock is kinda crazy on a Saturday night so we will have to wait to see how they plan on handling the evening.

I'll stop in when the time gets close if I cant get any info by email.

[Sense1ess]

This is such awesome news if I'll be able to play NL at Miccousukee or Hard Rock.

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, in LA the food quality and prices, as well as, the service was out of this world. We're talkin massages at table at 3:00 AM. Shoe shines 24hrs. At the Bicycle, cash games with a $100 or more buyin received automatic comps of the entire menu (except the Sushi). We're talkin free steak dinners everynight at the table. Absolutely the best Chinese food I have ever ever had. It was totally unreal. I doubt we will ever get to that level here but hey one can always dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah cause two-day old pizza and soup-in-a-styrofoam-cup is EXACTLY what I want when I'm playing down here.

Steak?! FREE Steak?! Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Let's stick to being happy with the $100NL game for now. I'll do some backflips when they roll out AUTOSHUFFLERS.

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok lets do the meet up thing for July 1, 2007!!

I've already emailed all the local cardrooms in Broward including Seminole but not Pompano, their website seems to be down. I've also emailed the Palm Bech Kennel Club as well. I've asked all the poker room managers to explain how they plan to handle the betting structures and the NL games.

Once I start to get some responses, I'll post them and we can move from there. I'll also try to find out if Seminoles plans to start at midnight since July 1st is a Sunday so they might start on Saturday night at midnight which might make it extremely crazy.

I don't know how they will handle that unless they plan on opening new tables instead of converting up and running tables. Their Saturday night tournament ($65 buyin) should be getting close to the last couple of tables so they should have the room to hold vacant tables in anticipation of opening them up at midnight. I'm sure its going to be nuts. I guess they would have to maintain an early sign up board which means the cash table desk is going to be working overtime. I hope they dont get nasty again like they used to be.

The Hard Rock is kinda crazy on a Saturday night so we will have to wait to see how they plan on handling the evening.

I'll stop in when the time gets close if I cant get any info by email.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you NY. I want to be there when it starts ... figured others will too. Might as well, right? It's like CHRISTMAS for us considering the seventh-ring-of-hell poker we've been fed for years.

[Russ M.]

Too far for me to go, but I will be playing at the Jacksonville Kennel Club for anybody else that will be there.

[bocablkr]

The Governor still has to sign it, doesn't he?

[Russ M.]

Considering how strongly the bill passed in both branches, I'd have to believe that there is zero chance Crist will veto or fail to sign it, if he hasn't already.

[NY60]

Here are some of the responses I have gotten so far.

This is what I wrote to the Palm Beach Kennel Club:

"Thank you for your response Noah:
First let me say that I have reviewed the Florida Department of Revenue's Website regarding Slot Machine and Poker tax revenues and that although the PBKC does not have slots, it is by far the leading cardroom as far as revenues are concerned. This despite the fact that you are not allowed to stay open any later than any other pari mutuel facility.

I believe there is a reason for that. First your room's decor is second to none. The only one that comes close is Dania as far as money spent to create a cardroom atmosphere. But, I must admit that I have not yet been to the new Pompano cardroom yet.

More importantly, I believe it is because of the forward thinking regarding the structure of the games. I only play Hold'em so I can only speak to that.

I have to say that many of us who discuss poker issues in the online forums recognize the difficulty of turning a profit at the lower levels. With a 1/2 structure and a $20 buyin, at approximately 30 hands per hour the rake alone is eating up 5 buyins, or more, per hour depending upon how many maniacs are at the tables. That leaves only 5 buyins, or less, for 10 people to fight over. With the new jackpot rakes another $30 per hour will now be leaving the table as well.

PBKC has surpassed all other rooms in addressing this issue. First, you instituted a single blind structure which means that if an individual does not receive a playable hand for an hour it only costs them $3 as opposed to $9. At the 1/2 level, overcoming a $9 deficit on top of the rake (and now a jackpot) is difficult for even the most seasoned players.

Second, and more importantly, you have instituted a spread limit structure on the first two betting rounds which means players can better control the size of the pots and punish those who insist on playing way too loose. This is very attractive because the pots can grow larger since the maximum bet rises to $7 on the first two rounds, as opposed to $4. Bigger pots mean more of a chance of beating the rake.

Under the new legislation, the betting limits will rise from $2 to $5. We all were hoping for $10 since that would have allowed for games of 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 4/8 and 5/10. The later being the most attractive. With the $5 max, it seems that only 1/2 and 2/4 games will be offered. Thus, we will be facing the same problems at the 2/4 level that we did at the 1/2 level as far as beating the rake and jackpot draws. Besides 2/5 doesn't seem to make much sense.

Because of this, a $1 - $5 spread limit game appears to be the most attractive choice as opposed to a straight 5/5 game. I believe the cardrooms in general would have much more success with the spread limit than the straight 5/5 game. Of course there are the draw backs of having the dealers and players learn the spread limit but I don't see that as any more than a very short term impediment. Besides, at the PBKC they are already accustomed to this style.

Please take these thoughts into consideration when deciding how best to handle the new betting limits.

I look forward to playing at your facility!"



Their reply:

Thank you for your compliments on our cardroom.

We are currently in the process of discussing betting structures and what games will be spread within the cardroom. We are close to being on the same page as you in regards to the structure of our games. We look to play the games and limits that you, as the player, want to play.

I appreciate your input and look foward to seeing you at our tables.

If you have any other suggestions or questions please feel free to contact me directly.

Thank you.

Noah Carbone
Cardroom Director <NoahC@pbkennelclub.com>

[SpleenLSD]

Nice email NY60. PBKC is 5 minutes from my house and I look forward to finally beating the rake. I'll make sure to talk to Noah next time I'm in there. I've talked to 8 dealers about the changes and they were 6-2 in favor of the higher limits and NL game. Typically, the thing everyone is talking about is the bad beat jackpot. I wouldn't have cared at all, but yesterday my straight flush lost to a bigger straight flush. I'm a newly-minted jackpot donkey.

[Atomic]

Nice letter NY60.

I played for a few hours today at Derby Lane. The dealers are all excited with the possible increase in limits in the hopes of bigger tokes. If the tokes at the NL games are anything like they are at the Action Poker games then it looks like the dealers will be the big winners here.

Very few of my tablemates were aware of the poker legislation but almost all of them seemed to view the stakes increase as favorable. The consensus among the table was to have a pink chip game on the limit tables.

I think that would be great to have a 2.50/5 game. I think a 1-5 game would be even better as no one I was seated with seemed to understand the concept of the spread structure.
I am really hoping for a good period of old-time Party Poker type play after the limits change as some of the players try to learn to play within the new structures, and I'm just talking about the limit games. Can you imagine what the NL tables are going to be like?

[Etaipo]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine what the NL tables are going to be like?

[/ QUOTE ]

in a word: uuuuuungawa

[Russ M.]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that would be great to have a 2.50/5 game. I think a 1-5 game would be even better as no one I was seated with seemed to understand the concept of the spread structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in favor of any structure that has an increase in betting for the turn and river. If they want to break out some pink chips for 2.5/5, that's fine by me. I just laugh at the thought of these donks trying to play 1/2NL.

[TOPTWO]

im gonna be taking alot of social security money off those no limit tables.

[Truthiness24]

I know you can't price your opponents out of hands this way, but of all the (limit) options thtat appear to be available I'd prefer the max, 5/5 straight limit. Even though it is more luck-driven (really, starting hand-driven), the games that will be the easiest to beat will be the ones that have the highest pots. Bigger pots are the only way to get past the $5+1 rake.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that would be great to have a 2.50/5 game. I think a 1-5 game would be even better as no one I was seated with seemed to understand the concept of the spread structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in favor of any structure that has an increase in betting for the turn and river. If they want to break out some pink chips for 2.5/5, that's fine by me. I just laugh at the thought of these donks trying to play 1/2NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

HIT the nail on the head Russ, here is another response from PBKC:

I am impressed at your knowledge for the game. I would also like to thank you for the wonderful compliments you have given to the cardroom.

We do strive, and will continue to strive, to be the best cardroom in the state.

A quick question for you in regards to structure. Have you ever played limit hold'em at the Tropicana in Atlantic City? They spread a game using pick ($2.50) chips. It is a $7.50 and $15 game. How would you feel about a $2.50 and $5.00 game with $1 and $2.50 blinds? The game at the Trop
has some great action.

Please let me know your opinion on something like this.

Noah

[Russ M.]

Nice to see some powers that be in the p-m's are actively seeking advice from players and not just blindly making games up. Do you think the p-m's are getting together about what kinds of stakes will be offered?

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
(my home insurance is nearly $4000, for all of you living elsewhere and paying 10% of that).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes (and your 10% estimate is ludicrous, as you probably know), but please do remember that the rest of us are tiring of subsidizing Florida and North/South Carolina and other high risk states' insurance via our federal taxes. Our resources are not unlimited, and in my humble opinion, it's about time for the owners to share in paying the true cost of their purchases.

I vacationed in NC four consecutive summers in the early 2000's. I was quite surprised to learn that in this area, despite 3 incredibly destructive hurricanes/major weather events in the prior decade, every condo owner in the area was ahead net in the past 10 years. That was me (and hundreds of millions like me) who paid the bills. Uncle Sam doesn't guarantee my investments against loss - but I'm just a stock buyer, not an owner of investment property in a high risk zone.

Can't those of us who subsidized your investment at least receive a "thank you"? Honestly, after all our help, the ingratitude stings.

One annoying aspect of welfare is that the recipients never seem to appreciate the help they've been given. You should be stepping back and appreciating the gravy train that you were on, not complaining that it's coming to an end.

Think about it.

[onadraw]

huh???

[NY60]

OK - now back to poker...........

Good call Russ!! I think the $2.50 / $5.00 will work well. Hopefully, all the P-M will get their acts together on this.

Anyway the $100 NL cash games should pretty much be standard across the board.

[Truthiness24]

You aren't subsidizing our insurance as much as you are our lack of state income tax.

But thanks a bunch anyway.

[Truthiness24]

Anyway ... IMO this thread should be about a great step in the right direction. This is a really good thing for us here in FL.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't subsidizing our insurance as much as you are our lack of state income tax.

But thanks a bunch anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I would think you would be better-read on the topic, given the events of the past 15 years, and presuming you're a homeowner in FLA. There are very good reasons why your insurance rates are going up - and they're still not finished approaching the true market rate.

[soulvamp]

What are you talking about?

[CybrPunk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't subsidizing our insurance as much as you are our lack of state income tax.

But thanks a bunch anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I would think you would be better-read on the topic, given the events of the past 15 years, and presuming you're a homeowner in FLA. There are very good reasons why your insurance rates are going up - and they're still not finished approaching the true market rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to debate our insurance rates so you can make yourself feel better about the property you own in Florida, take it to OOT and start a new thread instead of trying to threadjack this one. Your masculine chest-beating and grunting is hardly appreciated here. This thread is about the victory for poker players in Florida. At long last we don't have the worst poker legislation in the nation.

Now if only we could figure out how to punch those voting ballots.....

[dozer]

Insurance talk + Trash talk re: taxes = dying thread.

See you all 7/1/07$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't subsidizing our insurance as much as you are our lack of state income tax.

But thanks a bunch anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I would think you would be better-read on the topic, given the events of the past 15 years, and presuming you're a homeowner in FLA. There are very good reasons why your insurance rates are going up - and they're still not finished approaching the true market rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to debate our insurance rates so you can make yourself feel better about the property you own in Florida, take it to OOT and start a new thread instead of trying to threadjack this one. Your masculine chest-beating and grunting is hardly appreciated here. This thread is about the victory for poker players in Florida. At long last we don't have the worst poker legislation in the nation.

Now if only we could figure out how to punch those voting ballots.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You should probably direct your comments to the person who started talking about insurance rates.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
The hours of operation (max 12) is disappointing because unless they begin at 2:00 PM and end at 2:00 AM, the tournaments will continue to have their "Turbo" blind structures in order to get the game completed before the place must close.

I don't know about anyone else, I am not going to plop down several hundred dollars let alone $800 to play in a tournament with $2500 in starting chips with blinds starting at $50 and $100 with 15 minute levels. That may be OK for the current $45 but not for $800.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you referring to Dania? This does not apply to the Rock. Dania poker tourneys are ridiculous anyway. I played one and never went back. In the first hour the blinds went to 400-800. The Rock has some MTT's with very good structures in comparison.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just amazed that the law is this close to being passed and yet you don't want to acknowledge or show support for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And exactly where is the support and who has been lobbying for this? I will gladly do my part in joining the fight but seems that it;s always a big secret. You don't see anything at the hard rock asking for support.

[soulvamp]

Slacker13:

You do know that this has passed and is only awaiting the governor's signature? And that it has nothing to do with the Hard Rock's tourneys or hours of operation?

[Truthiness24]

Yeah, they don't care at Hard Rock ... the tribe does more or less what they please in these matters, and it only gives lip service to FL law. If they were following FL law to the letter right now, they wouldn't be doing those $200, $500, and 1k STTs.

In fact, the passage of this law creates more competition for the tribe.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
Slacker13:

You do know that this has passed and is only awaiting the governor's signature? And that it has nothing to do with the Hard Rock's tourneys or hours of operation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know.

[Money2Burn]

Screw the Series, I'm heading to either the, St. Johns County dog track or the Daytona dogtrack, 1-2 100 max buy in is going to be insane, it will be nearly impossible not to leave with 1k or better every night.

[Phaedrus11]

Hey, the hard rock 500 and 1K tourneys are decent but I'm looking forward to the 1-2. I remember when the old bingo hall (pre HR days) started the 140s. Ohhhh fishalocious...
My only regret is that I'll be in Vegas until the 9th. Hope you guys leave some purple chips for me. Oh and Juan is still a tool.

[CybrPunk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm just amazed that the law is this close to being passed and yet you don't want to acknowledge or show support for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And exactly where is the support and who has been lobbying for this? I will gladly do my part in joining the fight but seems that it;s always a big secret. You don't see anything at the hard rock asking for support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slacker... if you read through the threads regarding florida poker you would realize that comment was directed at flfishy and not anyone else... or do you naturally assume comments posted weeks ago on an internet message board, in a thread where you aren't even remotely involved, are intended just for you?

Well in that case... show some support, you slacker!

Oh wait.... it's over. Darn.

[Fishhead24]

[ QUOTE ]
Screw the Series, I'm heading to either the, St. Johns County dog track or the Daytona dogtrack, 1-2 100 max buy in is going to be insane, it will be nearly impossible not to leave with 1k or better every night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, seems EVERYbody thinks this will be easy pickings. If so, where do the losers come from?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slacker13:

You do know that this has passed and is only awaiting the governor's signature? And that it has nothing to do with the Hard Rock's tourneys or hours of operation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Sorry. I guess I don't understand your post, then.

[Packard]

If you have ever played live Florida poker players then you would know exactly where the losers come from.

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Screw the Series, I'm heading to either the, St. Johns County dog track or the Daytona dogtrack, 1-2 100 max buy in is going to be insane, it will be nearly impossible not to leave with 1k or better every night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, seems EVERYbody thinks this will be easy pickings. If so, where do the losers come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. That's kind of what I've been thinking. I predict there will be a few folks who are going to be humbled and mumbling to themselves along about the middle of July.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm just amazed that the law is this close to being passed and yet you don't want to acknowledge or show support for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And exactly where is the support and who has been lobbying for this? I will gladly do my part in joining the fight but seems that it;s always a big secret. You don't see anything at the hard rock asking for support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slacker... if you read through the threads regarding florida poker you would realize that comment was directed at flfishy and not anyone else... or do you naturally assume comments posted weeks ago on an internet message board, in a thread where you aren't even remotely involved, are intended just for you?

Well in that case... show some support, you slacker!

Oh wait.... it's over. Darn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you the guy I beat all time at HR? If I ever need to know where the ATM machine is I will ask you.

There is still a plenty of lobbying to do for the future. It would be nice to know if there is a group,website,committee, etc...dedicated to this. If so, who the hell are they.

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Screw the Series, I'm heading to either the, St. Johns County dog track or the Daytona dogtrack, 1-2 100 max buy in is going to be insane, it will be nearly impossible not to leave with 1k or better every night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, seems EVERYbody thinks this will be easy pickings. If so, where do the losers come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. That's kind of what I've been thinking. I predict there will be a few folks who are going to be humbled and mumbling to themselves along about the middle of July.

[/ QUOTE ]

TWO WORDS: SENIOR CITIZENS
TWO MORE: DUMB PEOPLE

Florida is chock full of both.

In closing, $$$$$$$.

[Fishhead24]

Very true, as I play at DERBY LANE frequently and know this.

Amazing they can get 120 people a day to play in a $45 tourney with a 29% rake and 15 minute blind intervals........can you say "CARNIVAL POKER".

[NY60]

Latest response from Dania Jai Alai:

"Yes we will be having a $1-$5 spread limit game.Do not forget about our $1-$2 no limit game."

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
Latest response from Dania Jai Alai:

"Yes we will be having a $1-$5 spread limit game.Do not forget about our $1-$2 no limit game."

[/ QUOTE ]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYES!!!!

What's the rake going to be on their NL game?

See ya there on 7/1/07

[dozer]

I wrote Dania Jai-Alai as well asking about their tourney structures and rakes ... here's their response:

"Until the Division promulgates rules on these various improvements, we are hesitant to be very specific.

We will be competetive with the market as to rake. At present the law allows us to either impose a flat charge or a rake, but not both.

We have spoken with the Division and expect rules workshops to being very soon. We will know at that time any limitations or restrictions placed on our games/tournaments."

[FlyinJ]

Was this signed by the Gov? I read through the tread but didn't see it, maybe I just missed it.

[ThreeBeers]

I think the legislators made a mistake in the language of the Bill that was passed by both the Senante and the House. Section 849.086(8)(b)provides, in part, that " . . . a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the <u>required</u> player buy-in is no more that $100." The word "required" is not the same as "maximum" The word as used in the section would not cap the amount of the buy-in. Furthermore, there are no limits on the blind levels. In theory, a cardroom could have a unlimited NLHE game so long as the cardroom operator did not require a buy-in larger than $100.

ThreeBeers

[ThreeBeers]

I will edit this post since I mis-typed. The bill can become law without the Gov's signature.

ThreeBeers

[onadraw]

[ QUOTE ]
IT has not been signed yet and must be signed by May 14, 2007 or it dies.

ThreeBeers

[/ QUOTE ]



not true

[ThreeBeers]

You are right. It can become law without a signature.

ThreeBeers

[SpleenLSD]

[ QUOTE ]
" . . . a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the <u>required</u> player buy-in is no more that $100." The word "required" is not the same as "maximum"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I guess this means that we could have 2/5 or 5/10 NLHE as long as you can buy in for &lt;=$100. Kewl.

[soulvamp]

This thread is doubling back on itself.

[Rabid_Hippo]

No one has bothered to address your point ThreeBeers ... that the legislation, as passed, states in pertinent part as follows:

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

This clearly allows uncapped NL games w/a min buyin of $100.

Everyone is focusing on $1/2 NL ... but the potential for this legislation is much greater. I believe we will see 5/10 NL games at the Seminole Casinos in the near future, followed by an attempt by the State to shut them down, and after a hearing, a determination that the plain language of the statute allows uncapped NL games. After this, the dogtracks will probably follow suit.

[sevencard2003]

that would be great, id LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO A CASINO OTHER THAN WENDOVER NV where the poker room has $1-5 and $2-10 spread limit hold em, other than that fixed limit BS $2-4 3-6 and 4-8 almost every place in vegas and CA has that CANNOT BE BEAT IN THE LONG RUN like spread limit games can.what a great florida law.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
No one has bothered to address your point ThreeBeers ... that the legislation, as passed, states in pertinent part as follows:

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

This clearly allows uncapped NL games w/a min buyin of $100.

Everyone is focusing on $1/2 NL ... but the potential for this legislation is much greater. I believe we will see 5/10 NL games at the Seminole Casinos in the near future, followed by an attempt by the State to shut them down, and after a hearing, a determination that the plain language of the statute allows uncapped NL games. After this, the dogtracks will probably follow suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like we are repeating issues already covered. I guess this is because more and more people are finding out about the new legislation and logging on to find news and information.

Here is what I previously wrote on the issue:

There has already been some talk of this issue and as an attorney who has extensively covered and counseled clients on the Florida State laws in this area, I have to say that this interpretation is a perversion of the intended meaning and spirit of the legislation.

Lets face it, this legislation is a long awaited step in the right direction for poker players and I think everyone would agree that there is still alot more room for improvement.

Having said that I dont think it wise to jeopardize future legislative concessions by pushing the envelope too far too soon. The ink isnt even dry on this bill (let alone signed by the governor).

I know that the problems already experienced by the pari-mutuals and indeed the center of their previous litigation centered on the interpretation of tournament buyins.

The State took the position that the maximum bet being $2 with a maximum amount of 3 raises per betting round would add up to a possible total amount a person could possibly lose on one hand as $32. This is why the maximum tournament buyins was $45......$32 being the total amount possible to lose on the very first hand of the tournament plus $13 fee for the poker room to cover overhead.

This new legislation sets a maximum required buyin of $100 meaning that the most a person could possibly lose on the very first hand after buying in would be $100. To allow a person to buy in for more (lets say $500) would in theory mean that they could lose more than $100 on the very first hand which I dont think complies with the "spirit" of the statute.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just saying how the State has interpreted its own laws in the past as a guide for how they will interprete this law in the future.

Also, with the max $5 bet for limit players does not conincide with allowing NL player to buyin then bet an unlimited amount say $5000 if they wanted to. You have to read the legilation in context of the spirit of the statute.

I know alot of folks are looking at this new law and reading it in light of how internet poker was traditionally set up where a site would post a required buyin while allowing the person to actually buyin for more up to and including their entire account balance if they so wanted giving them a huge deep stack advantage.

As poker players we all know the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy but I remind you that the folks in Tallahassee are just getting up to speed on this "new" poker craze centered on Texas Hold'em (they even call it that the law itself), and I assure you they are not that poker savy to know the dichotomy between a buyin and a required buyin.

Believe me they are looking at this and saying the most we want a person to lose at one time is 100 bucks up from the original $32 we allowed under the previous legislation.

Besides I dont think the cardrooms would push this the envelope that far without at least a written attorney general's opinion on how the State would view this.

The conservative political base is none too happy about the expansion of slot machines and the impending release they have to give the Seminoles by taking their handcuffs off now that slots are legal and the federal laws that help the indian tribes when it comes to gaming, so I dont suggest we pissed in their ears too much too soon.

Also, this is of course just my opinion.

[NY60]

Also, it doesn't make sense for the legislature to allow completely unlimited buyins and by definition unlimited losses on a single hand of poker at the NL CASH TABLES but yet limit the maximum bet to $5 on the LIMIT CASH TABLES.

That just seems completely irreconcilable.

[ThreeBeers]

I agree with his comments that it is clearly not within the spirit of the law; however, what he does not go on to discuss (possibly becasue it is too long a process)are the clear rules of construction when the courts interpet a law. Once the bill becomes law, the law will be pushed past its limits. I agree with Rabid, that the 2 Hard Rock Casinos (built at a cost of 140 million each) will challenge the law. The Counsler (rightly) did not want to stir the hornet's nest and educate the unwashed about the rules of poker and the inartful drafting or artful depending on the drafter's intent. What will control is the meaning of the word "required." If not defined, the word will be given its natural meaning. If you read the Legilative Summary, the individual that summarizes the language under discussion clearly misinterprets the clear language. Most legislators do not take the time to parse a bill. They simply vote based on the summary. A poor analysis (parole evidence) will not be given weight over the plain unambigious language of the statute.

ThreeBeers

[Rabid_Hippo]

So, I guess a good follow-up question relates to the reaction of the legislature once the bill is pushed further than they expected. It will be difficult for them to get this horse back into the barn.

I believe the governor has until May 15th to veto this bill ... otherwise it becomes law effective July 1 without his signature.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with his comments that it is clearly not within the spirit of the law; however, what he does not go on to discuss (possibly becasue it is too long a process)are the clear rules of construction when the courts interpet a law. Once the bill becomes law, the law will be pushed past its limits. I agree with Rabid, that the 2 Hard Rock Casinos (built at a cost of 140 million each) will challenge the law. The Counsler (rightly) did not want to stir the hornet's nest and educate the unwashed about the rules of poker and the inartful drafting or artful depending on the drafter's intent. What will control is the meaning of the word "required." If not defined, the word will be given its natural meaning. If you read the Legilative Summary, the individual that summarizes the language under discussion clearly misinterprets the clear language. Most legislators do not take the time to parse a bill. They simply vote based on the summary. A poor analysis (parole evidence) will not be given weight over the plain unambigious language of the statute.

ThreeBeers

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree that the Indians will push this as far as they can but not for the reasons that you may think.

Under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, three different Classes of gaming have been defined. Class I deals with bingo and poker. Class II deals with traditional Indian games perfromed for cultural or religious purposes (no one has been able to explain to me what these are so don't ask, I simply don't know) and CLASS III which are ALL other gaming activities which are neither Class I nor Class II.

Under the Federal law, the individual States must allow the Indians to offer any form of gaming which is legal under State law. In Florida bingo is legal. That is why the Indians are allowed high stakes bingo AND to offer SLOT MACHINES based on bingo odds. Also, Florida law allowed penny ante poker games anywhere in the State even in one's home so long as the pot did not grow larger than $10. This is why the Indians had those great $.10 and $.25 poker games with pot limits of $10 until the law was changed to allow the pari-mutuals to spread limitless pot poker games with a maximum allowed bet of $2 with 3 raises...effectively limiting a persons stake in any given pot to $32 for a traditional 4 round betting card game.

Since the Florida voters voted to allow slot machines in Broward County (clearly Class III gaming) the Indians have taken the position that since SOME form of Class III gaming is allowed somewhere in the State, they are thereby allowed ALL types of CLASS III gaming. They have now sued to compel the Federal Secretary of the Interior to create rules to allow them full blown gambling complete not only with "Las Vegas" style slot machines, but table games like black jack, etc. This is why the anti-gambling efforts were so upset with the passage of the Constitutional Amendment allowing slot because it meant the full blown gambling would hit the Florida shores. Orange County with Disney based operations stood the most to lose since they do not want their family vacations ruined by mom or dad staying out too late at the casino and then not getting out of bed to take the kids to the parks.

Undoubtedly, the Indians will also take the position that they are now allowed to offer limitless poker options since all Class III gaming is on the table for them now that the slots have passed.

But here is the rub. With respect to poker only, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the tribes must follow State laws regarding BOTH betting limits and hours of operation. It is unclear whether this provision applies in States where only Class I games are legal, or whether the provision is eviserated once CLASS III gaming becomes authorized. I am not sure there is an answer for this in that no one has yet paid me to do the research to confirm this.

However, we must keep in mind that although the tribes have not followed Federal law regarding hours of operation, they most certainly have diligently followed State law regarding betting limits AT LEAST at the limit cash tables. We all know that they have had free reign to offer a vast variety of tournament buy ins and it is because of this fact that I believe you are right when you say that they will probably push the envelope here as well.

In short (how funny is that), the Indians will push for more poker options not because of the wording of the current statute, but rather because of the privileges they are afforded under the IGRA.

[Truthiness24]

But don't you think that the Tribe has been clearly flaunting FL law &amp; the IGRA provisions WRT hours of operation (24/7) and stakes ($100 to $1k STTs) ?

If what you are saying is true, then it seems to me that FL should have contested this already ... and it seems to me that the Tribe is only marginally giving lip service to FL poker law to "keep the peace," most likely via some form of temporary backroom deal.

[Truthiness24]

Btw, nh

[Truthiness24]

True. I also think that the miswording WRT to "minimum required buy-in" was probably accidental by the legislature but intentional by the drafter. (Did we have someone on the inside?) This sort of unintended affect happens all the time. Legislators are constantly trying to pass new laws to change what they screwed up in the last session.

I think that intent isn't going to be relevant. A court is going to have to make a ruling based upon the plain meaning of the statute. "Intent" only becomes relevant if the plain meaning is unambiguous. It isn't. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

If one of the tracks doesn't contest it, then I think any one of us that are affected by the law can. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I also think that the only way to change it will be for the legislature to amend it. And by then it will have been in operation for awhile and the legislature will have a chance to see that it is highly popular and not at all evil. We can also send busloads of cranky witnesses to the committee meetings.

It's a lot harder to take something away than to give it in the first place.

This may be a battle at first, but I think we stand a really good chance of having some form of unlimited NL poker by the fall.


[ QUOTE ]
I think the legislators made a mistake in the language of the Bill that was passed by both the Senante and the House. Section 849.086(8)(b)provides, in part, that " . . . a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more that $100." The word "required" is not the same as "maximum" The word as used in the section would not cap the amount of the buy-in. Furthermore, there are no limits on the blind levels. In theory, a cardroom could have a unlimited NLHE game so long as the cardroom operator did not require a buy-in larger than $100.


[/ QUOTE ]

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
But don't you think that the Tribe has been clearly flaunting FL law &amp; the IGRA provisions WRT hours of operation (24/7) and stakes ($100 to $1k STTs) ?

If what you are saying is true, then it seems to me that FL should have contested this already ... and it seems to me that the Tribe is only marginally giving lip service to FL poker law to "keep the peace," most likely via some form of temporary backroom deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right.

I have been saying this since the first day the limits went to $2 and they offered NL tourneys with $140+ buyins.

You have to remember that when it comes to the tribe, enforcement is always a very very hot political issue.

When I was a young pup, I worked as a clerk in the NYS Attorney Generals Office in Albany NY. The then Governor Mario Cuomo was having a dispute with the Seneca Indians near Niagara Falls over the cigarette tax. The Governor actually activated the NYS National Guard and had the reservation surrounded with road blocks for weeks. Nothing moved in or out except for essentials.

When it comes to a tribe (and don't hold me to this because no one has paid me to research this either), I don't think the State police can conduct a raid. That would probably amount to an invasion with the State facing steep financial penalties in Federal Court. I remember some time ago that the Seminole tribal leader was wanted by police for a crime and he hide on the reservation for almost a year before they caught him off the reservation.

I guess what I am trying to say is that when we are dealing with the interpretation of this poker statute we have to seperate the tribe from the pari-mutuels.

I don't think the pari-mutuels are going to push too hard especially since no one can justify the drastic differences between allowing a LIMIT cash player to lose a maximum $80 on one poker hand while at the same time allowing a NL cash player to lose $8000 on a single hand. There simply is no ambiguity in the effect of a broader reading of the statute.

[facepull]

why not do a $100 buyin $200 max buyin 1/2 no limit then? also what happens when 2 stacks who bought in for the 100, get the stacks up to several hundred then go at it heads up? one of them is gonna lose more then 100 right? once again florida lawmakers leave humongous loopholes in laws they pass without really thinking about what they are passing

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that intent isn't going to be relevant. A court is going to have to make a ruling based upon the plain meaning of the statute. "Intent" only becomes relevant if the plain meaning is unambiguous. It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

If the plain meaning is "unambiguous" then there is no doubt as to the plain meaning.

It seems that you are saying it isn't - i.e., that the plain meaning is ambiguous (unless this is just a typo).

Besides, "intent" is always always always the core issue when dealing with statutory construction.

[Truthiness24]

Absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am trying to say is that when we are dealing with the interpretation of this poker statute we have to seperate the tribe from the pari-mutuels.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
also what happens when 2 stacks who bought in for the 100, get the stacks up to several hundred then go at it heads up? one of them is gonna lose more then 100 right? once again florida lawmakers leave humongous loopholes in laws they pass without really thinking about what they are passing

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a very very good issue that no one has yet talked about.

I guess the only justification is that when two stacks buyin for $100 and build their stacks up to $800 each and then go heads up (without a chopped pot), then the loser is still only out the $100 he/she came into the game with.

This argument of course presupposes that chips are not yet "money" in the pocket of the player until cashed in for good old green backs which is a very very weak argument making this a very very interesting issue that the Courts may have to deal with.

Excellent point!

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
why not do a $100 buyin $200 max buyin 1/2 no limit then? also what happens when 2 stacks who bought in for the 100, get the stacks up to several hundred then go at it heads up? one of them is gonna lose more then 100 right? once again florida lawmakers leave humongous loopholes in laws they pass without really thinking about what they are passing

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they don't think. That's why they're legislators. We smear lipstick on the pig to get it elected, and then the staffs, attorneys, and lobbyists do all of the heavy lifting. (Mostly.) Unless they read this board, they probably don't even know what they've done yet. Unless they do. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

And as for your "why not" hypothetical, I think that they can do what you say, but if they can, they can do just about anything else WRT limits too. It's really all about what one track has the stones to try to get a leg up on the others.

I really don't think it's that big of deal. If the legislature intended for it to be "CAP NL" then they would have said so. This is a non-issue IMO.

I know that we're happy to be getting what we are getting, but I'm starting to think that we shouldn't necessarily stop there. This is a boon to some of us. It is in our nature, isn't it, to push when we know we have an advantage?

That said, if I was setting strategy on this, it would be to lay low until the legislative session ends (so that they can't change what they've done) and then make a big stink about it when the administrative rules are made in June.

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that intent isn't going to be relevant. A court is going to have to make a ruling based upon the plain meaning of the statute. "Intent" only becomes relevant if the plain meaning is unambiguous. It isn't.


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



I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

If the plain meaning is "unambiguous" then there is no doubt as to the plain meaning.

It seems that you are saying it isn't - i.e., that the plain meaning is ambiguous (unless this is just a typo).

Besides, "intent" is always always always the core issue when dealing with statutory construction.


[/ QUOTE ]

Intent only becomes an issue when the "plain meaning" is unclear or ambiguous. I don't think that it is. "Maximum required buy-in" is exactly what it says.

I don't have a monopoly on that which is right, FWIW. I invite someone (or many people) to put on the black hat of the moral crusaders of religious right and big-daddy government (the bad guys in our scenario) and make an argument from within the four corners of SB 752 that the "plain meaning" of the statute WRT "maximum required buy-in" is somehow unclear or ambiguous and that we need to look at intent.

And THEN, can you show what exactly the intent was otherwise?

[Mendacious]

FYI, I visited HR today. Just about every table was in use, mostly from the crappy 1/2 and 2/2 hold-em games.

I asked the floor person when they would be introducing NL cash games and he was totally clueless. Unless the rake is better, I would not automatically assume that they will be encouraging a mass switch to NLHE cash games from the limit games where they steadily rake $5 off the table hand after hand. There is a lot of Fold-em in NL, I am not sure that it is a more lucrative game for the house. Obviously a 5$ bet limit game would increase their take though.

[Truthiness24]

I was in there yesterday (Tampa), and the floor said flatly, "July 1st." She also said that she had no idea what specifically was going to happen, but that it would be July 1st.

I also noticed that they are building some 2 story addition-type thing on the south edge of the property. Could they be ... expanding?

[Atomic]

HR Tampa IS expanding - addding a high end steak joint, more convention space and a small events center for boxing and concerts.

[Truthiness24]

They seem to be at the impression at HR that people are going to come to East Tampa to do something besides gamble. Maybe if there's enough $ in the joint, as when you raise the stakes, it can fly.

[Atomic]

I don't think the expansion plans at the HR Tampa had anything to do with poker limits increasing. It probably has to do with the expected move to Class III slots if Gamblin' Charlie makes good on the compact negotiations with the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes.

Speaking of making good. The Florida Baptists are calling out Gov. Crist to make good on his campaign promise to oppose the expansion of gaming in Florida.

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/7325.article

The article is pretty straight forward but the fun part is the comment section at the St Petersburg Times Political Blog about the Baptist article.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2007/05/gambling_on_cri.html

Mixing debate on politics, religion and gambling - good stuff.

[Russ M.]

Hooray for the Bible Belt! While we're at it, get rid of the intranets and that dern TV box! Excuse me while I get back to churning butter.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that intent isn't going to be relevant. A court is going to have to make a ruling based upon the plain meaning of the statute. "Intent" only becomes relevant if the plain meaning is unambiguous. It isn't.


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



I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

If the plain meaning is "unambiguous" then there is no doubt as to the plain meaning.

It seems that you are saying it isn't - i.e., that the plain meaning is ambiguous (unless this is just a typo).

Besides, "intent" is always always always the core issue when dealing with statutory construction.


[/ QUOTE ]

Intent only becomes an issue when the "plain meaning" is unclear or ambiguous. I don't think that it is. "Maximum required buy-in" is exactly what it says.

I don't have a monopoly on that which is right, FWIW. I invite someone (or many people) to put on the black hat of the moral crusaders of religious right and big-daddy government (the bad guys in our scenario) and make an argument from within the four corners of SB 752 that the "plain meaning" of the statute WRT "maximum required buy-in" is somehow unclear or ambiguous and that we need to look at intent.

And THEN, can you show what exactly the intent was otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry pal, I know you mean well but you still have not answered how you can expect to limit the "LIMIT" players to $80 per hand but allow the "NL" players to sit down plop $8000 on a table and then bet the whole thing on the first hand? Its a perversion of the statutory intent. Plain and simple.

Its the last time I am going to say this, legislative intent is always always the question. It is never never ignored.

You are just plain wrong when you say that a Judge can simply ignore the legislative intent until an ambiguous term arises.

I'm sorry don't get mad at me I don't make the laws I just practice them.

[Rabid_Hippo]

NY60 - I can't disagree with you more when it comes to statutory interpretation. The rules of construction are clear that the plain language of a statute controls. Only when the language of a statute is ambiguous is legislative history considered. Trust me ... as a young pup fresh out of law school I spent my first two years of practice as a federal law clerk dealing with this issue all of the time. The courts don't care what the legislature "intented" if the law they passed is clear in its language.

I agree that it's pretty obvious that there's a drafting "error" in the statute ... but the language is what it is.

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's pretty obvious that there's a drafting "error" in the statute ... but the language is what it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Its the last time I am going to say this, legislative intent is always always the question. It is never never ignored.

You are just plain wrong when you say that a Judge can simply ignore the legislative intent until an ambiguous term arises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can either of you -- NY60 in particular -- cite case law? The question is: should a court will look to legislative intent when a statute is unambiguous?

I'm pretty sure I'm right WRT the state of the law on this, but I wouldn't mind learning something new.

[Rabid_Hippo]

Geez ... I usually only like to do this when someone is paying /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The following is taken from FlaJur - which can have dubious conclusions at times - but I really don't want to do any independent research on this:

The legislative intent, which is the primary factor of importance in construing statutes, must be determined primarily from the language of the statute. S.R.G. Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1978); Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 693 (1918); State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969 (1908); State v. Dalby, 361 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1978).

The legislative intent must be determined if possible from what is said in the statute. Vocelle v. Knight Bros. Paper Co., 118 So. 2d 664 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1960).

Whenever possible, the meaning of a statute must be gleaned from its plain language. Levine v. Levine, 734 So. 2d 1191, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1999).

Thus, if the intent of the legislature is clear and unmistakable from the language used, it is the court's duty to give effect to that intent. Englewood Water Dist. v. Tate, 334 So. 2d 626 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1976).

A statute is to be taken, construed, and applied in the form enacted. Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976); Blount v. State, 102 Fla. 1100, 138 So. 2, 80 A.L.R. 830 (1931); State v. Dalby, 361 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1978).

This is so because the legislature must be assumed to know the meaning of words and to have expressed its intent by the use of the words found in the statute. S.R.G. Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1978); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976); Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 693 (1918); State v. Dalby, 361 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1978).

Though the courts' role in the lawmaking process is recognized, and they have a limited power to adjust statutory provisions to fit changing concepts, the courts cannot use the machinery of construction to amend, modify, or repeal valid statutes. In addition, it is well settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom of an enactment. Sheffield-Briggs Steel Products, Inc. v. Ace Concrete Service Co., 63 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1953). Their function is only to ascertain the will of the legislature. They must construe the law as given by the legislature and may not substitute judicial cerebration for the law or require the enforcement of what they think the law should be.

Under Florida law, the plain meaning of the statutory language is the first consideration of statutory construction. Edwards v. Safeguard Ins. Co., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2004). Basic canon of statutory interpretation requires District Court of Appeal to presume that legislature says in statute what it means, and means in statute what it says there. Haskins v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 898 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005).

The preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires court to presume that the legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. Broz v. Rodriguez, 891 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005), review denied, 907 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2005).
A court's function is to interpret statutes as they are written and give effect to each word in the statute. Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Florida Mun. Power Agency, 789 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2001).

Courts must apply a statute as they find it, leaving to the legislature the correction of assorted inconsistencies and inequalities in its operation. Guilder v. State, 899 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005).

Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resort to the rules of statutory interpretation, since to do otherwise would constitute an abrogation of legislative power. The plain and obvious provisions must control.

Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So. 2d 1064, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S447 (Fla. 1995); In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So. 2d 961, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S376, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S427 (Fla. 1995); Zuckerman v. Hofrichter &amp; Quiat, P.A., 646 So. 2d 187, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S634 (Fla. 1994), on remand to, 672 So. 2d 888, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1996), appeal after remand, 710 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1998), reh'g denied, (June 10, 1998) and review denied, 728 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1998); Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Bryant, 170 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1964); State v. Stuler, 122 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1960); Marshall Lodge No. 39, A. F. &amp; A. M., v. Woodson, 139 Fla. 579, 190 So. 749 (1939); A.R. Douglass, Inc., v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157 (1931); Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 693 (1918); Leigh v. State ex rel. Kirkpatrick, 298 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1974); White v. Campbell, 215 So. 2d 66 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1968); Douglas v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 191 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1966); Biddle v. State Beverage Dept., 187 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1966), cert. dismissed, 194 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1966); Alligood v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 156 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1963).

Where the legislative intent is plain, the courts may not apply their own construction or rearrange the words, or add punctuation marks that would result in a departure from the natural meaning of the language used. Wagner v. Botts, 88 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1956).

Where legislative intent as evidenced by statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no necessity for any construction or interpretation of the statute, and courts need only give effect to plain meaning of its terms. State v. Egan, 287 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973).

Where the language of a statute is clear and unequivocal, the legislative intent may be gleaned from words used without applying incidental rules of construction. Reino v. State, 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1977) (abrogation recognized on other grounds by, Mercer v. State, 654 So. 2d 1221, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1995)).
Nicoll v. Baker, 668 So. 2d 989, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S96 (Fla. 1996); Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984).

Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984); Phil's Yellow Taxi Co. of Miami Springs v. Carter, 134 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1961); State ex rel. Beth v. Burnett, 141 Fla. 870, 194 So. 277 (1940); In re Ratliff's Estate, 137 Fla. 229, 188 So. 128 (1939); Smith v. Fechheimer, 124 Fla. 757, 169 So. 395 (1936); Brooks v. Anastasia Mosquito Control Dist., 148 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1963); Vocelle v. Knight Bros. Paper Co., 118 So. 2d 664 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1960).

The court is bound by the unambiguous terms of a statute. Cassady v. Consolidated Naval Stores Co., 119 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1960).

In ascertaining the legislative intent, the courts are bound by the plain and definite language of the statute and are not authorized to engage in semantic niceties or speculations. If the language of the statute is clear and unequivocal, the legislative intent must be derived from the words used without involving incidental rules of construction or engaging in speculation as to what the judges might think the legislature intended or should have intended. Tropical Coach Line, Inc. v. Carter, 121 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1960).

If the terms and provisions of a statute are plain, there is no room for judicial or administrative interpretation. Southeastern Utilities Service Co. v. Redding, 131 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1961).


Thus, the court is without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications.

American Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1968).

Now, if ambiguous, we get to the rules of statutory construction and an inquiry into legislative history.

When a statute does not define a term, the Supreme Court must resort to canons of statutory construction to derive the proper meaning. Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 863 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2003).

Under Florida law, the purpose of construing a statute is to give effect to legislative intent. Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (M.D. Fla. 2004).

The primary guide to statutory interpretation is to determine the purpose of the legislature. Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2004).

Legislative intent must be determined primarily from the language of the statute; however, the primary and overriding consideration in statutory interpretation is that a statute should be construed and applied so as to give effect to the evident intent of the legislature regardless of whether such construction varies from the statute's literal meaning. Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 656 So. 2d 470, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S260 (Fla. 1995), answer to certified question conformed to, 62 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 1995); Deason v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 705 So. 2d 1374, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S35 (Fla. 1998). In other words, this intent must be given effect even though it may appear to contradict the strict letter of the statute and well-settled canons of construction. Vildibill v. Johnson, 492 So. 2d 1047, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 275 (Fla. 1986), answer to certified question conformed to, 802 F.2d 1347 (11th Cir. 1986); State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981); Wakulla County v. Davis, 395 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1981) (abrogation recognized on other grounds by, Marion County v. Johnson, 586 So. 2d 1163, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991)); State, Dept. of Revenue v. Kemper Investors Life Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 1124, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995).

[Cactus Jack]

This is why lawyers make so much and why I didn't go to law school.

[Truthiness24]

Nice work. You put just enough time into it to justify itself.

Rebuttal?

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why lawyers make so much and why I didn't go to law school.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's also why you have time to play poker more than me.

[ThreeBeers]

I would guess that part of their expansion will be for the slot machines.

ThreeBeers

[ThreeBeers]

Rabid: I too agree with you. Many many moons ago when I was first out of Law School, I clerked for the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Florida and this issue came up many times. In fact some of "my" first published opinions were centered around this very topic (construction). Just noticed your post below.

ThreeBeers

[SpleenLSD]

Good job Hippo. How much is left on our retainer?

Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. On 7/1 we'll see how each cardroom has interpreted the law and I'm sure in the following year we'll see the State make "corrections" to cardroom policies. Remember the tournament shut-down last year? I would expect the regulators to enforce the intent of the law, and then we'll see how the chips fall if and when they are challenged. My feeling is we won't see anything like a uniform standard of allowable games &amp; rules for 2 years.

[Rabid_Hippo]

I have no doubt that the State is going to try and enforce a conservative interpretation of the law, and I question whether the paramutuals will be the ones to challenge that interpretation. What I am curious about is whether an individual would have standing to challenge the new regulations if those regulations are inconsistent with the language of the statute.

We may need someone to volunteer to be a plaintiff.

[Atomic]

Let me ask the legal experts. Is the section about NLHE in 752 something the Governor could strike using his line item veto?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the State is going to try and enforce a conservative interpretation of the law, and I question whether the paramutuals will be the ones to challenge that interpretation. What I am curious about is whether an individual would have standing to challenge the new regulations if those regulations are inconsistent with the language of the statute.

We may need someone to volunteer to be a plaintiff.

[/ QUOTE ]

What could an individual do? If cardrooms don't offer a particular game or limit, it's not something an individual can force them to do whether it's legal or not. If Mardi Gras racino offers $50 NL, you can't sue them to offer $100 or whatever. It's not an inalienable right. It's a business decision.

Besides, I can see the parimutuels pushing the limits so to speak. It was the parimutuels, particularly Dania, that caused the hubbub about tournaments a year or so ago.

[Rabid_Hippo]

I was actually thinking about what to do if regulations are issued that interpret the statute as a $100 cap ... whether an individual would have standing to challenge the regulations governing the games as being inconsistent with the plain language of the statute.

It would be nice to see the paramutuals step up.

[Rabid_Hippo]

The Governor has line item veto authority which may be used to delete any specific budget item within an appropriations act. Since this is not an appropriations act, the answer is no.

[dozer]

1. Great thanks to all the lawyers in here who have dedicated a lot of time to this topic. For it, we're all more educated.

2. Thank God I'm not a lawyer.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the State is going to try and enforce a conservative interpretation of the law, and I question whether the paramutuals will be the ones to challenge that interpretation. What I am curious about is whether an individual would have standing to challenge the new regulations if those regulations are inconsistent with the language of the statute.

We may need someone to volunteer to be a plaintiff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good question also!! (Good job with the cut and paste from FlaJur by the way). I believe the "intent" section of the statute says that it is the "intent" of the legislature to offer more gaiming choices to the people of Florida.

So, I guess one could argue that since the statute was created to benefit the individuals, those individuals have standing to challenge either the statute or any regulations promulgated by the DBPR.

The problem is that the statute is an exception to the other sections of the penal code dealing with gambling.

Thus, for an individual to have standing they would have to further demonstrate that they are facing possible criminal prosecution under the new statute or regulations if a game is spread in violation of either.

Now the statute in question also deals solely with the authorization of cardrooms such that cardrooms are only authorized at licensed pari-mutuels.

So, for an individual to challenge the statute or regs, they also have to demonstrate that they are at risk of prosecution if playing in a game spread in violation of statute or regs AT A LICENSED PARI-MUTUEL.

So it appears that the ball would be in the court of the pari-mutuels first and foremost to spread a game in violation of the statute or regs. Then, I believe in my most humble opinion, that an individual would have one of two different arguments to make:

a) they face prosecution if they participate in these games, or

b) if the pari-mutuels offer these games and then shut them down because they get an "a fangool" letter from the state attorney's office (or worse), then I guess an individual could argue that they are being denied the benefit of expanded gaming choices as set forth in the "intent" section of the statute.

So, I guess without a pari-mutuel taking the first step in spreading a "questionable" game, I don't think an individual has standing to challenge the law without the first existence of a "questionable" game.

Unless, (this can go on and on), the regulatory language promulgated by the DPBR creates a "chilling effect" such that the pari-mutuels are afraid to spread the games in the first place.

Of course, we simply cannot speculate on this without first seeing the language of the regulations which have yet to be created.

[dride]

Isnt today the last day for the veto and if not the bill passes right? If so does anyone have any updated info on this bill

[moose47]

The bill has not been sent to the governor yet so the 15 day window for him to veto it has not begun.

[Rabid_Hippo]

That's an excellent point Moose, the bill has not been transmitted to the Governor for consideration.

The requirement is that an enrolled bill be "signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses and by the secretary of the senate and the clerk of the house of representatives during the session or as soon as practicable after its adjournment sine die" and then transmitted to the Governor for consideration.

There's no real hard and fast rule for transmittal to the governor, so I guess we just wait. There's a special session June 12 - 22, to consider property tax reform ... I hope they get around to it before then.

[RobertC]

How do you know that the bill hasn't been sent to the Governor yet? Is there a website that follows this? And why hasn't the bill been sent to the Governor?

[throwdown]

The Texas bill is dead as of yesterday. Food for thought.

[Rabid_Hippo]

Here's the link to the bill information reports - Florida Senate Bill Information Reports (http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/index.cfm?Mode=Bill%20Information%20Reports&amp;Submen u=9&amp;Tab=session). Select the "Governor's Action Report" - it lists, by Bill number, the date received by the Governor and the deadline for his action. For the legislative session that just ended there are a total of 289 Bills that haven't been sent to him yet, he has approved 25 Bills and 23 Bills are pending in his office.

We're concerned with SB 752.

Who says government isn't quick and nimble?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know that the bill hasn't been sent to the Governor yet? Is there a website that follows this? And why hasn't the bill been sent to the Governor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow clerks? Backroom negotiations? Who knows?

[Atomic]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know that the bill hasn't been sent to the Governor yet? Is there a website that follows this?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also follow just this bill's action at this link, scroll down to the Bill History section

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35084&amp;

[Packard]

Has the poker stakes increase law in Florida passed? Any new info? Thanks

[NY60]

Nothing new yet. The bill has not been sent to the Governor as of yet. We're all waitin with fingers crossed!!!

[Hellcard]

Hello everyone, new user here, i had heard from the track that i play at they were gonna start doing cash games...this made me pretty excited so i came online to look it up. after reading all these comments i am amazed at the fact that there seems to be alot of people saying that a 1/2NL cash game is not going to be any good...ARE YOU NUTS! that is so perfect...you have an oppurtunity to get into a hand with a two dollar blind and have a potential pot of 900 dollars...now i know that wont ever happen. but if you are any kind of a decent player and know how to wait and get a good read on your table, the oppurtunity here is absolutely huge...in a 12 hour session you should be able to win 12 decent pots. if there is only 50 bucks in each of those pots thats 600 bucks. and you also have the oppurtunity to flop the stone cold nuts and have three people bet 10-20 bucks into you. i mean this is incredible, anyone who says this isnt good for poker in florida cause the rake will be too high or the limit just isnt high enough is crazy and shouldnt even be playing poker. this is a step in the right direction and i think we should all embrace it and get ready to make some freakin money off some donkey ass tourists. thank you

[Truthiness24]

I'm still waiting to see who these donkeys are. From the sentiment in this thread, everyone thinks that they will be able to quit their jobs and make a mint in the cardroom.

[NY60]

I have to agree.

However, I can see the point that all the other posters are making as well. By mid-August there are going to be alot of very sorry people who have never had the experience of playing NL cash games especially in person as opposed to online.

If I were a betting man (how ironic is that), I would say that there is going to ba a windfall for about six weeks so get your seat cushions ready its going to be a wild ride with a short window of opportunity until things settle down a bit.

[dag221]

I agree with the previous two posters. I play at the Jacksonville card room and everyone there seem to be licking their chops at all the money they are going to make. Not a single person has yet said " Oh no I am going to lose money faster once the limits go up".

I did hear someone say the states cut of the tournament rake was going to be HIGHER than it is even now so I don't see any relief of playing a higher buy-in tournament. Remember a high rake is still a high rake no matter how much the buy-in is. I have heard numerous players complaining about low stakes buy in for the tournament but these are the same players who don't hesitate to give the house/state 29%-30%
of the money they shell out. It wouldn't surprise me if the percentage of rake goes up for the tournments because the house isn't going to reduce their rake even if they have to
give the state a bigger slice.

Will anyone play a tournament with a 33%rake ( just a number I made up for argument sake). Of course they will..they will line up out the door. And these are the same people who think they are pros and are going to fleece everyone once the limits go up. I however will not be paying an increase in rakes as I very rarely play in the tournaments now with the 29% rake.

One more thing to remember. The card rooms are going to spread whatever games bring in the most money. If thats 1/2 No limit then it will be that. If it's the same old 1/2 limit then it will be that. Just because you want to show up and play X game doesnt' mean it will happen. There are lots of people who don't want to play for $5 a bet. But I think there will be plenty of options for everyone.

I guess I could have made this post a bit shorter by simply making the following point. Whats the point of raising the stakes of playing if you are also raising the cost of playing to make it worthwhile. Higher rakes, jackpot rakes,
time charges for low action no limit. Why does everyone assume the pots are huge in no limit? I bet the average pot in a no limit hand is the same or smaller than a decent limit game.Of course there is always the possibility of the one big hand payout that makes it attractive but it's kind of ironic that most pros that make a living playing poker play limit games more than no limit.


I am curious to see how the higher limits affect the Omaha games personally..as thats the game where the real donkeys are and I am going to make a killing.....ooops did I say that????

[facepull]

firsy things first. the card room near me is close to FSU and FAMU . enough said there. second, the regular players at this room JCKC are the worst players I have ever seen anywhere I have played. the raise in stakes will not effect these people's play until they are broke. however that said im not sure if a 6/half hour plus a 1 dollar per pot bad beat rake can be beat if they do what I was told they will do which is limit buy-ins to 100 and say you are at $45 you can rebuy back to 100. as for the tournies well unless they cahnge the structure they can go [censored] themselves but even with all that the morons will flock to play them.

[Russ M.]

[ QUOTE ]
I play at the Jacksonville card room

[/ QUOTE ]

What have they been saying? I called there last week and was told they still hadn't decided on what exactly they were going to spread. Are they seriously considering doing rake + time charge? That'd be super lame. I can live with their current 10%/$5 rake structure and the added buck for the jackpot drop but a time charge on top of that would be ridiculous.

And yeah, I have little hope for the tourneys. Since they can't stay open 24 hours they will continue to rape tourney players and idiots who can't wait to play donk-n-goes with 30% vig.

[dag221]

I have heard nothing specific from the Jax Cardroom about rakes....just what I have read on this forum, although I did hear the cardroom manager speak of a time charge as a possibility. However if anyone institutes a time charge THERE IS NO RAKE. The time charge is the rake. Each player is simply paying an hourly rate to play. I find it hard to believe anyone would really instiute a time charge at this level but keep in mind if the rakes drop a certain amount in the no limit games they may change to that. I am not a no limit expert but from what I have seen the games seem to be a bit tighter in no limit and most of the pots would generate lower rakes than in the limit games. I am sure the house would alter whatever rake structure they have in place
for a no limit game so that the rake is at least equal to what they could be getting if they were spreading any other game.But since they are ultimately aiming for $3-$5 a pot I don't think it would be too hard to achieve that.

The increased state cut of the tournament buy-in was something I heard at the Jax cardroom but I have no way to confirm that so don't treat it as fact just yet. I don't treat anything I have read on this forum as gospel to be honest with you. It may stay the same for all I know.
I was merely throwing out some 'what if' scenarios.
Most people are focusing purely on the stakes being raised and not all the other factors that determine whether a game or tournament is worth being played or not.

[soulvamp]

The state has doubled the annual licensing fee for each table in a cardroom, but that has nothing to do with the tourney rake directly. The cardroom might bump up the already-ridiculous tournament rake to help pay for the increased licensing fee, but the state gets no direct take from any tourney fees, which seems to be what you're saying.

[dag221]

Well surely the state does take a portion of the tourney entry fees...even if it's just part of the normal percentage of the cardrooms gross/net revenues. Again this was just something I heard in a passing conversation at the Jax venue. I have no idea how the state and the cardrooms distribute their respective percentages of any of their funds. Lets hope they don't price themselves out of business. I would love to see a $100 buy-in tournament with a 20% house rake only....or better yet leave the rake at the current $13 but I don't see that happening.

[BigRed1]

Lets see,
$100 Buy-in
360 players paying only the top 20
3000 starting chips
50/100 starting blinds
18 min levels.

It's pretty much of a crap shoot now, higher buy-ins may decrease the number of players. As the costs go up a lot of players will start to think about the chance of getting into the money.

[dag221]

The current tourney structure at the 360 player tournament in Jacksonville is -

$45 buy in
Top 20 get paid ( 10-11 get paid very poorly..actually 5th thru 20th get paid poorly)
18 min. levels
25/50 starting blinds
Starting chips are either 2500 or 3000..I swear I can't remember because I dont' play them very often.

It is a crap shoot because you don't have enough chips to play a decent number of hands without committing all of them at some point early. The tournament structure is more important to me than the actual buy-in amount but I hear almost no one at the Poker Room complaining about anything except the the buy-in being too low.

I swear the other day I saw the payout schedule of a tournament there and first place in the tourney paid LESS than the house take. Usually the house makes more money than the person in second gets but this time the house actually came out on top.

[dozer]

Anyone else remember the original payout structure to the Dania $5k guaranteed tourneys? First prize was $5000, second through 28th got $50. Nice. They've since changed the structure.

But yeah, the poker structure down here stinks. It would be interesting if a room actually eschewed the high rake and built a "player's tourney" once a week. Could be popular, and it would attract a lot of people to playing at that particular room.

[Russ M.]

Holy [censored] that's brutal.

Last tourney I entered at the Jax Poker Room was when I didn't bother to check the payouts beforehand. 170-180 people entered, top 5 paid. I think the payouts were like 45-25-15-10-5 or something. Unfortunately there seems to be an endless supply of idiots who happily fork over $45 over and over again playing these things. It's just wishful thinking that they'd actually develop an actual structure that's player-friendly.

[BigRed1]

They run the "360" once a month (but it is only 359 players due to the stud tables).
And its 11 handed till you get down to 8 tables.

Its 3000 chips to start.
payouts are this
1st - $5000
2nd - $2000
3rd - $1000
4th - $800
5th - $500
6th - $405
7th - $302
8th - $274
9th - $217
10th to 20th - $90

House take based on 359 players - $4667

This tourny runs about 8 hours....

[dag221]

I prefered the old Saturday 120 person tournament structure at the Jax room. They only paid 5 places but the money was very good. I don't really care about finishing 14th and getting my money back. I would rather take a shot at finishing in the top five and getting a nice payday. I once finished second in that tourney and won as much money as the person who won the Sunday tournament that pays 15-20 places deep. Now both the Saturday and Sunday tourney have pretty much the same payout structure the Saturday being 120 players and the Sunday being 150 players.

And yes the single most infuriating thing to me was play 11 handed for HOURS in the monthly 360 touraments ...even when they had lost enough people and had the dealers and tables to play 10 handed they wouldn't.
That would cut into their ability to run non stop turbos and double shootouts.Once they get your money they stopped caring anything about running the tournament properly. Thats pretty much when I just gave up those things.

[naplesplayer]

Gov has the bill. 14 days to go .hope for no veto

[Fishhead24]

It truly is amazing all the players that fork over 45 bucks to play in these horrible, horrible tournaments. A tourney with a 29% rake and 18 minute blind structures(which really is made worse by the fact many think they are poker stars on TV and debate some hands for a minute). I play at DERBY LANE in St. Pete often and hardly a quarter of an hour ever goes by when somebody is ripping the 1-2 LIMIT game when in theory it is much more beatable than the stupid tourneys they run. Granted, 1-2 limit is not really true poker, but it does give one a better chance to win then playing a 29% raked tourney with quick structures.

[Fishhead24]

By the way, everyone believes this be passed into law on July 1st. Please note, this is far from being a lock.

-FH-

[Atomic]

It is not only poker players that want an increse in poker limits. Many people will benefit from an increased limit and the expected increase in total rake. The state will see an increase in revenue. Local governments with a parimutuel facility within their jurisdiction will see an increase in revenue. The horsemen and dog owners will see an increse in purses and awards. How else would Derby Lane be able to run a $1,000,000 race without a percentage of the poker rake being added to purses and awards?

With many groups benefiting from an incresed poker limit and by the margins that the bill passed both houses (senate 29-10, house 77-38) I don't think Crist is considering a veto. He might let it become law without his signature but he shouldn't veto it.

[Fishhead24]

Knowing DERBY LANE the way I do, even if this is passed, they will find a way to screw it up for the players. The one good thing about this is that it will stir competition from other venues such as TAMPA DOWNS, HARD ROCK, and TAMPA GREYHOUND. Been playing on the boat recently anyway and they offer no limit, 10-20, and other higher limit games..........plus one gets treated with comps.

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
It truly is amazing all the players that fork over 45 bucks to play in these horrible, horrible tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

We played at Sarasota KC last night and they dropped the fee to 32+8. This is in line with tourneys I've played in Vegas &amp; AC, where I've paid 40+10 or 50+10.

Also, Tampa Bay Downs, before they closed for the summer, was charging 32+3 for their afternoon MTT as a promo. The market is starting to be heard.

Oh, and btw, my wife took it down last night ... beat 198 others &amp; took home $1400 after expenses.

[Truthiness24]

On another note, we had a long talk with the manager of SKC last night, and he said that the following changes were going in (the following games will be offered) on 7/2:

- $3/$5 limit O8 (the new law only allows limit omaha)
- $1/$2 NLH, with a $60 min/max buyin
- $1/$2 NLH, with a $100 min/max buyin
- at the NL tables, he's going to do a table fee of $5 per 1/2 hour instead of a rake
- $3/$6, $6/$12, and $3/$6/$9/$9 limit holdem
- $2 to $5 spread limit stud &amp; stud/8
- higher stakes for the tourneys, but he didn't say what yet ... I think it will depend on what the market dictates

They act like it's a done deal.

This isn't exactly what I'd want -- I want legal, wide-open, unlimited poker -- but it's a great first step.

[Fishhead24]

Truth--congrats to your wife. Sorry I missed the TAMPA DOWNS promo, not bad(under 10% rake). However, it is still a tourney with a carnival atmosphere with the quick structures and small stacks. Lots and lots of luck involved.

Also, how does the SARASOTA managaer plan on spreading that high of limit games when the maximum is set to be at $5? Also, not sure if I like the "per half hour" charge and would rather just have a flat 10% rake with a $5 max like they have now.

[Atomic]

[ QUOTE ]
- $3/$6, $6/$12, and $3/$6/$9/$9 limit holdem


[/ QUOTE ]

How will this be possible?

[Fishhead24]

Don't think it will be, not sure what that Sarasota manager is smoking, but it must be good stuff.

[Truthiness24]

He says that there is a loophole in the NL provisions of the law that allow these higher limits for holdem but not omaha or stud. He says that they studied the law pretty carefully -- at least as much as we have -- and that they have already cleared it with the regulatory folks that could object.

I thought it was was off when I heard it too, but I certainly wasn't going to tell him that I thought it was wrong. I think it's great that he's going to try it.

He also said that the law is only going to provide for $100 min/max NLH. I tried to argue what we discussed a few weeks ago in this thread, but he said no ... that they talked about it and decided that this is NOT what the law said. I didn't agree but it was going to be fruitless to try to argue. They have picked their battles, and IMO these are unique angles that none of us have even thought of. I hope that they read this stuff because I have nothing but good things to say about them.

I do believe that some track is going to push it and try to open tables without a max buyin, or at least a max in excess of $100. I just don't see where this is restricted by the law as passed. But SKC isn't going to be the one to try it, at least not yet.

I got the impression that at SKC they were really going out of their way to listen to the players and take an expansive view of the changes so as to make us (and them) as happy as they think they can. It was a positive experience to talk to the guy.

[Truthiness24]

I should add that I don't like paying 25% juice on these low limit tourneys either, but that I really think that this is the minimum that a house can charge to put on an event &amp; make a profit. It isn't an online game without a dealer.

At $40, it's entertainment. It's great to make a spot of money at it, but you can't play them as a pro because of the grind. I think that's great too -- this is basic, low-level, family fun poker. Sure, I'm looking forward to the $300 NLH tourneys this summer, but this is fun too.

And I'm lucky enough to have a wife that enjoys it and prefers a MTT for date night to just about anything else.

[Truthiness24]

At $5 per person per half hour, that's $90 to $100 per hour on a table. That would be 20 $5 rakes. They deal about 35 to 42 hands an hour, and it will probably be the high end of that without a rake for the dealer to fuss with. So I think whether we end up ahead or about the same will depend on how loose the games are and how much the drop "would have been." I suspect that in an hour you'd have 10 or so $5 rakes and a bunch of $1 rakes or no rakes. If this is the case, then we're getting hosed and the house just wants to make sure they still come out ahead. But we'll see.

If this all goes through as stated, we should keep an eye on it and see.

[Fishhead24]

If your going to play with a 29% rake you may as well fly somewhere and play for less rake and save money........and be on vacation at the sametime. FLORIDA is certainly the A ball of minor league poker right now.........but at least they have a leauge which is more than some states can claim.

[Truthiness24]

Like I said, it's family fun poker.

But starting on 7/2 they will be allowed to spread STTs and MTTs with entry fees of up to $800. And if the juice on the high-end tourneys is 10%, the industry standard, then we're talking AAA ball and not the FL rookie leagues.

And, it will be nice to not worry (as much) about being cheated, robbed, or arrested.