whittling away legal restrictions

[Wynton]

I just discovered this section and wanted to throw out a few thoughts.

As a poker-playing attorney, I've been fascinated with the legal issues surrounding poker for some time. And it seems to me that the road to full legalization requires a step-by-step approach. At the moment, poker is too often equated with casinos. But if the public could gradually see poker in less threatening contexts - or at least contexts without the baggage of casinos and other forms of "gambling" - the legal restrictions might ease.

And I have one suggested starting place. Here in NY, as in many places, it is not illegal to play poker, though it is illegal to "run" a game for profit. But I believe the law is vague enough so that a restaurant or bar could host the game so long as they did not charge a fee (or collect rake or tips). Presumably, the bar would benefit even without charging a direct fee, because the players would buy food and drinks; this kind of benefit, in my opinion, would quite plausibly fall outside the restrictions of NY law.

Occasionally, I hear of such games occurring in bars or restaurants, but they are rare and not well publicized. I believe that if these games started to proliferate, poker might be seen in a different light, opening the door to legislation that expressly authorized poker.

A real first step, though, is some serious organization. I am aware of the Poker Player's Alliance, and know there are serious people involved. But frankly, the alliance seems pretty invisible now. I actually volunteered my legal services to them, and didn't even get a reply, politely turning me down.

A grass roots approach is probably necessary. Maybe this forum is a modest start.

[PE101]

You make some excellent points. I agree that a grass-roots effort is important. I’m a bit concerned that bars don’t carry much credence with the anti-poker crowd. They are likely anti-bar too! Poker needs be in social clubs, churches, fund raisers, etc. Churches already get away with bingo, which is really gambling – unlike skill-based poker.

It’s disappointing to hear that Poker Player’s Alliance declined your offer of help. It seems that until this organization gets a bunch of members, its effectiveness is pretty limited. They should be accepting all offers of help, and practically giving away membership at this time. Until they can go to Congress and state that they represent over a million poker players, they won’t even get an appointment with anyone of serious influence.

Your comment that their lack of response was “politely turning me down” is very gracious (especially for a lawyer [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) – it seems incredibly rude to me. It probably won’t mean much coming from me, but thanks for your generous offer.

[grapabo]

There's a bar and grill franchise in the Kansas City area that runs fairly organized hold'em tournaments. They are forbidden from charging a buy-in, but some nominal prizes can be awarded. Plus, as you explained, the bar makes money from it from the food and drink from customers who might not otherwise come in.

The franchise is also primarily a pool and billiards establishment, though. If poker were to be characterized in the scope of sports to pure gambling, it may end up being closer to pool than anything else. It's a game of skill, but playing for money is looked down upon by the outside world, even if there are "official" competitions with professionals outside that environment.

Not that I agree that poker should be characterized in that way, but it's easier to fix a poker game (and thereby override the skill factor) than it is to fix, say, a golf game.

[Bob Ciaffone]

I doubt that a restaurant in New York could run a game not-for-profit. New York allows "social gambling," but does not define it. Social gambling is only considered as taking place in a private location, not a public place, according to state law in states that allow social gambling and define it. Plus the business place makes money from food and drink.

[Wynton]

Bob,

The New York statutes make no distinction between gambling in private places as opposed to private homes. Nor do the NY statutes employ the phrase "social gambling." Essentially, the NY statutes prohibit a person from "profiting from or advancing" gambling activity, which most courts have interpreted as permitting poker so long as no one is making money solely from operating the game.

[smoove]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a bar and grill franchise in the Kansas City area that runs fairly organized hold'em tournaments. They are forbidden from charging a buy-in, but some nominal prizes can be awarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.denverpokertour.com/

These bar tournaments have been going on in Colorado for years now. The grand prize is anything but nominal. There is no buy-in and no rake is taken, of course. And tipping the dealers is optional. But the bars and restaurants are clearly making a profit from the increased business. This is all out in the open, in bars all along the Front Range--and nobody's complaining!

[Rezvani]

Interesting discussion. I'm an attorney in Oregon, and I'm pleasantly suprised by the legislature's recent revision of charity event rules that now allows Holdem to be organized FOR PROFIT by qualified charities (i.e. rake allowed for IRS 501(C)'s ). Holdem is being played (legally) in bars in many citys in Oregon, but the decision is left to the county/municipality. No rake is allowed. So far Oregon is doing a fair job of striking a balance.

See ORS 167.121 if you are interested in the particular statute; see also the Oregon thread.

I'm all for legalizing Poker; its a game of skill, like a spelling bee, or a golf game, or chess. Almost every game/sport contains elements of luck and skill. Poker is no different. But I digress. . .

I'm happy to help in your crusade however I can. Lemme know.

[Trouthunter]

I've always wondered why so many attorneys are drawn to poker...Anyway, I'm an attorney in Washington, and I'd be happy to help out as well. The laws here are similar to those already discussed. Poker online is technically forbidden, since a rake or entry fee is charged. There are plenty of licensed poker rooms here, and, basically, as long as no rake or fee is charged, unlicensed games are ok.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for playing internet poker, but I've always thought it would be an interesting argument to say that the games and money transfers happen on servers outside the territorial jurisdiction of Washington...I'd hate to be the one to HAVE to make that argument, but I'd like to see it made when someone else's tail is on the line.

[grapabo]

My state has already gone that route (though it probably wasn't for poker) and got a conviction on the out-of-state business back in 1998. The Attorney General's website boasts that it's the first conviction of this kind in the country...

http://www.ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/1998/92298.htm

...though I don't hear of these prosecutions very often recently.

[Wynton]

Just to clarify: that newsrelease indicates the prosecution was for accepting wagers over the internet; no one was prosecuted for simply placing wagers.