Kicking Things Off
 

I think the number one need in poker legislation today is protection in state laws for the player who enters a poker tournament that he thinks for one reason or another is perfectly legal (usually because it is being run openly), but it turns out to not be legal. Often, the reason it is illegal is the organizer is making a profit on the event. A mere player should not be punished in such a situation. To raid a poker tournament and charge every entrant with a crime is as ridiculous as finding every Enron employee guilty because the company did something wrong in its accounting practices.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Great to have you as part of the forum, Bob.

I agree with your point, but I think the absolute worst piece of poker legislation is the way in which many states choose to tax amateur poker players. In many states amateurs are taxed for every session they win, but they aren't allowed to deduct losing sessions from their taxes. Taxing in this manner makes poker unbeatable for all but the very best players, and encites many people to commit the crime of falsifying their taxes.

I don't have a problem with gambling taxes in general; but taxing someone's winnings without allowing them to deduct their losses is greedy, unfair, and needs to be stopped.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Welcome to the Forum...and by welcome - 2 years of lurking is fantastic IMO...

A very positive addition....I look forward to your posts...

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Welcome to the forums. I completely agree with your post. The biggest problem I see in getting pro-poker legislation passed is the stigma that goes with any "gambling" game. Unfortunately I can't see these types of laws being passed any time soon. At least not in this generation.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

I don't suppose they'd accept the old pro line: "it's all one long session"?

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

welcome Bob

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
To raid a poker tournament and charge every entrant with a crime is as ridiculous as finding every Enron employee guilty because the company did something wrong in its accounting practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fundamentally agree with you Bob, existing state laws have to be considered. The biggest problem with our industry is that there is no unified national law to govern wagering. States and municipalities may have legislation on the books that forces the police department to arrest all players involved. This makes a national players lobby nearly impossible, the variables are greater than any one lobby can handle.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

I have never heard of legislation that forces police to make an arrest. Police need the flexibility to make that determination on an individual basis.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Great point! I of course am a pro and deduct expenses. If you are not a pro, you are unable to deduct items such as travel expenses from your money won. This distinction between amateur and pro is artificial.
I believe this is a result of federal law, not state law, but I am not an authority on this. I do not think poker players or other gamblers will ever be able to do anything about this problem on their own. I would love to do something in conjunction with other recreational groups such as bowling associations to get amateurs to be able to deduct expenses from money received in competitions.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

You are far too pessimistic in thinking that nothing will be done via legislation in a whole generation. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to think that EVERYTHING will be done in another century.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

For the record, there is legislation that forces police to make an arrest. The domestic violence laws in most states now require an officer to make an arrest, if a primary aggressor is identified. This takes away the discretion an officer has to handle each situation based upon the facts and circumstances available, and forces him/her to act based upon the legislation. This results in numerous bad arrests, and an escalation in penalties for people who, in certain situations, could have been dealt with in a much less intrusive, more convenient manner. I have no idea if this is also the case when dealing with gambling "violations," but I would not be surprised if it were the case in some jurisdictions.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to do something in conjunction with other recreational groups such as bowling associations to get amateurs to be able to deduct expenses from money received in competitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi again Bob. Oddly enough, I happen to be fairly heavily involved in amateur bowling and have some info on this subject. I usually profit around $5-6k per year bowling each year, just bowling a few tourneys and leagues. I have only had to deduct expenses once, but it was as easy as sending a letter to the IRS explaining the situation, and the matter was dropped.

Although I live in Nevada, we have no card rooms within 100 miles, so there's no Texas Holdem, other than a home game here or there. I decided to try to set up a monthly Hold'em tourney in our local bowling center, basically running the poker tourney identical to the bowling tourneys in which I bowl. No rake, no profit to anyone other than the players who cash, and no payment to the host (bowling center). The owner of the bowling center was willing to go along with this, because he knew there would be a large amount of alcohol sold during the tourney. I contacted the State of Nevada Gaming Enforcement agency, and was told that bowling is not considered gambling, but Texas Holdem is. This meant that we could not hold the tourney's without having to obtain full gambling licenses, which are far too expensive to make this feasible.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Nevada, that's the reason we can bowl for money without all the legal hassles, but we can't play Hold'em with the same freedom. I don't know if this is helpful, but it's what I have dealt with. Good luck getting something going on this worthwhile endeavor.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, there is legislation that forces police to make an arrest. The domestic violence laws in most states now require an officer to make an arrest, if a primary aggressor is identified. This takes away the discretion an officer has to handle each situation based upon the facts and circumstances available, and forces him/her to act based upon the legislation. This results in numerous bad arrests, and an escalation in penalties for people who, in certain situations, could have been dealt with in a much less intrusive, more convenient manner. I have no idea if this is also the case when dealing with gambling "violations," but I would not be surprised if it were the case in some jurisdictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that there was such legislation in the state of Texas, its possible that this legislation exists in NJ as well, I really don't know but it wouldn't surprise me.

In NYC the recent busts were allegedly directed by the DA's office, not the police precincts themselves. So far each bust in Manhattan was coordinated by the Vice Squad... the same team that also raids NYC night clubs for dancing violations as well as underage drinking.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are far too pessimistic in thinking that nothing will be done via legislation in a whole generation. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to think that EVERYTHING will be done in another century.

[/ QUOTE ]
I miss-posted. What I should have said was that it will probably take a couple years and maybe one or two lawsuits/trials before things start really turning for the better. This whole surge of internet poker/gambling is a new issue legally (hell the whole internet is legally just in its infancy)so it will take some time before people figure out how to deal with it appropriately.

I don't think that was much clearer...

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Hi Bob:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
To raid a poker tournament and charge every entrant with a crime is as ridiculous as finding every Enron employee guilty because the company did something wrong in its accounting practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. You're making this argument because you feel in general that playing in a poker tournament should be legal. But there are many activities where all participants in addition to the organizer should be arrested. An example might be a crack house.

Now if you were to argue that given the popularity of poker that poker tournaments should be legal everywhere then I could buy into your argument.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Big difference between the two examples.

In Bob's scenario the participants have no clue that they are even breaking the law. I know ignorence is not an excuse but this isn't the type of crime where others are being hurt.

In Manson's scenario... well... they buying/selling/smoking crack. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

Of course, I would like playing poker in a tournament to be legal, but many states do not allow this activity. Mason compares playing in a poker tournament to being in a crackhouse. My point is breaking the law by going to a crackhouse is obvious to everyone in that house that the law is being violated. Going to a poker tournament is often an activity that the player believes is legal when it is not. (In fact, the organizer often thinks it is legal when it is not.)
You can get a good explanation of why we need player protection for poker tournaments and similar activities by going to the following link. This is a webpage of Chuck Humphrey, the poker player and lawyer who is likely the country's leading authority on poker laws.
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...e-proposal.htm
Here you will also see some proposed legislation, a colaborative effort by Ckuck Humphrey and Bob Ciaffone, to remedy the problem.
Mr. Humphrey's website "US Gambling Law" is the best reference source for state and federal laws on poker and other gambling. That site's main URL is:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/
I would like to publicly thank Chuck Humphrey for donating a lot of his time for the purpose of getting fair laws on poker.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
In Manson's scenario... well... they buying/selling/smoking crack. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good thing that Manson is safely locked away in a California prison for life.

Oh sorry, I guess you meant to say "Mason" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't suppose they'd accept the old pro line: "it's all one long session"?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]You don't have to pay til you die. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bob:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
To raid a poker tournament and charge every entrant with a crime is as ridiculous as finding every Enron employee guilty because the company did something wrong in its accounting practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. You're making this argument because you feel in general that playing in a poker tournament should be legal. But there are many activities where all participants in addition to the organizer should be arrested. An example might be a crack house.

Now if you were to argue that given the popularity of poker that poker tournaments should be legal everywhere then I could buy into your argument.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, crack's pretty popular too.

--Dave.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
In many states amateurs are taxed for every session they win, but they aren't allowed to deduct losing sessions from their taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't entirely true is it? I thought I read frequently that you may deduct your loses, but the problem is that you have to itemize them and can no longer take the standard deduction. Am I off here?

This is my first year of serious poker and I haven't done this before so I would like to know.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I read frequently that you may deduct your loses, but the problem is that you have to itemize them and can no longer take the standard deduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. The relevant IRS tax topic is here.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In many states amateurs are taxed for every session they win, but they aren't allowed to deduct losing sessions from their taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't entirely true is it? I thought I read frequently that you may deduct your loses, but the problem is that you have to itemize them and can no longer take the standard deduction. Am I off here?

This is my first year of serious poker and I haven't done this before so I would like to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately it's true in Massachusetts, and I believe many other states as well. You must report all gambling winnings, but you aren't allowed to claim any gambling losses. This law is one of the main reasons I moved from Massachusetts, because at the time I was an amateur and the taxes would have come close to outgrossing my overall winnings.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

I missed the state part of that whole thing. My post only applies to the federal level. My bad. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

To *TT*'s point about Texas state laws governing poker (to which I have a vested interest), here's some info I ran across recently:

Texas Poker Laws Frustrate, Infuriate Many

I find it kind of ironic that Texas has some of the strictest laws against "Texas Hold 'Em". That aside, there are a number of establishments in my local area that offer free "for fun" NL tourneys with cash prizes of less than $25. However, value is placed on the chips -- not a dollar value, but a number. Would this still be considered a violation?

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

The law is ambiguous. There is no distinction between gambling and insurance, except in the mind of the beholder. According to the law, gambling is illegal because it's a vice that serves no purpose -- but insurance is legal because it promotes commerce. It is ok to run a golf tournament and purchase "hole in one insurance" for a million dollar prize (that's not gambling), but illegal to provide shelter for an independent card game if you might incidentally profit from a sale under the same roof. It would be fun to question one of the actuaries who set the premium for hole-in-one-insurance to find out what variables they considered when setting the price, and if profit was considered.

Here's a recent situation I'm aware of. A friend of mine had an exclusive contract to sell T-shirts at a recent Bowl game. Completely honest activity -- all above board. This game allowed both parties to make a significant sum selling "National Champion" T-shirts immediately after the game, but they didn't know who was going to win. The opportunity to sell 4-5M shirts at $20 (with a cost of $2.50) was irresistable, so my friend simply printed shirts for both sides. There was a clear favorite in the game, so the cost of printing if the probable loser won (in lost sales and unsold inventory) was offset by a wager through an offshore bookie. Sounds a lot like insurance to me.

\"Unfair prosecution of innocent players in charity tourneys\" is #1 ??
 

"the number one need in poker legislation today is ..."

Bob, I have tremendous respect for your poker writings.

However, are you kidding ..... THAT is the "number one need in poker legislation" ?

How many players are affected by this #1 issue you picked; "unfair prosecution of innocent players in charity tournaments which get busted" ?

How many players like playing online poker from the US and face a federal legislative threat to that past-time ?

Which need is greater in your view in terms of numbers of affected players and urgency ?

Re: \"Unfair prosecution of innocent players in charity tourneys\" is #1
 

Hey bob, remember when I beat you in the 1K garunteed on CNR?

On a serious note, how is that site doing?

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bob:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
To raid a poker tournament and charge every entrant with a crime is as ridiculous as finding every Enron employee guilty because the company did something wrong in its accounting practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there are many activities where all participants in addition to the organizer should be arrested. An example might be a crack house.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Even this assertion is a subject for debate.

Re: Kicking Things Off
 

As a matter of law, ignorance of the law is never an excuse, and there are lots of good reasons for that. In the situation you describe, at most what will happen is that players will have to be more careful about the tournaments they enter -- hardly that severe a burden. There are obviously much more pressing legal/legislative issues facing the poker community.