[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
I see where you're coming from now, but I'm still not sure I agree. How can you profit from poker, if you're not profiting from the existence of the premises? If the location for playing poker did not exist, you would not be making a profit from that location.

But presuming your interpretation for a moment: would rakeback then qualify as taking a share?

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else has already pointed out, the key word here is 'operation', and I think you're misinterpreting it. Here are the definitions from dictionary.com of operate that I think apply the best here:

11. to put or keep (a factory, industrial system, ranch, etc.) working or in operation: to operate a coal mine.
12. to bring about, effect, or produce, as by action or the exertion of force or influence.

Playing in a game does not constitute having any interest in its operation nor profitting from its operation. As I said before, I'm not a laywer, and this obviously does not constitute legal advice.

I do believe that the one class of people they would consider prosecuting are rakeback providers. In fact, there was a well-read newspaper story a long while back about the potential prosecution of one person in Bellingham(?) who had an operation like that. I think he ended up just having to shut it down and didn't get prosecuted, but I hesitate to even offer that much because my memory of the details involved is very poor.