FLORIDA ALLOWING POKER GAME STAKES TO BE RAISED IN JULY!

[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 & 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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

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

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 ]