FLORIDA ALLOWING POKER GAME STAKES TO BE RAISED IN JULY!

[facepull]

they cant have a 3-6 or a 4-8 hold'em game. law clearly states all limit games have a max bet of 5. unless they do the idiotic thing of having players agree to keep betting in limit increments when they buy in to a 1-2 no-limit game as people have said much earlier in this thread. why do these moron kennel clubs keep putting out this info?

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
they cant have a 3-6 or a 4-8 hold'em game. law clearly states all limit games have a max bet of 5. unless they do the idiotic thing of having players agree to keep betting in limit increments when they buy in to a 1-2 no-limit game as people have said much earlier in this thread. why do these moron kennel clubs keep putting out this info?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would stop someone in one of these games from saying, "Screw the agreement. I'm all-in."

[facepull]

nothing which is why it cant be done

[facepull]

nothing which is why it cant be done or should not be done

[BigRed1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about we set up a 2+2 meeting for those of us in North Florda at the "Best Bet" sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the Best Bet?

[/ QUOTE ]


Here is a link.
Best Bet

Just to note: There is NOT an exit on 95 for Race Track Road. You need to get off at Hwy 210.

[MrMore]

NY, thanks for taking the time here. But, though I understand what you're saying, the law as written clearly allows for $100 MINIMUM games. Now, this may not be the spirit, which only someone involved in the legislative process would know, but nonetheless, it's the law as written, and, as I'm sure you know, it's much harder to retract or change a law than to write it right in the first place, meaning, now the legislature would need a majority vote to repeal or change, and that's harder to come by.

I don't know about court challenges, but I can't see one winning, when the law so clearly allows no-max buy-in NL. Also, I'm not sure who would be suffering the damages from the no max interpretation. Obviously, someone who lost, but I don't think that actually constitutes a fair challenge here, because they'd have voluntarily bought in for more than $100.

[VOX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they cant have a 3-6 or a 4-8 hold'em game. law clearly states all limit games have a max bet of 5. unless they do the idiotic thing of having players agree to keep betting in limit increments when they buy in to a 1-2 no-limit game as people have said much earlier in this thread. why do these moron kennel clubs keep putting out this info?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would stop someone in one of these games from saying, "Screw the agreement. I'm all-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps these cardrooms will eject a player betting more than the agreed-upon limits. That seems to be the only enforcement mechanism.

As for the Seminoles, they issued limited-edition $5 Chipcos with model chicks in bikinis on them, in Tampa and probably Hollywood as well. In Tampa, it's extremely rare to see reds on the felt -- just in the well for rake drops. So why create a special chip unless the reds are going into circulation?

I infer from this that the Seminoles have a plan, they just keep it close to the vest, as is their standard policy.

[VOX]

In the comments for that St. Pete Times blog, the cardroom manager in Sarasota had this to say about spreading 3/6:

[ QUOTE ]

As far as other limits please leave the interpritation of the statute to us. We understand the law and what can be offered. 3/6 and 6/12 are well within the rules of the new statute as long as the buy-in does not exceed $100. And Scott the words No-Limit are nowhere to be found in the current statute so please don't put words in anybodys mouth. We are not trying to pull a shot just trying to offer you guys some variety.

Posted by: Sam Minutello

[/ QUOTE ]

Then some guy copypastas the statute into the comment thread, and the article's author writes this:
[ QUOTE ]



Sam, not putting words in anyone's mouth, just trying to offer all interpretations. A game "without a betting limit" seems clear to me as the same as "no limit" (though I do wish lawmakers would have been crystal clear), but ultimately it's up to card rooms and the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering to decipher. Please give me a call when you get a chance.

Posted by: Scott Long



If they intended for No-Limit games they should have stated No-Limit Texas Hold'em. Instead they say we can conduct games of Texas Hold'em without a betting limit ($5) as long as the buy-in does not exceed $100. I feel when they say without a betting limit they are talking about the $5 cap on betting. Plus the last sentence is addition to the law that was already in place. They should have simply stated No-Limit Hold'em and there would be no arguement. Your glass is half full, my glass is half empty. I hope you can see where I am coming from now.

Posted by: Sam Minutello

[/ QUOTE ]

[chadmack]

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/6...ecomes-law.htm

[naplesplayer]

Thank you Sam for your post. Some people are to lazy to read 752. You are correct 5$ min does not apply to Texas holdem games