Re: florida has done it
 

Hoorah! If Florida can do it so can Texas! Yay!

Re: florida has done it
 

NY60 - I agree with your interpretation of what the legislature intended to pass (from a review of the staff analysis of the bill); however, the bill text, 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 is a plain-language interpretation issue. I don't think the legislative history will have any bearing on the ultimate result, which, barring a veto, should be uncapped NL games w/a max buyin of $100.

Re: florida has done it
 

So, I have a question related to the Indian Reservation Casinos (like the Hard Rock in Tampa). They are already in violation of the laws the pari-mutuels have to live by, so are they under their own set of laws?

Some of the laws they break currently:
-24/7 cardroom
-SNG's with buyins higher than $32 (they have games up to $500+35)
-They obviously don't have a track of any kind

So under which laws dio they operate? I would assume none ... it seems like a handshake agreement to not have cash games higher than the $2 big bet since they are breaking so many other laws ...

Anyone know?

Re: florida has done it
 

[ QUOTE ]
both houses have passed the new bill letting limit games be upto 5 5 which is a lot better then 2 2. also i went to the florida house website and read the exact bill. it states something like this: the card rooms can have no limits on betting IF THE REQUIRED BUY-IN IS LESS THEN 100. that leaves a loop hole that should allow the cardrooms to have something like 1-2 with a 80 minimum 200 maximum or even a 2 5 with a 80 minimum and a 300-500 maximum. it does not say 100 maximum buy-in anywhere in the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know where you are getting your info. Here i have copy/pasted from the text of the bill:

However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of
111 Texas Hold'em without a betting limit provided the maximum
112 required player buy-in does not exceed $100.
The word Maximum is pretty clear to see. Just don't want to get people's hopes up.
Here is the page I referenced. If I am wrong...I'm sure you will let me know!
http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_pag.../billtext/html/

Re: florida has done it
 

Re-read.

"Maximum REQUIRED player buy-in does not exceed $100." Therefore, you should not be able to sit down at any cash table and be forced to lose more than $100 on your first hand because you HAD to pony up more than $100 to sit at the table.

This means that according strictly to that verbiage, you could have a $1/$2 NL game with a minimum buy in of $40 and a max of $200. People are not REQUIRED to buy in for $200, they can buy in for $40.

Required Maximum does not equal Maximum.

We'll have to see how the different poker rooms treat this wording. I hope they treat it as above because $1/$2 NL $100MAX is a ridiculous game.

Re: florida has done it
 

Thanks for clearing that up for me. That's why I am NOT a lawyer!
Has anyone found a cardroom that is planning on challenging the verbage and allow a higher than $100 buy-in? I seriously doubt Daytona will unless ALL the other tracks have done it and someone has yank their tale outta their butts.

Re: florida has done it
 

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

"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."

.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they meant to say was:

"However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the permitted player buy-in is no more than $100."

If so, then they missed the mark pretty badly.

Tuff
.

Re: florida has done it
 

Whoever drafted this language either flubbed the drafting or meant to pull a fast one. Since most legislation is drafted on behalf of special interest groups and submitted to a legislator for introduction as a bill ... I'm going for the latter.

What I'm really interested in seeing are the proposed regulations/notice of rulemaker that should be coming out in a few weeks. Then we'll see how the state intends to interpret the statute and will have a public comment opportunity to point out the plain language of the statute/threaten to challenge any improperly worded regulations.

It's all good.

Re: florida has done it
 

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm really interested in seeing are the proposed regulations/notice of rulemaker that should be coming out in a few weeks. Then we'll see how the state intends to interpret the statute and will have a public comment opportunity to point out the plain language of the statute/threaten to challenge any improperly worded regulations.

It's all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please go into more detail regarding what you know about the process?

Re: florida has done it
 

Parimutuel poker rooms in Florida are regulated by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (see http://www.myflorida.com/dbpr/pmw/index.shtml). The Division is responsible for promulgating rules that implement the laws passed by the legislature.

Rulemaking is a multi-step process that includes:
(1) Drafting the rule or rule amendment;
(2) Approval of the rule or rule amendment by the appropriate agency official;
(3) Publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule Development in the Florida Administrative Weekly;
(4) Publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the F.A.W.;
(5) An opportunity for public participation by means of notice, a 21-day public comment period,
and public hearing, if requested by an affected party or at the discretion of the originating agency;
(6) A hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings on the validity of a rule may be
required if a proper petition challenging the rule is filed by a substantially affected person;
(7) If necessary, changes in the rule or rule amendment by the originating agency following the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, based on comments and materials received during the public
comment period or hearing, or in response to comments or objections from the Joint Administrative
Procedures Committee. Notice of these changes must be published in the F.A.W. at least 21 days
prior to adoption and shall be filed with J.A.P.C. If no changes are made or only technical changes
are made, the originating agency shall notify J.A.P.C. of that fact at least 7 days before adoption;
(8) Preparing the rule or rule amendment for adoption with A.C.S.;
(9) Filing the rule or rule amendment for adoption with the A.C.S., which becomes effective 20
days after filing, or at a later date specified in the rule.

Each of these steps is dealt with in detail in the following on-line manual: https://www.flrules.org/rmhb.pdf

The various notices and proposed rules are available online at the Division's website and at the official publication site at https://www.flrules.org/Default.asp.

As stated above, typically a proposed notice has 21 days of public commenting period from the day it is published in FAW (above-referenced link). You can make a comment to a proposed rule either through FAW's website or in hard-copy form via the U.S. mail.

The first step is, of course, to wait for the Division to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Development --- then we can see what they have in mind.