Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

Florida statute 849.086 was recently amended to provide that:

"A cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas hold-em without betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100."

A common sense reading of this amendment would indicate that the min buy-in cannot exceed $100. State administrators have taken the position that the max buy-in cannot exceed $100. They have imposed this interpretation at the Hard Rock in Tampa.

There is not doubt that the Legislature meant the latter result. However, a fair reading of the statute, and applicable the rules of statutory construction (i.e. language use best evidence of intent) leads to the former result.

I want the statute to be enforced as written, but I am concerned about the reprecussions should I file suit. What do you think Fossilman?

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the Florida poker threads. To answer your question, who are you going to sue? The poker rooms set the min and max buy-ins. The fact that they choose to follow something that you believe is erroneous doesn't mean they are doing something that would allow you to contemplate a legal action. Which card room are you planning on suing and what damages do you expect to be awarded?

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

You would not sue the cardroom and there would be no damages. You would sue the state in some form of declaratory action asking the court to give you the proper interpretation of the statue.

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You would not sue the cardroom and there would be no damages. You would sue the state in some form of declaratory action asking the court to give you the proper interpretation of the statue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what is stopping you?

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You would not sue the cardroom and there would be no damages. You would sue the state in some form of declaratory action asking the court to give you the proper interpretation of the statue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, except you'd have to own a casino to have standing.

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You would not sue the cardroom and there would be no damages. You would sue the state in some form of declaratory action asking the court to give you the proper interpretation of the statue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, except you'd have to own a casino to have standing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paging tworooks

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You would not sue the cardroom and there would be no damages. You would sue the state in some form of declaratory action asking the court to give you the proper interpretation of the statue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, except you'd have to own a casino to have standing.

[/ QUOTE ]

not necessarily. Someone who files as a pro might be able to sue because it affects their business.

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

Speaking of Fossilman, has anyone noticed how bad his sharkscope rating is? In fact, he and Hachem and Moneymaker are all net losers according to sharkscope.

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Fossilman, has anyone noticed how bad his sharkscope rating is? In fact, he and Hachem and Moneymaker are all net losers according to sharkscope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it to NVG.......

Re: Hey Fossilman what do you think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Fossilman, has anyone noticed how bad his sharkscope rating is? In fact, he and Hachem and Moneymaker are all net losers according to sharkscope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy answer.....they aren't good sng players. It's a very different game and actually today sng's are very difficult to beat at high buy-ins....pretty much impossible if you aren't nearly perfect with your ICM play (and ICM is pretty likely something they have never heard of....or at least haven't spent time studying).