Update on Washington State Bills

[TheMathProf]

[ QUOTE ]
This entire thread seems to be full of recreational online poker players who think it's ok for it to be a felony to play poker online professionally. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure are.

In principle, I agree with you, but the professional battle is a larger one, because professional gambling is and has been illegal in the state of Washington regardless of whether you gamble on the internet or not, and has been since 1994, which means that it frankly isn't a pressing issue or particularly newsworthy.

The relevant statutes regarding this are RCW 9.46.220 "Professional gambling in the first degree.", RCW 9.46.221 "Professional gambling in the second degree.", and RCW 9.46.222 "Professional gambling in the third degree.".

Chapter 9.46 of the RCW in general goes into great detail about defining the different terms (such as "What is professional gambling?")

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This entire thread seems to be full of recreational online poker players who think it's ok for it to be a felony to play poker online professionally. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure are.

In principle, I agree with you, but the professional battle is a larger one, because professional gambling is and has been illegal in the state of Washington regardless of whether you gamble on the internet or not, and has been since 1994, which means that it frankly isn't a pressing issue or particularly newsworthy.

The relevant statutes regarding this are RCW 9.46.220 "Professional gambling in the first degree.", RCW 9.46.221 "Professional gambling in the second degree.", and RCW 9.46.222 "Professional gambling in the third degree.".

Chapter 9.46 of the RCW in general goes into great detail about defining the different terms (such as "What is professional gambling?")

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not missing that, I've read those laws. The first degree and second degree clearly do not apply to a single individual playing online poker. The third degree is not a felony, and it is also not clear to me that it applies to the case of a single individual playing online poker profesionally, 'making', not 'taking' bets, and not being either an empolyee or owner in a 'gambling operation'. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer much of a worthwhile opinion beyond offering my skepticism.

Even if being an online poker professional is decided by the courts to be a professional gambling in the third degree, it's still a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. A big difference. Which means that the solution that's being pimped as 'the best outcome' still leaves online professionals hanging, exposed to felony charges. In fact, I would guess they'd be more likely to be charged, since they wouldn't be able to create a media uproar by pointing out that the grandmother playing for pennies could be charged with the same crime.

The proposed 'best solution' for all online poker players is nothing of the sort. The better option for online professionals, right now, is a rollback to make all offenses misdemeanors and keep professional playing on an equal legal footing with recreational playing.

Any poll that represents the recreational defense bill as clearly the best option for all of us is misleading and irresponsible.

[TheMathProf]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not missing that, I've read those laws. The first degree and second degree clearly do not apply to a single individual playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I've interpreted those laws differently. For instance, from the "Professional gambling in the first degree statute":

(1) A person is guilty of professional gambling in the first degree if he or she engages in, or knowingly causes, aids, abets, or conspires with another to engage in professional gambling as defined in this chapter, and:

(a) Acts in concert with or conspires with five or more people; or

(b) Personally accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(c) The operation for whom the person works, or with which the person is involved, accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission.

I'm pretty sure that provision (d) here would apply to online gambling. By participating in online gambling as a professional, you profit from the operation of a location where persons are charged [i.e. the rake] to participate in card games... that are not authorized by this chapter [social card games have to be either as a commercial stimulant for other businesses (RCW 9.46.0325) or as part of a charitable function (RCW 9.46.0356), neither of which technically applies to online gambling] or licensed by the commission (which online gambling is not, and which the Gambling Commission has actually been fighting against).

And professional gambling in the first degree is a Class B Felony.

I am also not a lawyer, but the language seemed relatively clear to me, so I'd be interested to see how you've interpreted that statute differently.

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not missing that, I've read those laws. The first degree and second degree clearly do not apply to a single individual playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I've interpreted those laws differently. For instance, from the "Professional gambling in the first degree statute":

(1) A person is guilty of professional gambling in the first degree if he or she engages in, or knowingly causes, aids, abets, or conspires with another to engage in professional gambling as defined in this chapter, and:

(a) Acts in concert with or conspires with five or more people; or

(b) Personally accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(c) The operation for whom the person works, or with which the person is involved, accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission.

I'm pretty sure that provision (d) here would apply to online gambling. By participating in online gambling as a professional, you profit from the operation of a location where persons are charged [i.e. the rake] to participate in card games... that are not authorized by this chapter [social card games have to be either as a commercial stimulant for other businesses (RCW 9.46.0325) or as part of a charitable function (RCW 9.46.0356), neither of which technically applies to online gambling] or licensed by the commission (which online gambling is not, and which the Gambling Commission has actually been fighting against).

And professional gambling in the first degree is a Class B Felony.

I am also not a lawyer, but the language seemed relatively clear to me, so I'd be interested to see how you've interpreted that statute differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person who profits from the rake is the person who profits from the operation of the facility. The person who plays poker professionally is not profitting from the operation of the facility. They have no stake in the operation of the facility and get no cut of the rake, which is paid in compensation for operation of the facility. It's extremely clearcut to me that this does not apply to gamblers, but to those running the game or employed by them. A player in the game has no relation whatsoever to its operation.

[TheMathProf]

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?

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission.[/i]

[/ QUOTE ]
The operative phrase here is "operates, manages or profits from the operation of a premises." All three of these statues have to do with running a gambling operation, not participating in one as as player.

[yahboohoo]

I live in Washington. I wrote and rewrote about 20 different state legislators last spring when they were contemplating passage of SB6613, and wrote them again after they passed it. I just wrote them all again yesterday asking if indeed anyone has been charged or prosecuted under RCW 9.46.240, the law that SB6613 became.

The thing that really irks me about this law is that all the other Class C felonies in Washington are crimes where other human beings are directly victimized -- either hurting them personally, or by depriving them of their property or rights in some manner.

Regarding the two new bills, I see no reason why they need to be mutually exclusive. Why can't online poker be completely decriminalized, and all other forms be reduced to misdemeanors? Personally, I would prefer all forms of online gaming to be legal, regulated and taxed, but if they feel compelled to punish some "gambling heathens," let it be online video slot players for a misdemeanor.

One other thing to note about the passage of the original law: It was originally sponsored by five Democrats. I was sorely disappointed by this. I did extensive research on the five sponsors, including multiyear looks into their campaign donors at www.followthemoney.org. They are 100% tools of the Indian gaming industry in Washington. They even passed a law that said you can't lobby in Washington unless you have a gaming license in Washington, specifically to exclude online gaming from exerting any influence in our state.

So it doesn't matter who you are -- red, blue or green -- if your bread is buttered by B&Ms, you're no friend of ours.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in Washington. I wrote and rewrote about 20 different state legislators last spring when they were contemplating passage of SB6613, and wrote them again after they passed it. I just wrote them all again yesterday asking if indeed anyone has been charged or prosecuted under RCW 9.46.240, the law that SB6613 became.

The thing that really irks me about this law is that all the other Class C felonies in Washington are crimes where other human beings are directly victimized -- either hurting them personally, or by depriving them of their property or rights in some manner.

Regarding the two new bills, I see no reason why they need to be mutually exclusive. Why can't online poker be completely decriminalized, and all other forms be reduced to misdemeanors? Personally, I would prefer all forms of online gaming to be legal, regulated and taxed, but if they feel compelled to punish some "gambling heathens," let it be online video slot players for a misdemeanor.

One other thing to note about the passage of the original law: It was originally sponsored by five Democrats. I was sorely disappointed by this. I did extensive research on the five sponsors, including multiyear looks into their campaign donors at www.followthemoney.org. They are 100% tools of the Indian gaming industry in Washington. They even passed a law that said you can't lobby in Washington unless you have a gaming license in Washington, specifically to exclude online gaming from exerting any influence in our state.

So it doesn't matter who you are -- red, blue or green -- if your bread is buttered by B&Ms, you're no friend of ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

the government is a business like any other (only where bribes are more legal)

[SCBielski]

A point no one has raised yet, define "playing poker recreationally". Are they going to hunt down all the multitabling pros...I'm assuming no.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
the government is a business like any other (only where bribes are more legal)

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll appreciate my old PokerRoom profile, particularly the last paragraph. I last updated it when PokerRoom gave US players the boot. (And yes, I was very, very bitter.)