FLORIDA ALLOWING POKER GAME STAKES TO BE RAISED IN JULY!

[soulvamp]

One more thing: The $100 NL will have 1/2 blinds.

[RobertC]

Does anyone know when the Governor is expected to sign the legislation or where to go to find out when and if he signs it?

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law says the maximum buy-in is $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

The law says the 'required buy-in'. In order to play 100NL online, the required amound is only $20, or 1/5 of the maximum buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[1p0kerboy]

NY,

I agree with what you said.

I do think the intent of the bill is to have players buying in for no more than $100. Unfortunately it is not quite worded that way.

Doing something otherwise might be considered an angle-shoot, but while you say the poker rooms won't take on the risk of doing that, I might disagree based on their past actions. They started running tournaments before the new legislation, thereby actually not abiding by the $2 bet rule in the past.

[soulvamp]

I kind of agree with pokerboy. I think if it occurs to one of the cardroom managers what the bill actually says, I don't think he would have any hesitation to open up the buyin. Just like what happened with the tournament issue a year or so ago, it's not going to cause any laws to be repealed or anything. They just shut down the tournaments for a week or so while things got clarified in Tallahassee. I think if they lifted a max cap on the buyin, they might be told to bring it back down to $100 and then a bunch of lawyers will huddle for a few days until they come up with some sort of compromise.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
NY,

I agree with what you said.

I do think the intent of the bill is to have players buying in for no more than $100. Unfortunately it is not quite worded that way.

Doing something otherwise might be considered an angle-shoot, but while you say the poker rooms won't take on the risk of doing that, I might disagree based on their past actions. They started running tournaments before the new legislation, thereby actually not abiding by the $2 bet rule in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. This has historically been the problem with the Florida State Legislature. The language of their bills are usually not written very well. We see this all the time. You even see all the gramatical error corrections in this very bill.

Try arguing with a Judge when a bill is not very clear. It also makes bad law because it allows too much room for interpretation. What one human being reads is not necessarily what another sees and you get caselaw decisions all over the place on the very same topic and statutory language.

[Russ M.]

Thanks NY60 for your continued updates, as well as others who have provided links and not made everybody search for info. Much better than "OMG DEALER TOLD ME YADDA YADDA" that's been posted here a few times. I'd also rather not see ambiguous language result in cardrooms trying to take advantage of it. There's no way legislators would go from $2 max to uncapped NL, so obviously that's not the intention. I did notice though that it does say in my cardroom for the LHE games "$40 buy-in is required" but obviously I can buy-in for anything, but that's limit. I'm sure it'll be straightened out, just hopefully it won't prevent the bill from being signed by the Governor.

[NY60]

Thank you. I am grateful for having this open forum. There are a lot of well informed and well intentioned individuals who post here regularly and I am thankful for their enthusiasm in support of poker. Hopeful we can reach our goals not only here in Florida but with internet poker as well.

[dozer]

I echo my thanks to NY60. We should all meet somewhere on 7/1/07 and celebrate together.

Now then, enough with the fuzzy bullcrap.

We have all played in the 2/2 games here. Does anyone really believe that the 2/4 or 5/5 fixed limit games will be in any way different from how the idiots play 2/2 here? In my mind, the answer is no. People will still crack AA with 68o. People will still chase gutshot draws. The pots will be bigger, but so will the swings. It's going to be exactly the same, except for more moolah. If you've been a consistent winner at 2/2, then you should be confident. You should also consider yourself lucky.

The $100NL game will also be a wreck, but one that can be beaten by anyone with a decent knowledge of NL poker. But, you're going to want to double up or win several pots within the first 90 minutes or else you'll be down to around half your stack thanks to the rake. I guess if the topping off is allowed, then that can offset the rake. But it's still a monster pain in the butt.

Like I said, we should plan a 2p2 meetup at one of the poker rooms on Sunday July 1. I'd like to play in the first NL cash game hand at a place.

[Grasshopp3r]

[ QUOTE ]

playing 15 hands an hour (if you are lucky) is going to suk tho compared to playing 500 an hour online 6 tabling ....

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

This is great news. I now have a better reason to vacation in your state.