Question about no-electronic transfer, online poker

[Albert Moulton]

Let's say I went to my local, legal, California card room where I deposited $1000 in my player's club account. Then I receive a user name and password for their on-line card game. And then I went home to play on line using a program owned by the card room running on a card room server only against other players who deposited money in person at that one local card room.

First, assuming the rake is identical to the rake in the live games, is anybody breaking the law?

And second, assuming there is no rake, but the casino keeps 5% of every deposit as a service charge, is anybody breaking the law?

Third, assuming there is a network of B&M cardrooms across California pooling their live deposits, does this change the legality for either of the rake scenarios?

Fourth, what if hundreds of B&M cardrooms in all juridictions across the country where B&M play is legal pooled their live deposits and all the players were in jurisdictions where playing at the B&M were legal. Anybody breaking the law now?

And finally, if I were go to a 3rd party "cashier" who charges 5% to hold all deposits, then I went home and played a peer-to-peer game that was not hosted on any one computer, but had a reliable means of recording wins and losses as a "score" on the "cashier's" computer so that the "cashier" could give people money back based on their game "score," is anybody breaking the law now?

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I went to my local, legal, California card room where I deposited $1000 in my player's club account. Then I receive a user name and password for their on-line card game. And then I went home to play on line using a program owned by the card room running on a card room server only against other players who deposited money in person at that one local card room.

First, assuming the rake is identical to the rake in the live games, is anybody breaking the law?

OK, lets play 1/2 NL, folded to the button who calls. SB folds and BB checks. Pot is now $0.00 as $4 is taken for the drop and $1 is taken for the jackpot. This sounds like fun. Link on how California drop works

And second, assuming there is no rake, but the casino keeps 5% of every deposit as a service charge, is anybody breaking the law?
Doubtful that either Larry Flynt or the California Legislature would write the regs to just charge a flat percentage. Also the house in California can not receive money based on pot size, only charge a rental fee, hence fixed rate drops above.

Third, assuming there is a network of B&M cardrooms across California pooling their live deposits, does this change the legality for either of the rake scenarios? California is big enough for its own network. Because of California law on drop I dont think an interstate network would be allowed.

Fourth, what if hundreds of B&M cardrooms in all juridictions across the country where B&M play is legal pooled their live deposits and all the players were in jurisdictions where playing at the B&M were legal. Anybody breaking the law now?

And finally, if I were go to a 3rd party "cashier" who charges 5% to hold all deposits, then I went home and played a peer-to-peer game that was not hosted on any one computer, but had a reliable means of recording wins and losses as a "score" on the "cashier's" computer so that the "cashier" could give people money back based on their game "score," is anybody breaking the law now?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, lets play 1/2 NL, folded to the button who calls. SB folds and BB checks. Pot is now $0.00 as $4 is taken for the drop and $1 is taken for the jackpot. This sounds like fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I play every week at my local casino. It works fine because the blinds can chop if button folds. Meanwhile, if button doesn't fold, then button should raise since if he wins the pot preflop, then there is no drop. But if button limps, as you suggest, then SB can still fold, and BB can then chose to raise or say bad things about the button in the chat box.

If you can chop in a live game, then the software I'm envisioning would allow for a chop option as well as a live staddle.

But you make it sound as if this game would not be fun. But I think it would because even with the fixed drop rates, depositing live to play on-line would allow for smaller limit games, multi-tabling, hand histories with statistical analysis, player notes, HUDs, and playing at home without needing to drive to or from the casino. Those are a lot of benefits. Plus, in large pots, I would expect to save a little money in a fixed rake as opposed to a percentage rake. So, if the buy-ins were deeper (i.e. 100bb or 200bb or even more) because the limits were lower (i.e. .01/.02 to .1/.25, etc), then the games would be pretty good.

This set up would eliminate many of the problems sited by UIGEA supporters.

First, it would be harder for underage players to play. Second, it would be hard for anybody foreign group to launder money. Although I think the money laundering objection to online poker, in particular, is pretty lame. Third, it would allow the casinos to keep players in legal juristications. Fourth, for large tournament wins and jackpots, the casios could file W2-Gs like they do now.

I suspect that this might actually be legal if the players were California residents and the rake conformed to California law.