Hi all,
Poker Nation was mentioned in the article in the AZ Republic and people have been buzzing about it. Rightly so, I recently bought a house roughly 20 blocks away and decided to go check it out yesterday. First of all the article says E. Greenway not true you will find yourself riding through a residential area on the east side. So if you are going over there make sure your crossroads are W. Greenway and 19th Ave. It is located on the south east corner in the smaller building facing away from 19th Ave. They had a soft opening recently but the big opening is today (thursday 26th). Christine is very nice has a good selection of poker supplies and she even has some people out of store who build tables, nice tables by the way. She has said to me that she will do everything to maintain a fair game. She will have four tables going and she is thinking the 1-2 NL Hold'em game will be the popular game (min. buy in is 50$). She is going to leave that up to us the players. Just so you know you will need to purchase a 20 dollar membership and also be aware there is no rake they do a 2 dollar button. So every time the button comes to you that is two bucks for the house. I personally have never played this way but I do think it is better than having the pot raked. She is going to have four tables going and she is willing to stay open late for the games. I think you will find a nice atmosphere and good people. You will definitely find a poker game if that is what you are looking for so if you are in the area go check it out! I am busy and don't have time to go play today but I will play there very soon and I'll be happy to fill you all in on what games are going to be the norm etc.
Poker Players Alliance Forums » State - AZ
Poker Nation
(16 posts)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
Chuk,
As I understand the current laws in Arizona, This operation is ilegal. "social gambling" does not allow the house or host to take one penny from the players.
That being said I also understand that this is judge Lee's room. What is the purpose of opening in Phoenix? Is this a means to an end? as I can not imagine that this room makes enough money to survive.
I would like to see a change in current state laws regarding "social gambling" and what would be great is regulated card rooms that require licsensing away from the reservations obv.
please discuss
Aaron
Posted 4 months ago # -
Aaron,
I think we would all like to see a change in Arizona law regarding gaming.
With respect to Poker Nation, the house is not raking the pot itself, as the players pay a button charge when they have the button. Judge Lee believes that makes this enterprise lawful. In any regard, the authorities have basically said they won't prosecute because they don't think they can get a conviction.
Judge Lee has ambitious plans to open card rooms state-wide with his organization licensing and doing oversight. You can certainly contact him for more information about his plans and to learn more about his thinking.
As for the state istelf, I don't think they have any incentive to move gaming from the reservations. Until they do, I don't know that the state or any of its agencies would be involved in opening cardrooms elsewhere, especially since such actions might violate the Gaming Compact.
Steve Yeager
PPA AZ State DirectorPosted 4 months ago # -
Steve,
absolutely we need a change here in AZ, the current laws are just goofy IMHO.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for Judge Lee's work and frankly I hope that his actions force the state to make changes. My point being that the current laws regarding "social gambling" prohibit the house from taking money from the players. Also, they are prohibited from advertising.
Private regulated card rooms is what is needed in the state, we have the card rooms however there is no oversight and they are forced to rely on tips and not allowed to advertise their business and that is what's goofy about the law.
Aaron
Posted 4 months ago # -
Aaron,
Thanks for your input. Can you provide us some more details or point us to some resources as to what Arizona law currently allows or prohibits in terms of social gambling?
Steve
Posted 4 months ago # -
7. "Social gambling" means gambling that is not conducted as a business and that involves players who compete on equal terms with each other in a gamble if all of the following apply:
(a) No player receives, or becomes entitled to receive, any benefit, directly or indirectly, other than the player's winnings from the gamble.
(b) No other person receives or becomes entitled to receive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the gambling activity, including benefits of proprietorship, management or unequal advantage or odds in a series of gambles.
(c) Until June 1, 2003, none of the players is below the age of majority. Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age.
(d) Players "compete on equal terms with each other in a gamble" when no player enjoys an advantage over any other player in the gamble under the conditions or rules of the game or contest.
(http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Arizona/)
2. “Social Gambling”
The “social gambling” exception is intended to permit casual, friendly wagering among people, over the age of 21, that are competing on equal terms with each other. This exception does not apply to gambling that is operated as a “business” – that is, under circumstances where a participant may receive a “benefit” other than winnings from the contest, or where a non-participant may “benefit” from the gambling activity, or the rules or conditions under which the games are played favor the “house.” A “benefit” includes any value or advantage, present or prospective, and can be direct - such as taking a percentage of a pot, charging an entrance fee or renting chairs or equipment to players - or indirect - such as using gambling to attract customers or increase sales by a retail establishment.(http://www.asu.edu/counsel/brief/gambling.html)
13-3304. Benefiting from gambling; classification
A. Except for amusement or regulated gambling, a person commits benefiting from gambling if he knowingly obtains any benefit from gambling.
B. Benefiting from social gambling as a player is not unlawful under this section.
C. Benefiting from gambling is a class 1 misdemeanor.
13-3305. Betting and wagering; classification
A. Subject to the exceptions contained in section 5-112, no person may engage for a fee, property, salary or reward in the business of accepting, recording or registering any bet, purported bet, wager or purported wager or engage for a fee, property, salary or reward in the business of selling wagering pools or purported wagering pools with respect to the result or purported result of any race, sporting event, contest or other game of skill or chance or any other unknown or contingent future event or occurrence whatsoever.
B. A person shall not directly or indirectly knowingly accept for a fee, property, salary or reward anything of value from another to be transmitted or delivered for wagering or betting on the results of a race, sporting event, contest or other game of skill or chance or any other unknown or contingent future event or occurrence whatsoever conducted within or without this state or anything of value as reimbursement for the prior making of such a wager or bet on behalf of another person.
C. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Aaron
Posted 4 months ago # -
There isn't anywhere in the law that says one can not "advertise" their games. I don't know where this came from. I'm curious, really.
I think we can all agree that there is a lot of "gray area" in the current laws with relation to poker. First off, poker isn't gambling. So there's no need to even reference the "social gambling" laws at all. We do not allow prop bets, slot machines, roulette, craps, or even blackjack to be played.
The "betting and wagering" laws you referenced do not have anything to do with poker, either. They specifically reference betting on the results of an event. We do not allow anyone to bet on results, for example, who will win a tournament. These laws are in reference to betting on an event that you have no direct control over.
Poker Nation operates a card room licensed under the ICGPA, a non-profit player's union. All players, dealers, and floor personnel are members of this union/private club. It's no different than joining the Professional Bowlers' Association and paying an entrance fee to compete in that sport for money. If you have ever been in a bowling league, you will know that you pay the bowling alley a fee for the use of their lanes while you compete against the other teams, and players win money at the end depending on how they finished. How is this any different than a poker tournament? (It's not)
What IS illegal is:
1) Taking money from the pot. This is called "theft of conversion" and is similar to if your friend let you borrow your car and you kept it.
2) Stealing tips from the dealers. This is also theft. Starbucks employees recently won a class action suit against the company who allowed managers to take a portion of the tips that the employees earned.Poker Nation's card room is operating in an honest and up front manner. You pay a flat rate for the hand before it's dealt and if you choose to tip the dealer (and yes, it is truly optional), he will get to keep every penny you give him.
We haven't heard a single word from the authorities despite proclaiming on the front page of the Arizona Republic exactly what we are doing. We have also had an excellent response from the players with nearly 100 people joining the club so far.
-Christine
Owner, Poker Nation
http://www.PokerNationUSA.comPosted 4 months ago # -
Hello Crimson/Christine!
First let me say thank you for all your efforts in support of poker. I felt I had to respond though, because there is one legal mistake in your post: poker (played for money) is legally gambling in AZ. AZ law clearly states that gambling includes wagering on a "game of chance OR SKILL." AZ law does have a lot of exceptions though, so its not a "bad" state for players.
Otherwise, your proposed method of complying with one such exception, the "social gambling" exception, is very unique and creative and I wish you well. I assume you are directly aware of the applicable provision "(b) No other person receives or becomes entitled to receive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the gambling activity, including benefits of proprietorship, management or unequal advantage or odds in a series of gambles."
IMHO, this is a true gray area: while you are clearly gaining the benefits of proprietorship, you are not certainly not gaining them "directly" from "the gambling activity" in that no portion of the money wagered is taken. The word "indirectly" in the statute worries me though, but on the other hand it also seems tied to the phrase "from the gambling activity" suggesting some cut of that specific money is needed to make it illegal, even if that cut is "indirect."
I could find no AZ case law to help guess as to which way a court, if ever called upon to do so, would answer this question. If you are aware of any could you please bring it to my attention?
Also, if there is anything I or the PPA can do to help, dont hesitate to ask!
Skallagrim
Posted 4 months ago # -
Christine,
Thank you for joining the discussion. Just let me say first that I support poker nation, Judge Lee and every thing that the two of you are doing for the game.
I feel that a change for the better is on the horizon in our state and it will largely be becuase of the hard work and dedication of PokerNation and Judge Lee.
There are allot of gray area's as you stated, for one there is no distinction in the law for "poker" and that is precisely the problem with our states laws - What we want is poker to be classified as a Skill game and defined that way. I am not in favor of un-regulated "legalized gambling" where rooms open up offering roulette, craps and so on - (that's a differant topic)
I asked someone from the Arizona Department of Gaming to break down what was acceptable and here is a summary of what was related to me.
no more than 3-4 tables
do not take money from the players
do not advertiseI was told that as long as a room avoids the above the dept of gaming will leave them alone. This conversation was well over a year ago..
What I came away with after was the feeling that as long as nobody attempts to take business away from the tribes they will be left alone - something was said along the lines of "keep it small" which is what gave me that impression.
I am glad a discussion on this subject is finaly being made.
Aaron
Posted 4 months ago # -
Here is a direct link to the state laws.
http://www.gm.state.az.us/Gambling_PSA_Pamphlet2.pdf
Social Gambling
As defined in the statute (above), social gambling involves only players playing against each other, as in a poker game.
No one but the players can win any prize or money. The venue hosting the gambling cannot promote or profit from the
gambling, either by charging a fee in order to play, charging a cover charge or requiring a minimum purchase, taking a
percentage of the pot. If the venue promotes, advertises, or encourages the gambling activity, then any increase in sales
would be an indirect benefit, rendering the gambling illegal.Posted 4 months ago # -
Hi Kidcash, thanks for your contributions to the discussion.
It is important to note, however, that what you were told and what you referenced in that pamphlet are OPINIONS, not legal facts. Only statutes and COURT opinions state legal facts. I saw that the pamphlet did not cite any Court opinions. I only have access to AZ Supreme Court opinions, and there appear to be none of those on this subject. if anyone is aware of lower court opinions on the subject I would be very much interested in reading them.
Otherwise, PokerNation has found a gray area and it remains a gray area until a court rules one way or the other. I dont know enough about AZ to predict how a court might rule. Generally speaking, I would expect a court to agree with the Government's position as expressed in the pamphlet and interpret "indirectly" in a broad manner. But that is just an opinion too. A court predisposed to narrow rulings might easily rule otherwise.
Skallagrim
Posted 4 months ago # -
Skallagrim,
In my opinion what we want in AZ is that poker be defined as a skill game and seperate from "gambling" do you agree?
If poker is a game of skill than we are no longer live in a gray area correct?
Aaron
Posted 4 months ago # -
Hi Skellagrim,
We are allowed to compete in skill games and sports for money here. I was in bowling league and I won some money when my team scored the most points. The bowling center charged us a fee to use their lanes for the duration of our contest and they paid out a cash pool at the end funded from our weekly buy-ins and 50/50 raffles.
Isn't there a rather substantial difference between betting on your skill or betting on someone else's skill? For example, taking a fee to participate in a football pool is illegal whereas bowling in a league for money is not?
Our state's attorney general has stated publicly that he is NOT going to pursue Judge Lee's system because he has "no reasonable likelihood of conviction".
I am moving ahead confidently, knowing that I am on the right side of this. I am only the first of other planned card rooms here under Judge Lee's system. We are tired of our players being forced into garages and the casinos here that take an outrageous rake upwards of $5-7 per hand, some of which is used to fund a jackpot for a guy next week who gets his aces cracked. Just crazy what we've been reduced to.
The "indirectly" in our law is the worst word in there. That one word could be open to 1000 interpretations. I could be at a home game and give someone my business card and I've just "indirectly" benefited from the game. Heck, I've got a regular who plays poker to network with people to gain customers for his financial planning consulting business. Isn't he "indirectly" benefiting too?
I'm not trying to sound argumentative. I have listened to Judge Lee go on and on about this subject (as he loves to do) and his logic definitely appears sound. I know I'm on the right side in this matter when it comes down to it.
-Christine
Posted 4 months ago # -
Aaron and Christine, you are talking to the guy who first suggested the "skill game" approach in these forums. I 100% agree with your sentiments. But you can look up AZ law as easily as me. The definition of "gambling" is found in section 13-3301.4 and states: ""Gambling" or "gamble" means one act of risking or giving something of value for the opportunity to obtain a benefit from a game or contest of chance or skill." "GAME...OF...SKILL." It may not be enforced, but playing any game for money (if it does not fit into one of the exceptions) is illegal in AZ.
Thats bad.
On the other hand, the exceptions are pretty broad. And PokerNation is relying on one such exception, it seems to me. As an attorney, I am trained to always see both sides of an argument. When I post comments here I try and be very careful to identify what is definitely the law versus what is my opinion of the law. That word "indirectly" could come back to haunt you; then again, because that word is tied to "from gambling activity" you have a good counter argument. Neither of us will ever know for certain which is the "right" interpretation until a court rules. Which seems very unlikely given the AG's opinion.
So congratulations on that opinion! And good luck. If I am ever in Phoenix I will definitely pay a visit.
Skallagrim
Posted 4 months ago # -
Great discussion on this topic everybody, thanks for contributing.
What I would really like to see happen is a change to the definition of gambling so that games of skill would not be included in the definition. That would seem to get us out of any gray area, at least with respect to poker. Or I would like to see poker specifically exempted from the definition of gambling.
Of course, making that happen is not easy, but it would at least squarely take poker out of the mix without having to rely on statements from the AG.
Posted 4 months ago # -
This is why we are here to help change the laws and why we really need to get the AZ chapter alive and kicking Steve. Sorry I have not been back in Christine my new home is keeping me quite busy. I hope things are going well for you and I plan to be in at some point to play very soon. Kid a lot of good stuff stay active on the boards this is what we need! Skallagrim thanks for chiming in, its always good to read how you weigh in. I read the article where "The Professor" gives you some major kudos nice work!
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.