Pokercrat

The news and politics of poker

1. • Posted by G (unverified) 2008-01-13 04:13:59

   • It is pretty confusing, but the relevant sections would *appear* to be 337j (a),(b),(e). 330.11 seems to exclude poker from the restrictions above it in the document, but not below it. Not sure if Section 30 applies here.

2. • Posted by Jason M 2008-01-13 04:17:02

   • Cool, I'm gonna go read that. Just a note - those sections appear to be links, but that's just the wiki rendering messing up. We'll fix that :)

3. • Posted by bhakti (unverified) 2008-01-13 06:07:20

   • that's what one of the friendly officers told me today, it's only illegal if there's a "cover charge".

4. • Posted by kl (unverified) 2008-01-14 18:18:17

   • Social home games are legal in California so long as there is no rake or fee taken for the game. If there's a rake, then it's considered a card club and you must have a gaming license. Those are quite hard to get, and the municipality must also allow the cardroom to exist.

     In essence, if you're in a licensed card club you're fine. If you're getting together once a week at somebody's house, you're fine... and you probably won't even get hassled if you take a buck out of each pot to pay for the pizza. If someone is making money on the game's existence, it's an unlicensed card club.

5. • Posted by Ethan (unverified) 2008-01-14 19:09:27

   • That makes sense. But what if you take $5 from each buy-in and put it in a fund that you pay out as prizes? Say for bounties or the top 5 players or a free tournament at the end of the season?

     It seems like it should be legal, since you're paying out all the money you took in, but what would a DA say about it?

6. • Posted by uzjedi (unverified) 2008-01-15 10:07:31

   • In that case I would think detailed records and receipts would be all you would need to make sure you are covering your bases.

7. • Posted by Poker Guy (unverified) 2008-01-16 19:36:39

   • kl's comment about taking a buck from the pot to pay for pizza would under no circumstances be okay.

     I'm not a lawyer, (although I did go to Law School). But I've been involved in the cardroom industry in California for a number of years.

     For it to be legal, there has to be a specific distinction between funds for the game, and funds for something else (like food). There would be nothing wrong with having a private party that has a cover charge, and there happens to be a poker game going. (Make it a written rule that the 'party' has a cover charge at the door to pay for food and drink, regardless of your activities for the evening.)

     If you take $55 to play poker, and leave $50 for the prize pool, it's illegal, regardless of your stated intent for the 'rake'. (Remember, many cardrooms provide free meals... it's just considered a promotion.)

     On the matter of withholding money for future payouts, uzjedi is right: have good records and make sure the intent to payout that money is well documented beforehand, during, and after the series.

8. • Posted by Ethan 2008-01-16 21:49:26

   • So by that logic, could Bert argue that his $5 fee was just a cover charge for food and drink, and that it was never part of a buy-in? Seems a bit shaky, but then so does the other side's argument.

     I suppose that's why good records are key.