By "interesting", I meant material more recent than the closing of Encore, which happened nine months ago. Two of the major figures in the primary story were dead by the time it came out, and Jacquiss never did interview Ogai. I know he interviewed a number of other people for the story—some rather extensively—and a couple quotes from those interviews made it into the story, but it was mostly words from people who were dead and the lawyer for the La Center casino.

Lines like "smells like a mixture of air freshener, fear and fryer grease" were pretty laughable. And if he thinks the strip mall Final Table is in is "a long way from Vegas," he really hasn't seen much of Vegas. Characterizing Ogai as not seeing the "inevitable" showdown over the state regulations ("But John Ogai didn't see it coming.") kind of makes you wonder how stupid he thinks the players and club management are.

Personally, I'd love to see some sort of resolution that would allow the clubs to keep operating. They've been the breeding grounds for some great local tournament players, something that was never going to happen with the closest regular legal poker game being in La Center. It's not as if the clubs are the only businesses who've had problems with BOLI, and the only other real complaint has been from people whose business are withering on the branch when Ilani ramps up across the freeway. If the poker clubs can manage to stave things off for a couple years and come up with a solution that accommodates BOLI, that particular problem will rectify itself.

Re: the article, I agree there was a lot of laughable lines. My comment is a bit of an out-of-context reaction to a lot of the folks in NW Poker who were upset the article didn't approach the issue from a pure "poker is great for everybody" point of view.

Re: bolded, I just don't see how that's possible with the current state of the law. I sound like a broken record at this point (not just here, but playing in the clubs whenever the issue comes up), but the statutory framework simply does not (legally) allow the clubs to operate as they currently do, or in ANY way in which they are a for-profit entity. The second they make money it violates the statute. The city and the state have now recognized that, and unless they decide to simply put their heads in the sand again, I don't see a solution because a solution would require them to knowingly ignore the state statute.

It's a catch-22, and it shows why the statute needs to change for anything resembling progress to occur. If dealers are employees who need to get paid by the clubs, that per se violates the statute in multiple ways (the "house," which includes those operating the games, e.g., dealers from profiting from poker, prohibition on house facilitating the actual operation of the games, etc.). But if they're volunteers, BOLI doesn't get the tax revenue. That last part is cynical, but in my opinion realistic.

Nothing on the website yet, but word from those present is the bill to kill any social gaming unless it's from a non-profit (generally speaking) passed committee. No word on vote split, which is kind of important.

The list of issues discussed is not good for the clubs: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...ocument/120150

I'm fairly certain you're already aware that the law is not an immutable, hard-line beast. There are card rooms in Eugene, Albany, Bend, and elsewhere that operate under the same state laws as the Portland clubs.

In addition to the fact that the city has worked with various owners of clubs over most of a decade, they actually put some resources into the case that went to the Supreme Court last fall. There's some institutional turf there for them to protect, because if they just give up at this point and assent to the idea that they've allowed illegal poker clubs to operate under their noses and with their help for years, well, it looks a little bad. The bureaucrats of Portland are not going to man the barricades of Portland poker, but I don't think they're going to roll over and say "Our bad." That's a big thing that the article missed.

The BOLI cases are more problematic, but even the article admitted it wasn't an issue solely for the poker rooms. The article probably could have used some more input from current and former dealers, what with that being a major sticking point for continued operation. No good-sized dealer pool and there's not way for Final Table or Portland Meadows to run large tournaments.

That leaves the state laws on gambling which—if they're going to be enforced in Portland—are going to have to be enforced statewide by whoever. They haven't been doing it so far, and the Secretary of State keeps giving poker rooms business licenses.

When I talked to Brian at Portland Meadows on Saturday, he told me the hearing—originally scheduled for last Friday—to be today. If it's been pushed back another couple of weeks, I don't think it was PM or FT's doing.

I thought that the article did a great job for anyone approaching the issue cold. Of course, that's not anyone here, but it's the vast majority of the readership. I also thought it was balanced and, for the most part, free of histrionics.

I'm sure you would agree that whether a law is enforced is much different than whether something is legal/illegal. I'm also sure you would agree that the government does not work as a single, coherent beast. The Secretary of State doesn't give more than 10 seconds thought to a business applying for corporate recognition; you have a single clerk looking at the Articles of Organization, verifying the corporation has a "valid purpose" (Final Table simply lists "social gaming"), and verifying the name isn't in use. They're not sitting there thinking "this might be a poker club, and poker clubs are illegal under state law, so I shouldn't let them become a corporation."

The case that went to the Supreme Court never came close to touching the substance of the case, i.e., whether the City's social gaming regulations were contrary to Oregon state law. I certainly don't profess to knowing exactly what the City was thinking, but if I were them the sole issue on appeal (whether an out-of-state entity can challenge a city regulation that does not apply to them, but inflicts a "competitive injury") was more than enough reason to dedicate significant city resources. In other words, my guess is the City didn't challenge the action and fight the appeal because it wanted to save poker (or save face for allowing it to continue), it wanted to protect its sovereignty from outside interests.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Of course laws can change, and of course regulations and implementation of a law can change, so long as the interpretation is consistent with state law. That's the problem. State law on social gaming is superior to city regulations related to social gaming. Again with the broken record, but I have extensively analyzed the issue from a legal point of view, reviewing legislative history, case law, and administrative decisions on social gaming in Oregon. Rarely is legislative history as clear as this: when it has addressed the issue, the Oregon legislature has made it clear that social gaming means social gaming, and it doesn't want anyone making money off of it. If someone is making money from it, it violates the state statute. Regardless of what anyone anywhere else is doing, that won't change without legislative action. That HB 2190 passed out of committee shows that might be difficult.

And I didn't say that they were. But the fact is they made an interpretation of the state laws, they've stuck by that interpretation, and they're not going to let people from across the river tell them what to do. I have no doubt that if the state DoJ decides to take some action the city would have no problem.

My point about the law being mutable is that enforcement is open to some interpretation, and various municipalities in the state have perhaps erred on the side of leniency. Anyone can argue that the current poker situation is illegal, but the city has not been treating it as if it was illegal. It's not like they have to chase down perpetrators; they're operating in the open, with advertising, in business locations, with hours posted and doors open. And they've been doing that for years, where any relevant city or state authority could easily find them. So far—regarding the gambling laws—nobody seems to care enough about it except for the people in La Center who think their milkshake's been pilfered.

https://twitter.com/apokerplayer/sta...30682133487617

Via Zach Elwood: "Update on Portland area poker from owner of biggest cardroom here #pdx"

Darrel's ability to minimize the labor issues is offensive

That's a load. I haven't said anything to "minimize the labor issues." I grew up in a union household and blew up a ten-year career in bookselling at a prominent bookstore over my advocacy for how unfairly workers were being treated.

I'm pretty sure the last thing I said about dealers was that the article could have used more input from them.

How do you feel about workers being called volunteers and paying for the privilege in general? I am sure many businesses would love to adopt this model and look forward to your patronage and advocacy.

Regarding input from dealers it is not for them to decide if they are OK with working for no wage and largely undeclared tip income. It is illegal.

So you'd rather they get no voice—pro or con—in discussion about an issue regarding their treatment. Now who's being dismissive of their rights?

People certainly make more money working in illegal situations and would certainly love to protect those opportunities. That doesn't mean they get a seat at the table when it comes to labor laws. Please government protect this situation where I make all these tips that no one knows about because someone called me a volunteer. No.

Again, if every business could just classify their labor as volunteers they would. Especially ones where the workers get tips. Doing this not only hurts the workers denied a wage but favors the poker rooms vis a vis every other entertainment business they compete with, like bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.. It just can't happen.

Pretty funny to say I am dismissive of their rights when I am saying they got mistreated and you are saying things like

Does it really matter who complains about workers not getting paid? To you it does apparently.

The La Center group's complaints aren't about worker mistreatment. They could care less about the workers. They don't want competition, which is the reason they fought against the tribal status of the Cowlitz tribe, in order to hold up the casino that's about to open.

And if you look back at the sentence where you claim I'm minimizing workers rights, you'll see I'm contrasting the La Center charges against worker claims to BOLI, which kind of blows up your whole premise.

You're also incorrect when you say people get paid more in illegal operations, as well. Regulated, wholly-legal, employees make more for the same work than contract workers, temps, or 'volunteers' compensated by the whims of degen poker players. That's exactly the kind of thing that people said would happen with Uber v. cab companies — and one of the reasons I've always used cabs instead — and time has borne out those charges.

That said, I'm familiar with being desperate enough for work to do things that I'd rather not have. And I've worked as a contract programmer most of my career. A number of the people I've known in the Portland dealer community over the years have worked elsewhere (including La Center). Some have moved on to jobs elsewhere, some come back, others base here. I don't want to see them screwed over by club owners or people who don't want competition.

Certainly we agree more than disagree at the heart of it. Perhaps I was too harsh. You have to admit that saying "other businesses have BOLI issues" is a bit dismissive though. Are you implying it was not the dealers from Encore that initiated with BOLI? I assumed it was.

I am just really tired of a litany of poker players here fighting first for the game and secondly for the rights of the dealers to have good jobs. And frankly as much as I like some of the club owners it is appalling to me that they continue to treat their help as anything but employees, even going so far as to make them pay the entry fee.

I assume the dealer entry fee is only for show

I meant that BOLI and the need for it existed long before the poker clubs. My wife worked for BOLI more than 30 years ago. There are lots of businesses that mistreat their workers. I don't think that's dismissive. And all it would take for the house of cards in Portland poker to come down would be for a dealer to clash with one of the owners or a player or another dealer. Frankly, I'm surprised there haven't been more BOLI complaints in six or seven years.

The whole thing falls apart without dealers. I've made friends (I think) with a number of them, probably more dealers than players. I don't know how the clubs could actually hire dealers. They can't take money from the prize pools. They can't take a rake. They could potentially jack up door fees, but there's the legal issue that they can't facilitate the game.

My understanding is that making the dealers pay the door fee was an accommodation to the rules so that anyone not an employee of the club would pay the entry fee. If I was a club owner, I'd quietly drop all of the 'volunteer' door fees into the tip jar.

Something I meant to say about this. I didn't say they should only have talked to people who said they were happy being dealers. But I can't imagine doing a story that hinged on the treatment of migrant workers, without quoting migrant workers in the story. Or round-ups of homeless people without putting those stories up front somewhere.

And I'm pretty sure WW has never done a big story on how strippers are treated by club owners without, y'know, talking to some strippers.

No issues here with journalists taking to them. I thought you were implying BOLI and politicians should be including them.

Ilani website does not include any poker room information. Any poker room plans in the future?

I read an article from The Columbian or some similarly named paper that said they plan to have no poker.

Here, I went and found it again. http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/n...-taking-shape/

Word on the street is HB 2190 has enough "yes" votes to pass the House. That sucker passes and all of the debate over social gaming is meaningless. Even if it doesn't pass, the fight over the bill (and, ironically, poker players now finally getting off their asses and getting involved in the legislative process) might doom poker anyway, as Reps like Bill Post educate themselves and determine the clubs are violating the social gaming laws. As Post said:

"That being said, it IS illegal in Oregon for the 'card rooms' it's just not being enforced right now. It will be, eventually, whether this bill passes or not. I have been reading statutes all night on this and it's quite clear."

There's a few ways to read this (e.g., is Post going to carry the torch himself? Are there conversations happening with other legislators talking about a need to look into things further?), but it seems that shining a light on the issue might do more harm than good.

Not sure that "educate" is the operative word here. Some other Post statements:

"I do NOT represent Portland and don't care a whole lot about it's (sic) problems."

"I get paid $2000 a month to do this job. … I don't gamble and basically think anyone who does is not very smart."

I think that was the sentence directly before the quote you posted. The fact that Oregon state legislators aren't paid a lot for what can be at times a lot of work (not technically full-time positions) shouldn't exactly be a surprise. It wasn't for me when I ran for the Legislature 20-odd years ago.

Post again: "It's because that cesspool called Portland has the problem…"

All of which ignores the fact that this is a state bill that will affect cardrooms outside of Portland. You do have to wonder what aspect of Portland he finds so cessy.

Post is....something else. But I stand by the statement that it's probably not a good thing that legislators "become familiar" with the social gaming laws, because for anyone who cares one way or another, that education could easily lead to questioning why the clubs are allowed to run as-is considering the clarity of the current statutes (I've been pretty clear that I don't believe there actually is a current "gray area;" clubs are illegal as ****).

Pot's still a Schedule I controlled substance at the federal level, yet there are a gazillion places I can go to buy it "legally" in my neighborhood.