It was a little bizarre. Initially, yes. But in the second hour I was there, the dealer would just limp and fold to any raise/future bet. I think that specific element was the greyest area.

One more rule you just reminded me of: If a player is all-in, anyone involved at showdown must table their hand because they are more strictly treating cash as a tournament.

My take is that these are such minor changes that have little to no effect on the much bigger issue. In the (IMO very unlikely) chance social gaming is permitted to keep going, my guess is all of these rules will regress back to where they were.

Glaring typo, sorry. 10-15 minutes total, because they have to cash out each player one by one.

So they're juicing every pot with $3 dead money? That could make it a great game even with the other negative aspects. Don't see how they could afford it though.

Tipping is tipping whether you do it with chips or cash. And I still don't know how they get around the "house bank" issue.

I would say these types of rules will kill the game, but this sounds pretty similar to how Encore ran cash, and peeps kept going there.

Big difference is that at Encore you could choose whether you wanted to cash out and chips didn't have to leave the table. There were five minute breaks at the end of each hour, which were actually pretty to have during a long session.

In my quick trip to Meadows on Monday, I watched players win $500+ pots at 1/2 near the top of the hour, cash out and rebuy for $100. Doubtful Encore would have been as successful if that was a trend.

You're right, that's a pretty big difference. Gross.

The whole thing feels like dead man walking

"Dealers are employees"

"Don't worry, we fixed that by encouraging/forcing players to go south every hour"

Good news. You no longer have to fully cash out at the end of every hour at Meadows. Stacks exceeding the max can stay at the table, and the game is already back to its normal depth.

We'll see what else changes as they continue to experiment with the rules.

And now the best news: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1660...6624449313481/.

What exactly was in that bill that would have been so bad? The places are already basically illegal and have been tweaking their rules and policies to try to keep from getting shut down.

It depends on what you define as "bad."

If you think the rooms should be shut down, there was nothing bad at all in the bill.

If you were the operator of one of the rooms operating with a social gaming license from whatever city you were in, the restriction that limited the grant of social gaming licenses to charities would mean you could no longer get a license.

OK, so it would have unlicensed the current poker rooms, that would be bad. But they're still facing tons of other legal challenges, correct? And the defeat of this bill doesn't help against any of those?

Tried reading past few pages and didn't see anything. Visiting Portland this weekend, where can I find the highest stakes nl/plo games?

I'm not aware of "tons" of legal challenges.

The primary legal challenge was swatted down by the Supreme Court last fall when they said the Washington State poker rooms didn't have standing to contest the licensing of poker rooms in Oregon. HB2190 was their attempt to get the law changed because the lawsuit was stymied.

Authorities can still levy penalties for violations of state law, and if those add up, it could make life difficult for a room. Meadows is in the unique position of having state-licensed gaming operations that could be jeopardized by how the Lottery chooses to view the poker operation (not well, apparently), but they have no leverage on rooms that don't sell Lottery products.

Well they still have two ways in which they are probably in violation of laws: for making a profit from poker, and for calling dealers "volunteers" when they are basically employees.

I'd try Meadows for PLO.

Is that a "legal challenge"? Or a "legal problem"?

Is it a legal challenge when someone rolls through a stop sign? Or is it a violation of the law that goes unchallenged without enforcement?

A "violation of the law that goes unchallenged without enforcement" isn't a problem....until someone decides to challenge it.

Brian has given hints they continue to work on a more permanent solution. I hope that's true, because otherwise this is far from over. I put the odds at 50/50 the Oregon Lottery folks aren't going to be cool with the new "rules" that supposedly put Meadows in compliance.

To be fair, I rarely see PLO run at Meadows. Big O is usually the only non-NLHE alternative and often the most popular game in the room.

That's been my point all along. The Lottery, the city, the state…any licensing body has the option to withhold permits based on whether they think a business is operating within the law or for any number of other reasons.

I'd just add that I do hope the rooms manage to find a way to continue operations within some sort of framework:

There's a subtle difference: you have argued, or seemingly assumed, that the City/Lottery/whatever made an informed decision (meaning, they knew exactly how the clubs operated) when they chose not to enforce. I have always taken the position this is not the case; they City/State knew poker was going on (obviously), but either did not know about cover charges, dealer tipping, stakes, house bank, etc., or had not properly analyzed the statute (maybe both). The fact that the first time the state and the city sent in enforcement investigators they both found violations for things that had been going on for years supports this.


I'm a bigger fan of this one, as might be some of the Big O players at Meadows:

The first time? I'm not sure what you're referring to, but investigators have been going into the clubs over a period of years. Clubs have paid fines in the past and worked with the city to address violations.

That's the part about your claim that governing bodies were ignorant that strikes me as disingenuous. If you think that the report the Lottery is responding to is the first time an investigator has ever entered one of the poker clubs, then you really aren't as well informed as you think you are.

Fair enough (but also kind of a personal blow that we haven't stooped to yet). Frankly, what exactly the City knows and what informed decisions they've made is irrelevant to my primary argument: get me in front of a judge and I will argue the clubs are illegal under state law, and I'll bet on myself against any lawyer arguing the contrary. I haven't EVER seen you argue against that; only that the City and State don't enforce. Great. That might not last forever, and I still wouldn't count La Center out. They lost on standing the first time. Makes sense, they're not Oregon residents. Notice who they brought to the HB 2190 hearing? The President of OREGON Sports Action, who WOULD have standing. I'm not saying they're the ones going to sue, just that not everyone in Oregon is in love with the clubs.

As to all the **** I'm uninformed about (the list is long), do you care to provide insight? The only investigation and action I'm aware of was House of Pain and BOLI. What were the fines based on? When, before this go-round, did they work with the city, and what changes were made? Hard to deny the stuff has been going on for years, so if they've only now decided to do something about it, that gives credence to the right side of my "or" argument: the City "had not properly analyzed the statute."

I'm pretty interested in these prior investigations, fines, and agreements between the City and clubs, and have made a FOIA request for any and all documents related to that type of action. Will report back when documents received (which, given government bureaucracy, could be never).

Have you ever considered the possibility that they haven't shut the clubs down because they think the clubs may have an argument that they aren't technically breaking the law?

Seriously, I'm not trying to pick a fight. But there's nothing that would stop you, as (presumably) an Oregon citizen from agitating for some sort of enforcement, is there? What's stopping you from getting in front of a judge?

I haven't done any kind of investigating into the issue, I haven't filed a FOIA, all I've done is talk to people around the Portland poker community over the years. Same as here.