I would put this in Regional Communities but the Arizona thread is not much of a thread, tbh.

Long story short: A Tucson area tribe (2+ hrs south of Phoenix) acquired a piece of land in the City of Glendale (west side of Metro Phoenix) and was allowed by the Feds to make it a part of their reservation bec they were owed land the Feds took for some water project or something. Tribe declares that it will build a casino on the land. Phoenix area tribes, Glendale go ballistic, lawsuits, action in Congress (still ongoing afaik), court decisions, etc, etc but Tucson tribe wins so far. I remember that during the run up to the proposition that allowed tribes to open casinos that it was promised that no new casinos would be allowed in the Phoenix area. Still the Tucson tribe was winning bec that language was not actually in the proposition. NOW the State Gaming Agency, supported by the new Governor, says that they will not issue a gaming license. Casino currently is under construction. Here's a link:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ning/25915541/

Here comes more lawsuits. That casino isn't going to be open for years, imo, if ever. I think that they have to build, apply for license, get denied, go through agency appeals, get rejected again, then go to court. Salt River and Gila River tribes must be popping the champagne bottles right about now.

I'm speechless! FORCING a CASINO on the PEOPLE of ARIZONA.

I DID mention 'ballistic', iirc.

That's basically how Indian gambling was started.

To be fair, not really. There wouldn't be any Indian casinos at all if the various states hadn't allowed 'Las Vegas Night' fundraisers for churches and the like. The tribes claimed that they should be allowed to have charity fund raisers on their land also except that they went from dollar games to what we have now. In Connecticut, for example, Foxwoods couldn't have slots for a long time bec the state didn't allow slots for those fund raisers. They had to cut the state in in order to get them. There are no Indian casinos in Utah, btw, bec they never had these laws on their books and don't allow any gambling at all.

I'm sympathetic to the tribes, btw. Many have risen from abject poverty due to their casinos but giving them a monopoly on such a valuable business is probably a mistake.

Is anything but lowball allowed?

Yes the courts made the leap in logic that having a bingo night once a month for a $5 dollars is like opening a casino. Suffice to say the Arizona legislature did not vote "let's legalize gambling but it can only be banked by people born into certain races."

The legislature didn't do anything, the tribes had to pass a proposition to get what they have now in Arizona. And there's the rub for the Tucson tribe. I clearly remember the TV ads that claimed the result would be no casinos in urban centers, they would be strictly limited to tribal lands. That no one foresaw how that could possibly be gamed is not surprising but that the language was not, in fact, in the proposition, yet advertised as if it was, may convince a court if the Gaming Agency sticks to it's 'fraud' position. IOW, the people relied on the tribes representations, the Tucson tribe subscribed to those representations, and they may end up w/ a financial disaster. As a matter of fact, depending on their financing arrangements, they may end up w/ a disaster if the project gets delayed for a couple/few extra years.

Now I'm going to say something that I think is true but I may be wrong in which case I would like someone to set me straight: The Indian casinos are actually charity fund raisers, just like the churches, but on a bigger scale. That is why they represent that they spend the money on tribal housing, roads, fire departments, police, scholarships and w/e else I'm not thinking of. I believe that tribes have to get a Federal waiver to make direct payments to tribal members.

I think I'm right. Here's a link, scroll down to Indian Gaming:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...dian-subsidies

The 1988 law aimed at promoting tribal economic development. It required that net revenues from tribal gaming operations be used to fund tribal programs and provide for the general welfare of tribe members. Tribes may also distribute net gaming revenues to individual tribal members under a plan approved by the BIA.

I can't see how. Churches don't have a federal gaming act and they don't sign a compact with the gaming commish.

The churches don't have to, they are allowed it/regulated under state law.

The Feds came up w/ IGRA bec they realized that Indian gaming was spreading from state to state and and was unregulated. Look under 'Findings.' Number 1 refers to generating tribal governmental revenue. So what do governments spend money on? Like I said, housing, schools/scholarships, roads, fire and police, job training and w/e else government spends money on. And they essentially got to this point by claiming that they should be able to raise money the same way other charitable causes did since it was legal in their particular state.

To simply transfer some of the money to tribal members requires some sort of approval by the Feds.

The Legacy of Bryan v. Itasca County: How an Erroneous $147 County Tax Notice Helped Bring Tribes $200 Billion in Indian Gaming Revenue [.pdf] [minnesotalawreview.org]

While Cabazon is indeed an important case, its primary significance is that it followed Bryan’s holding that Congress, in granting Minnesota jurisdiction over the tribe under Public Law 280, never conferred “general state civil regulatory control over Indian reservations.” Bryan thus was the bedrock upon which the Indian gaming industry began.

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, an Organized Tribe of Indians as recognized under and by the laws of the United States v. Robert BUTTERWORTH [leagle.com]

Plaintiff, the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida, has requested this court to enjoin permanently the Sheriff of Broward County from enforcing Florida's bingo statute on Indian Land. This lawsuit follows considerable investment of capital by plaintiff Tribe in a bingo hall facility constructed and presently operating on the Seminole Reservation in Broward County.

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians [.pdf] [lawschool.unm.edu]

In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the United States Supreme Court held that California's bingo and card game laws did not prohibit tribal gaming operations on Indian reservations. The Court determined that neither Public Law 280 nor the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 authorized California to enforce its gambling laws on the reservations. The Court also determined that federal and tribal interest in tribal self-government, including tribal self-sufficiency and economic development, outweighed the state's interest in regulating bingo and card games.

This 1985 article mostly discusses Buttorworth v. Seminole Tribe, but also talks about Arizona (starting on page 3):


Indian Gaming: Law and Legislation [.pdf] [narf.org]

Representatives from the California and Arizona state Attorney General offices appeared and argued heatedly for state control of reservation gaming. They continually raised the specter that organized crime would infiltrate Indian gaming (though they could cite no evidence). They complained that there was no adequate means to do background checks for non-tribal investors or managers, that the non-published state of most tribal accounting offices encouraged money laundering, and that since non-Indians were doing most of the gambling that what the tribes was doing was, in effect, marketing a tribal exemption from state law to non-Indians.

Back to the original poster's joke, gambling in AZ was imposed by a tiny number of tribal officers and judges. The people and politicians had little say in the matter. For this I say to the enterprising Indians and activist judges, Thank you.

An Indian rub!

I'm pretty sure no one is forced to gamble.

IDK if sba9630's scholarly post means that I'm right, partially right or entirely wrong.

Baltimore is rioting.

Orioles have postponed tonight's game.

IMO the games should be good at MD Live this week. People won't be able to get to work and some of them will have a surprise excess of cash.

The Tampa HR has a tourney series coming up soon, and in the THR thread, some guys were talking about cross booking and swapping action. I thought I'd ask this here rather than in there, as it's not THR specific.

What exactly are cross booking and swapping irt tourney action? I sort of thought they were the same, where say two people playing in the same tourney agree to give the other 10% of whatever they win. Is that correct? Or are cross booking and swapping different things?

Sorry for the basic question, but I dont play tourneys much, and sure as hell no one will ever come up to me seeking to get a piece of my tourney results!

Well they're not talking about it anymore because it's not allowed here But I've always thought it was the same thing, thought I don't play tourneys much either.

Cross Booking is betting against a person. Lets say Lattimer and I cross-book for a $1000 tournament.

If I bink it for $25k....Lattimer also owes me the $25k. If I bust it, I owe him $1k.

Thanks. That seems pretty risky as if I understand this correctly, the most Lattimer could win is the buyin amount, but the most he could lose is first place money. But maybe not, as i guess in most cases the players have to get close to final table to get any significant money at all.

is a cross book paid only if you take first, or would Lattimer owe you whatever you cash for in any position?

Thanks again.

Usually you do it when you're both entered in the same tourney or cash game. So if you both bust, no one owes anyone anything. If one cashes for 100 more than the other, the also get an additional 100.

It doesn't necessarily have to be 100% either. I've seen people cross book 20% etc just for fun/action.

You can't make me pay! Try and collect and I'll ban your ass!