Florida gambling & poker: laws, regulations and politics.
01-28-2016
, 07:59 AM
The dance so far:
Spring 2014: Gov. Rick Scott failed to bring a renegotiated compact to the legislature for a vote because the legislative leaders refused to cooperate.
Summer 2015: The part of the 2010 compact granting table games (blackjack, bacarrat, etc.) to the tribe expired, giving the tribe 60 days to shut down those games.
The state began administrative proceedings to close down the table games. The tribe brought a lawsuit against the tribe for breach of contract, based on:
- The state failed to renegotiated the compact "in good faith", as required under federal law (IGRA).
- The state allows the racinos in South Florida to run electronic versions of table games (which are legally and technically slot machines - they are the same electronic versions of theses games which the tribe ran under this technicality before being granted authority to run the table games under the 2010 compact and now run electronic craps and roulette without compact authority).
- The state allows the cardrooms to run player-banked poker games.
Winter 2015: Scott and the tribe sign a new compact.
January 2016: The US District Court denies the state's motion to stop the tribe's lawsuit. The state sends letters and starts court proceedings to stop the pari-mutuels from running the player-banked games.
Governor Scott can now claim in court that the he did negotiate for a new compact with the tribe "in good faith", whether or not the legislature approves it. Now that the tribe has a green light to go ahead with the lawsuit, the state is moving to remove the player-banked games at the pari-mutuels, which could give the court a basis to agree with the tribe's "breach of contract" claim.
It's a high-stakes legal game. Not only is it related to approval of a new compact, but in the case that the legislature doesn't approve a compact, it relates to whether or not the state gets any revenue-sharing for the slot machine play at the tribal casinos for the next 15 years under the 2010 compact.
Here are a couple posts I made in another thread not long ago about the new compact currently before the legislature for approval:
Quote:
Yes, I have a few thoughts...
It's a compromise, so pretty much none of the vested interests (outside of the tribe) are happy. The negotiations were rolling along slowly with the direct involvement of the key Congressional leaders. Then Gov. Scott (not Christie) suddenly finished it off and signed it along with the Seminole tribal leaders, before presenting the deal to the Congressional leaders.
My read on it was that the negotiations were essentially going nowhere, because there is, as usual, no compromise that makes everyone happy and the Congressional leaders couldn't put their stamp on any compromise deal due to the politics involved. Therefore, being obligated to comply with Federal law that requires the state to negotiate with the tribe "in good faith", Scott signed a compact which had the best compromise with the best chance of passing when brought to the Florida legislature for ratification this spring.
The out-and-out winners are:
The Seminole tribe - gets exclusivity for craps & roulettes; an end to the player-banked poker games at the pari-mutuels (unless they are run as truly player-banked); an end to ever-expanding encroachment by the pari-mutuels into slots and table games; table games at more locations; and a long-lasting compact that ensures that they continue to dominate the Florida gambling market.
Palm Beach Kennel Club - they get slots.
The state - Lots more gambling revenues.
The partial or potential winners are:
Existing pari-mutuels in Miami-Dade & Broward counties - they get limited table games (blackjack, bacarat); and a somewhat lower tax rate on slots.
One big casino company (Genting, probably) - one additional slots license will be available in Miami-Dade. Genting could finally build their resort-casino complex, but will only have slots for the gaming part.
Pari-mutuels elsewhere in the state - if new legislation passes for it, they will be able to de-couple their racing from their poker operations, as long as a new county-wide voter referendum passes it as well. They also can get historic-racing machines (you place a bet on a dog or horse race, then the machine randomly selects a race that ran sometime in the past and you win if your bet matches the race winners - pretty much a slot machine, but without the look and feel).
Live poker players - 24/7/365 live poker throughout the state; but those that like the current player-banked games are out of luck (but probably would be even without the new compact - those games were not authorized by state law, and probably would shut down anyway).
Losers:
The rest of the big casino corporation crowd - Besides the one slots-only casino in South Florida, no new casinos are coming to Florida for the foreseeable future under this compact.
The anti-gambling crowd - Overall, this compact is a huge expansion of gambling in Florida. On the other hand, with most non-tribal vested interests in the state unhappy with this compromise, it may not pass the legislature. In which case, after long litigation, the tribe may eventually have to shut down their table games (and the state will no longer get any revenue-sharing from the tribe). That would make these guys happier.
The pari-mutuel industry - if full de-coupling happens, most of the pari-mutuel industry will eventually disappear (i.e., the animal owners, jockeys, breeding & training facilities, etc.).
Online poker players - while the new compact doesn't forbid Internet gambling, under the Internet gambling provision in the new compact if any Internet gambling is authorized in the state during the first 7 years there will be a huge drop in revenue-sharing payments to the state from the tribe - unless the tribe itself is running Internet gambling in the state. Essentially, only a proposal which grants Internet poker to the tribe will get any traction at all during at least the first 7 years of the compact. This means it would probably be a one-provider system (likely the PokerStars platform), run by the tribe.
Derby Lane won't be getting a whole lot out of this new compact - really just de-coupling, and the historic racing machines.
I would put the chances of ratification of this new compact by the legislature at something like 45%. It sort of depends on what comes out of the current gambling-related court cases. If the indications are that the pari-mutuels will win the right to expand into slots, and continue their player-banked poker games, then the anti-gambling crowd might come down in favor of this new compact as a way to cork it. That would tip the scales in favor of passage of the compact, imo.
It's a compromise, so pretty much none of the vested interests (outside of the tribe) are happy. The negotiations were rolling along slowly with the direct involvement of the key Congressional leaders. Then Gov. Scott (not Christie) suddenly finished it off and signed it along with the Seminole tribal leaders, before presenting the deal to the Congressional leaders.
My read on it was that the negotiations were essentially going nowhere, because there is, as usual, no compromise that makes everyone happy and the Congressional leaders couldn't put their stamp on any compromise deal due to the politics involved. Therefore, being obligated to comply with Federal law that requires the state to negotiate with the tribe "in good faith", Scott signed a compact which had the best compromise with the best chance of passing when brought to the Florida legislature for ratification this spring.
The out-and-out winners are:
The Seminole tribe - gets exclusivity for craps & roulettes; an end to the player-banked poker games at the pari-mutuels (unless they are run as truly player-banked); an end to ever-expanding encroachment by the pari-mutuels into slots and table games; table games at more locations; and a long-lasting compact that ensures that they continue to dominate the Florida gambling market.
Palm Beach Kennel Club - they get slots.
The state - Lots more gambling revenues.
The partial or potential winners are:
Existing pari-mutuels in Miami-Dade & Broward counties - they get limited table games (blackjack, bacarat); and a somewhat lower tax rate on slots.
One big casino company (Genting, probably) - one additional slots license will be available in Miami-Dade. Genting could finally build their resort-casino complex, but will only have slots for the gaming part.
Pari-mutuels elsewhere in the state - if new legislation passes for it, they will be able to de-couple their racing from their poker operations, as long as a new county-wide voter referendum passes it as well. They also can get historic-racing machines (you place a bet on a dog or horse race, then the machine randomly selects a race that ran sometime in the past and you win if your bet matches the race winners - pretty much a slot machine, but without the look and feel).
Live poker players - 24/7/365 live poker throughout the state; but those that like the current player-banked games are out of luck (but probably would be even without the new compact - those games were not authorized by state law, and probably would shut down anyway).
Losers:
The rest of the big casino corporation crowd - Besides the one slots-only casino in South Florida, no new casinos are coming to Florida for the foreseeable future under this compact.
The anti-gambling crowd - Overall, this compact is a huge expansion of gambling in Florida. On the other hand, with most non-tribal vested interests in the state unhappy with this compromise, it may not pass the legislature. In which case, after long litigation, the tribe may eventually have to shut down their table games (and the state will no longer get any revenue-sharing from the tribe). That would make these guys happier.
The pari-mutuel industry - if full de-coupling happens, most of the pari-mutuel industry will eventually disappear (i.e., the animal owners, jockeys, breeding & training facilities, etc.).
Online poker players - while the new compact doesn't forbid Internet gambling, under the Internet gambling provision in the new compact if any Internet gambling is authorized in the state during the first 7 years there will be a huge drop in revenue-sharing payments to the state from the tribe - unless the tribe itself is running Internet gambling in the state. Essentially, only a proposal which grants Internet poker to the tribe will get any traction at all during at least the first 7 years of the compact. This means it would probably be a one-provider system (likely the PokerStars platform), run by the tribe.
Derby Lane won't be getting a whole lot out of this new compact - really just de-coupling, and the historic racing machines.
I would put the chances of ratification of this new compact by the legislature at something like 45%. It sort of depends on what comes out of the current gambling-related court cases. If the indications are that the pari-mutuels will win the right to expand into slots, and continue their player-banked poker games, then the anti-gambling crowd might come down in favor of this new compact as a way to cork it. That would tip the scales in favor of passage of the compact, imo.
Quote:
Unlike the current compact, the new compact clearly defines "Banking or Banked Card Games" - the ones currently exclusive to the tribe - as house-banked games (blackjack, baccarat, etc.). It also defines "Designated Player Games" (DP games) as games with a player designated as the dealer.
In practice, the current DP games at the pari-mutuels use a local company to provide the designated dealer, bankrolled by the company, who always plays the dealer position. Under the new compact, the allowed DP games have these restrictions:
Must use at least three cards.
Uses standard poker hand-ranking.
The max wager is $25.
The Designated Player occupies a player position.
Each player is offered, in a clockwise rotation, the opportunity to be the next Designated Player after each hand.
The Designated Player must play a regular player position for at least two hands after being the Designated Player for 30 consecutive hands.
Designated Players are not required to pay more than 10x the minimum posted bet.
Parimutuels that offer Slot Machines or Video Race Terminals are not allowed to offer Designated Player Games.
Designated Player Game tables must be no more than 25% of the authorized poker tables at the parimutuel.
So the current version of DP games can continue at the pari-mutuels, but in a much restricted fashion (e.g., forget about the big hand jackpot payouts).
But the legislature will probably also have to authorize these games to the pari-mutuels, even though they have been allowed to this point by the regulators. This is currently in contention in the courts, and the games are unlikely to continue without new legislation to authorize it. The regulators have already proposed new rules to forbid them based on a more accurate reading current law which states that only "authorized games" are legal at the pari-mutuels. The only games currently "authorized" by Florida statutes are "nonbanked poker games". (Read more here.)
By the way, the Internet gambling provision applies to DFS as well. They go under the "losers" category.
In practice, the current DP games at the pari-mutuels use a local company to provide the designated dealer, bankrolled by the company, who always plays the dealer position. Under the new compact, the allowed DP games have these restrictions:
Must use at least three cards.
Uses standard poker hand-ranking.
The max wager is $25.
The Designated Player occupies a player position.
Each player is offered, in a clockwise rotation, the opportunity to be the next Designated Player after each hand.
The Designated Player must play a regular player position for at least two hands after being the Designated Player for 30 consecutive hands.
Designated Players are not required to pay more than 10x the minimum posted bet.
Parimutuels that offer Slot Machines or Video Race Terminals are not allowed to offer Designated Player Games.
Designated Player Game tables must be no more than 25% of the authorized poker tables at the parimutuel.
So the current version of DP games can continue at the pari-mutuels, but in a much restricted fashion (e.g., forget about the big hand jackpot payouts).
But the legislature will probably also have to authorize these games to the pari-mutuels, even though they have been allowed to this point by the regulators. This is currently in contention in the courts, and the games are unlikely to continue without new legislation to authorize it. The regulators have already proposed new rules to forbid them based on a more accurate reading current law which states that only "authorized games" are legal at the pari-mutuels. The only games currently "authorized" by Florida statutes are "nonbanked poker games". (Read more here.)
By the way, the Internet gambling provision applies to DFS as well. They go under the "losers" category.
Last edited by PokerXanadu; 01-28-2016 at 08:07 AM.
01-28-2016
, 01:00 PM
02-04-2016
, 06:47 PM
02-05-2016
, 09:18 AM
02-10-2016
, 11:42 AM
02-17-2016
, 05:45 PM
02-17-2016
, 10:23 PM
02-18-2016
, 06:00 PM
03-01-2016
, 08:32 AM
Senate meets today but as far as the compact goes...
03-01-2016
, 09:22 AM
Indeed! Seems there won't be any change to the gambling laws this year even if they pass a bill, since it will be contingent on signing a revised new compact with the Seminole tribe. The Seminole tribe will never agree to all the expansion offered to the pari-mutuels. It's an interesting political trick - keeps the gambling vested interests happy by voting for their pet issues and keeps the anti-gambling interests happy by passing something that will never go into effect. In the meantime, survival of many of the pari-mutuels outside of South Florida is questionable.
Now it will be up to the courts to decide if the Seminole tribe can keep their table games running and if they can continue slots without any revenue-sharing with the state. My guess is no to both.
Now it will be up to the courts to decide if the Seminole tribe can keep their table games running and if they can continue slots without any revenue-sharing with the state. My guess is no to both.