Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine
That PDF is the Department of Gaming's interpretation of the horribly-written "social gaming" law.
I'm sure that your interpretation of the law is better than ADoG's.
Of course, what you offer ISN'T social gambling. We know this because of a quick look at ARS 13-3301. To qualify as social gambling, you have to meet a number of criteria, of which the following is included:
"No other person receives or becomes entitled to receive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the gambling activity, including benefits of proprietorship."
Are you the proprietor? Do you make money (benefit) from this venture? Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
The good news is that 12-3302 and 3304 spell out that being a PLAYER in a social game is fine. The bad news is that if you're playing somewhere that's making money off you -- you're not playing in a social game. <frownie face>
So, here's 13-3301 section 7 in its entirety, for the legal nits among you:
7. "Social gambling" means gambling that is not conducted as a business and that involves players who compete on equal terms with each other in a gamble if all of the following apply:
- (a) No player receives, or becomes entitled to receive, any benefit, directly or indirectly, other than the player's winnings from the gamble.
- (b) No other person receives or becomes entitled to receive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the gambling activity, including benefits of proprietorship, management or unequal advantage or odds in a series of gambles.
- (c) Until June 1, 2003, none of the players is below the age of majority. Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age.
- (d) Players "compete on equal terms with each other in a gamble" when no player enjoys an advantage over any other player in the gamble under the conditions or rules of the game or contest.
13-3301-7-B pretty much makes being the house matron of a poker hall illegal in Arizona.
...but again, I'm sure that your interpretation of this law is different than the Maricopa County AG's office. IANAL, so, my opinion isn't worth much more than the electrons used to store this message.
There are plenty of illegal things out there, but there's not a lot of reason to burn taxpayer dollars fighting it. Right now, clubs like yours in Arizona are still barely under the radar -- newspaper article or not.
My guess is that clubs in AZ that take a rake, like yours, and charge a fee at the door, like yours, will get shut down like Club Royale did. The wheels turn slowly over at the AG's office. It took two years from the first investigation of Club Royale until they were raided in December.
All this said, I've played there, and if the mood stuck me to pay that game instead of $1-2 closer to my house in the East Valley, or $5-150 at CAZ, I just might. What can I say - I'm a maverick. I enjoyed the game, and found no fault with the room itself. It's bright, well lit, cameras on the tables, professional run, blah blah. And I can balance the chance of an AG's office bust in with my EV calculation
I'm going to try to visit a few more rooms that I haven't been to this weekend. If someone wants me to stop by THEIR place, let me know.
[And after this article, why wouldn't you - heh...]