Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Notices

Home Game Listings Listings for LEGAL home games (hosts only) and those seeking them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2018, 11:19 PM   #626
Texasholdemmike
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 51
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by BulltexasATM View Post
New one - https://mobile.twitter.com/LegionTXPoker

People that opened it ran the old Legion underground room.
Underground game is also still running...
Texasholdemmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 11:46 AM   #627
BulltexasATM
adept
 
BulltexasATM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: HTown
Posts: 874
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasholdemmike View Post
Underground game is also still running...
Yep, same as Dark Room(underground) and West Side Poker(new model). Fairly smart way for underground runners to transition over/protect themselves if these new places ever get shut down. They keep their toes in the water/continue to overrake the games and fleece the players while opening player friendly venues under the new model. (HTown Poker Guy - you should have tried to do this as opposed to fighting the new model and watching your underground game/income go down in smoke).
BulltexasATM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 04:40 PM   #628
clivestraddle
centurion
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 175
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

confirmed by 2 sources (internal and external) - Mint was served their 2nd cease and desist order
clivestraddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:44 PM   #629
Texasholdemmike
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 51
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by clivestraddle View Post
confirmed by 2 sources (internal and external) - Mint was served their 2nd cease and desist order
Had a lawyer tell me these really mean nothing. Unless the Harris County DA is willing to take charges there is really nothing the local city attorney or police can do. And at this point the current Harris County DA appears to have no interest in shutting down any of these places... Hopefully one of the resident attorney's on here will opine..
Texasholdemmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 02:30 AM   #630
HTwnPokerGuy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 57
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by BulltexasATM View Post
Yep, same as Dark Room(underground) and West Side Poker(new model). Fairly smart way for underground runners to transition over/protect themselves if these new places ever get shut down. They keep their toes in the water/continue to overrake the games and fleece the players while opening player friendly venues under the new model. (HTown Poker Guy - you should have tried to do this as opposed to fighting the new model and watching your underground game/income go down in smoke).
Don't be ridiculous. I'm not a game runner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clivestraddle View Post
confirmed by 2 sources (internal and external) - Mint was served their 2nd cease and desist order
Check your sources Clive. I'm hearing this is bogus.
HTwnPokerGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 03:13 PM   #631
clivestraddle
centurion
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 175
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

ty...outside source did have an axe to grind
internal source had no reason to lie (not disgruntled)
clivestraddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 04:36 PM   #632
pokermon!
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 43
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

how are underground places still staying alive? is it mainly credit players that are keeping them alive?

i can kinda understand if they're high stakes games...but was kinda wondering about the normal 1/2-5/5 games
pokermon! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 06:45 PM   #633
michelle227
adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,094
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokermon! View Post
how are underground places still staying alive? is it mainly credit players that are keeping them alive?

i can kinda understand if they're high stakes games...but was kinda wondering about the normal 1/2-5/5 games
Location in some instances and in other instances, it may be a wider selection of times where games are running.
michelle227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 10:45 PM   #634
FearlessPhil
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kemah, TX
Posts: 58
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by donkey's View Post
If you take tips you are ILLEGAL and why do all the tip places say they are legal lol
Post oak lets cash play and is illegal.
My understanding is the tipping itself is not illegal, it is only illegal to pay tips with gaming chips. I don't see how cash play would be any more illegal than play with chips.
FearlessPhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:00 AM   #635
HTwnPokerGuy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 57
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearlessPhil View Post
My understanding is the tipping itself is not illegal, it is only illegal to pay tips with gaming chips. I don't see how cash play would be any more illegal than play with chips.
That's unfortunately not accurate. There was a court case in Texas the 90's...Gaudio vs. State...where tipping poker dealers or waitstaff was found to be an economic benefit that prevents the affirmative defense in 47.02 and 47.04. Based on the reasoning in that case, it doesn't matter if the tips are paid in cash...in chips...in whatever. It's still an economic benefit.
HTwnPokerGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:56 AM   #636
notyoursmine
enthusiast
 
notyoursmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 88
Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Played at Post Oak again today. Started around 4:30pm. 4 tables of 1/3 NL running. Got a seat quick. Played couple of hours, left to go eat. Came back to, I think 5 tables of 1/3 NL, maybe
6.
2-5/5 NL games going.
1-10/25 PLO game going. Played until 11:30pm.
This is a great place. Hands down the best in the area for cash games.
My only gripe is the $8 valet service.
Safe parking lot. Construction around its sucks, hopefully they’ll fix that soon.
notyoursmine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:40 AM   #637
FearlessPhil
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kemah, TX
Posts: 58
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTwnPokerGuy View Post
That's unfortunately not accurate. There was a court case in Texas the 90's...Gaudio vs. State...where tipping poker dealers or waitstaff was found to be an economic benefit that prevents the affirmative defense in 47.02 and 47.04. Based on the reasoning in that case, it doesn't matter if the tips are paid in cash...in chips...in whatever. It's still an economic benefit.
The whole premise behind these clubs is the contention that no one "receives economic benefit other than personal winnings" applies only to the game itself (and the chips used to play the game). They handle the tips and time rake separately precisely for that reason. In order for that to work, somebody has to have told them that the case you cited is not valid or is somehow overridden by other considerations. BTW, I can't seem to find that actual case. Do you have a specific link where I can see the actual decision?
FearlessPhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:43 AM   #638
HTwnPokerGuy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 57
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearlessPhil View Post
The whole premise behind these clubs is the contention that no one "receives economic benefit other than personal winnings" applies only to the game itself (and the chips used to play the game). They handle the tips and time rake separately precisely for that reason. In order for that to work, somebody has to have told them that the case you cited is not valid or is somehow overridden by other considerations. BTW, I can't seem to find that actual case. Do you have a specific link where I can see the actual decision?
To read the case, you most likely need to have a subscription to one of the legal research services like LexisNexis or Westlaw. Sometimes you can google the case names and find a free version online, but I haven't been able to find one. The citation is: Gaudio v. State, No. 05-91-01862-CR, 1994 Tex. App. WL 67733 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1994) if you have someone that can pull it for you.

The argument that economic benefit only applies with chips on the felt and that keeping tip money separate matters is a faulty one. Courts typically first read and interpret statutes on a plain language basis, and "no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings" doesn't describe any dividing line between the felt and the rest of the world. Gaudio vs. State certainly doesn't spend time examining whether or not tips were paid with poker chips or dollar bills. These poor club owners should ask for their money back from whoever told them that matters.

BUT NONE OF THIS REALLY MATTERS. The key thing all these club owners miss is that 47.03 doesn't have an affirmative defense at all. So, the economic benefit, private club, equal chance of winning stuff in 47.02 and 47.04 doesn't come into play at all.

All the DA needs to prove is that someone operated OR made money off a gambling place...with a "gambling place" defined as a place where bets are made...with "bets" defined as an agreement to win or lose something of value with any kind of chance involved. A Texas Attorney General Opinion has already found that poker involves "bets" and that places where poker are played are "gambling places." This you CAN lookup for free on the internet. The citation is Tex. Att’y Gen Op. No. GA-0335 (2005).

The lack of affirmative defense is a key reason why DA's across the state typically prosecute gambling under 47.03 instead of 47.02 or 47.04...even the rooms that try to say they are private clubs, etc. These prosecutors don't have to mess with affirmative defense arguments.

Last edited by HTwnPokerGuy; Yesterday at 09:56 AM.
HTwnPokerGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:28 AM   #639
michelle227
adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,094
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

No, you don't need a subscription to read Gaudio as it is clearly viewable on the website of the Firth Court of Appeals at Dallas. I thought I had actually linked to it earlier in this thread when I was pointing out how you continue to misconstrue the decision AND the facts. On edit, yes...yes, I did link to it...back on October 25th. Apparently HTPG is banking on people not being willing to read a thread or even actually search for an Opinion that is easily viewable. He is worse than a pro se inmate who clings to one line of a fifty-year old dissenting Opinion...

Lost in your craptastic analysis is that there was a rake coming off of the table for expenses AND that Gaudio was routinely playing IN the game and was therefore a participant IN the game. Facts matter, and this does not change when the Opinion relates to a law that has since been revised. Gaudio's very specific actions as they related to THAT game are the crux of the issue and go to the reason why it is not controlling as it relates to the current model of membership games...
michelle227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:39 AM   #640
BulltexasATM
adept
 
BulltexasATM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: HTown
Posts: 874
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by notyoursmine View Post
Played at Post Oak again today. Started around 4:30pm. 4 tables of 1/3 NL running. Got a seat quick. Played couple of hours, left to go eat. Came back to, I think 5 tables of 1/3 NL, maybe
6.
2-5/5 NL games going.
1-10/25 PLO game going. Played until 11:30pm.
This is a great place. Hands down the best in the area for cash games.
My only gripe is the $8 valet service.
Safe parking lot. Construction around its sucks, hopefully they’ll fix that soon.
Just correcting as I was there as well. It was 2 5/5 PLO games (as opposed to 2 5/5 NL). Action in the place was off the charts. The 10/25 was only started because Iez and Sammy F didn't want to wait for a seat in the 5/5(list was long) so they convinced the floor to start the 10/25 PLO. Was only 4 handed when I was there.
BulltexasATM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM   #641
notyoursmine
enthusiast
 
notyoursmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 88
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by BulltexasATM View Post
Just correcting as I was there as well. It was 2 5/5 PLO games (as opposed to 2 5/5 NL). Action in the place was off the charts. The 10/25 was only started because Iez and Sammy F didn't want to wait for a seat in the 5/5(list was long) so they convinced the floor to start the 10/25 PLO. Was only 4 handed when I was there.


Thanks! I wasn’t sure Membership-Based Poker in Texas but I knew I was close!
Action was CRAZY!
notyoursmine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:45 PM   #642
FearlessPhil
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kemah, TX
Posts: 58
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle227 View Post
No, you don't need a subscription to read Gaudio as it is clearly viewable on the website of the Firth Court of Appeals at Dallas. I thought I had actually linked to it earlier in this thread when I was pointing out how you continue to misconstrue the decision AND the facts. On edit, yes...yes, I did link to it...back on October 25th. Apparently HTPG is banking on people not being willing to read a thread or even actually search for an Opinion that is easily viewable. He is worse than a pro se inmate who clings to one line of a fifty-year old dissenting Opinion...

Lost in your craptastic analysis is that there was a rake coming off of the table for expenses AND that Gaudio was routinely playing IN the game and was therefore a participant IN the game. Facts matter, and this does not change when the Opinion relates to a law that has since been revised. Gaudio's very specific actions as they related to THAT game are the crux of the issue and go to the reason why it is not controlling as it relates to the current model of membership games...
Thanks Michelle! I was able to find your original reference and read it. I don't know about it being "easily viewable" though. I was not able to find it just by doing a google search.

In any case, the defendant's lawyer's claim that the statute should be interpreted as "that no person gambling there received an economic benefit" other than their winnings did not seem to be either affirmed or refuted by the judge. She said basically that it was irrelevant because of other circumstances involving this particular case. It seems to me that, if the law is interpreted the way the defendant's lawyers proposed, then the paradigm they are using of separating the time tokens and the tip tokens from the chips that are actually used follows logically from that.
FearlessPhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 12:57 PM   #643
HTwnPokerGuy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 57
Re: Membership-Based Poker in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearlessPhil View Post
In any case, the defendant's lawyer's claim that the statute should be interpreted as "that no person gambling there received an economic benefit" other than their winnings did not seem to be either affirmed or refuted by the judge. She said basically that it was irrelevant because of other circumstances involving this particular case. It seems to me that, if the law is interpreted the way the defendant's lawyers proposed, then the paradigm they are using of separating the time tokens and the tip tokens from the chips that are actually used follows logically from that.
Uh no. Since we can all the see the case now, let's discuss. What you're reading, Phil, is a Court of Appeals opinion. Gaudio was found guilty of violating 47.04 and has appealed, saying the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, etc. The Court of Appeals decides not to overturn this conviction and provides its reasoning for this in the opinion.

In the discussion relevant for us, Justice Lagarde examines the claim that the evidence is insufficient to support conviction. Notice she first looks at the statute on a plain language basis. This is how courts are instructed to read statutes, and their analysis often stops there.

Justice Lagarde writes, "Based on the plain language of the statute no person can receive an economic benefit. If we apply the plain language of the statute, the jury's finding is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In this case the waitress and dealer received tips from the players. The receipt of money as tips is an economic benefit."

Note, in looking at the plain language she doesn't discuss any sort of magic between tips getting paid with chips or with currency. It doesn't matter in her analysis with this approach.

To be thorough, Justice Lagarde then looks at the "practice commentary" written by a couple of guys that were part of the Bar Committee that proposed a first draft of the law. The courts do this whenever the plain language is unclear...they then look at things like legislative history. Note she doesn't say this is necessary here because the plain language of the statute is confusing...she's just doing it to be thorough. With this approach, the important element she considers is whether or not the dealer played poker in addition to dealing. Again, she's silent on how the tips were paid...chips or cash. It doesn't matter. The practice commentary she references is silent on it as well.

So the statute on a plain language is silent on whether or not paying tips with chips or money is relevant...the only thing that matters is that an economic benefit occurs. Also, the practice commentary is silent on this. So, there's just nothing out there that says it matters if the tips are paid in chips or in cash. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just guessing.

As an aside, I have personally witnessed dealers at Prime Social playing as well as dealing. Given the findings in Gaudio, it's crazy to me that management would allow this to happen. Clearly these guys aren't getting good legal advice. Of course none of this matters, though, as I believe the clubs are going to get busted with 47.03 as the key statute, not 47.04.

Last edited by HTwnPokerGuy; Today at 01:17 PM.
HTwnPokerGuy is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online