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).

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..

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not a game runner.

Check your sources Clive. I'm hearing this is bogus.

ty...outside source did have an axe to grind
internal source had no reason to lie (not disgruntled)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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 but I knew I was close!
Action was CRAZY!

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.

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.

Did you actually read my entire post, HTwn? You seem to have totally missed the point.

Read the sentence that starts "It seems to me". Pay careful attention to the "if" clause and the assertion.

Nothing in your post refutes the assertion or actually addresses it at all.

He chose to ignore the discussion last October. If it doesn't comport with the talking points he gets from SIGH then he does not respond.

The reality is that the decision in Gaudio's case came under an earlier version of the law and is also very fact specific, drawing in large part upon the elements of rake coming off the table AND that Gaudio was ALSO a person gambling there. It was the occasional play of Gaudio in that location which allowed for the conviction to be upheld...

HTPG likes to ignore the fact that the scenario Gaudio found himself in does not exist with the current models. The passage of time since October does not alter this and he still has not been spoon-fed any manner of response by SIGH, which is why he finds it easier to ignore.

Y'all crack me up. So you take the lead then. Referencing the statutes, case law, and practice commentary, explain the argument that it matters if tips are paid with poker chips or cash money. I've given you my analysis. You give me yours.

You continue to fall back on Gaudio and assert that as the seminal holding. Your logic has been shown to be faulty in numerous posts...or perhaps I should say the spoon-feeding from SIGH that you are eating up like a crackwhore getting their next fix.

Gaudio made the fatal flaw of 1) taking money off the table AND 2) dealing where he played, thus making him a participant and changing the fundamental rules of the sandbox as it related to tips.

It isn't worth wasting more time with you on anything more in-depth because you have shown that you are going to refuse to listen or, perhaps as the case may be, are incapable of listening and absorbing cogent analysis from people who actually work in the criminal defense realm.

Ahahahaha my posts have been spot-on. Yours have been just a bunch of bluster. If you work in criminal defense, my guess is you fetch someone coffee.

If you can't make an argument why it matters if tips are paid in chips or in cash, why are you posting?

Consider these 2 scenarios.

1. Hero goes to membership based private club in Houston to play poker with $500 in his pocket. He pays his $15 for his daily membership, buys 8 timecards for $60 and takes $25 for tips for the dealers. He uses the remaining $400 for gaming chips. He plays poker for 4 hours and has an exactly breakeven session (he tips the dealers $25 during his 4 hour session) at which time he leaves the club with $400. Net loss is $100.

2. Hero goes to a casino in Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico with $500 in his pocket. He buys $500 in gaming chips, plays for 4 hours and leaves with $400 in his pocket. Net loss is $100

Other than the expense of driving several hours, gasoline, tires, etc., is there any difference between the 2 results? Isn't the seat rental charge just another name for the "rake". Why does paying cash instead of chips make the tips to dealers any less objectionable/ Isn't the gambling house making money because the gambling is taking place? Are not the dealers making money because the gambling is taking place?

From the players perspective the bolded is pretty key, plus the opportunity cost of those 4 hours driving to and from LA(what would Hero have been doing during that 4 hour time period he is driving). 2nd, the key question would be if Hero got the same exact cards and played them the exact same way in the scenarios above. He would have $400 still in scenario #1 when he left(lets call it Post Oak Poker Club). In scenario #2 what would he have? My guess would be $350 or less when you factor in the rake/tips coming off the table each hand.

Now if you would have done the same comparison to an underground game in Houston, Hero would have about $150 if he was lucky after rake and insurance are taken off the table, but he at least could save that 4 hour drive