Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigjohnson
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?
I'm not a lawyer and I don't have any inside knowledge about how the people who own these places and their lawyers came to their conclusion about the separation of gaming chips from dealer tips and time chips. The following statement is simply my own thoughts on a logical explanation:
The relevant Texas law contains the the following section:
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the actor engaged in gambling in a private place;
(2) no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
(3) except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants.
Parts one and three are pretty straightforward and these clubs should be able to meet those so Section 2 is where they must prove they should not be prosecuted. In order to do that, you can interpret section 2 as
No person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings
from the gambling activity
If the
gambling activity is defined as the betting of chips by the players and that gambling activity is conducted with chips that are used strictly for settling the bets between the players then no exchanges of money that don't involve the chips are an economic benefit that is derived from the gambling activity.
Now we can argue forever here about whether or not a judge would accept such a rationale in a trial but it's strictly hot air unless and until one of these clubs is ordered to close and decides to fight it in court. However, I can say one thing for sure. The Gaudio case that is constantly dragged into the discussion by HTwn does NOT preclude such an argument.