Meadows Facebook page still advertising tourneys today

Both Meadows and Final Table are contesting the closure, according to a friend who called both rooms. They both posted their daily schedules today, and FT put out a notice for the $10K tomorrow night.

The Game says on its web site that they're closed until 5 January.

Self-dealing can't work. The tables are long. Even an experienced dealer has trouble dealing from anywhere but one of the two center seats. And what about drunks, differently abled people, cheats, people who just don't want to or can't deal. And being the dealer isn't just about throwing the cards. Who will adjudicate minor disputes, divide up main and side pots, remind players when it's their turn to act, etc. etc.?

Well, it used to work in legitimate poker rooms al over California years ago, but those were draw games and probably only seated 6 or 7 people on round tables.

I've only experienced self dealing in home games. It works great if you like playing 10 hands per hour with constant confusion.

I'm an infrequent player, ~1 per month. If I have to choose between self dealing, Spirit Mountain, La Center and Carbon, I'll probably spend the occasional evening playing online poker. I'd much rather play live local but self dealing makes it not worth it in my estimation.

Hmm, but what about the Americans with Disabilities Act? How can the city require players to deal if some are unable to? This could be the catch that forces them to allow designated dealers!

I think the ADA would just require a disabled player to have his assistant do the dealing for him. In Las Vegas, blind players are allowed to have their assistants read their hole cards to them, but the house doesn't provide the assistant.

Who regulates poker/gambling in Oregon? Is poker at the casinos in the southern Oregon ran normally or so they have weird rules too?

I was at Portland Meadows overnight on the 21st (so we were playing on the 22nd). Players and dealers alike were acting like Portland Meadows was gone forever imminently.

I phoned Final Table today and they confirmed they're closed all weekend, but I think that was the plan all along.

Rumor is that the clubs have requested a hearing, as is their right under the Portland law. Assuming they requested the hearing, the Hearings Officer has 10 days to grant it, which would be no later than the Jan 2nd. After that, the Hearings Officer has 10 days to make a decision, which would be no later than Jan 12th.

Also, I wanted to let everyone know that the hearings are governed by ORS 183, which Under 183.310 (7)(c) allows anyone "requesting to participate before the agency as a party or in a limited party status which the agency determines either has an interest in the outcome of the agencys proceeding or represents a public interest". I've sent email to Anne Brown to ask if I can attend the hearings as a dues-paying member of Final Table Poker and Oregon Racing, Inc. (aka Portland Meadows).

As a side note: it's weird to me that everyone seems to think self-dealing is the solution. Having read the requirements, it says nothing about self-dealing requirements. The problem comes in whether, when people voluntarily tip a dealer, whether that dealer is being paid, and whether that dealer is the "house bank" or the "house player".

I suspect the City of Portland will have difficulty really showing that the dealers are employee, except that they pool tips at Final Table and Portland Meadows. Pulling tips seems like a violation to me, because it seems more like there is a "house bank" handling those tips. If I am allowed to attend the hearing, I will suggest that this would be a valid resolution.

Thanks for the update, Ship.
Please let us know when the hearing will be, if you find out. I assume those hearings are public. You might need to clear it with Anne Brown in advance to TESTIFY at the hearing, but I bet anyone can go observe (if we know where and when it will happen), as with most governmental agencies' meetings.
And interesting note about the rules not saying anything about self-dealing. Somehow, however, that must be how the city is interpreting the rules, since the clubs keep trying to tinker with the dealing details. (And with the "shootout" details to avoid breaking the $1 bet rule.)
That would be great if the dealers didn't pool their tips -- I could tip the ones I wanted to instead of the whole pool. But you'd think if it were as simple as not pooling tips the clubs would have already tried that....

Ship, you nailed it regarding the tip issue. The self-dealing comes from a 2010 Attorney General opinion, which on that direct point concludes that because a social game must be "between players," no one who isn't a player can "facilitate" the game for profit, including tips. Here's the relevant quote:

Google "Oregon attorney General opinion social gaming" to read the whole thing. If you read it you'll see that it's going to be really hard for clubs to be "creative" with their rules, fall within the law, and still make money. The fact is, the social gaming law envisioned a system where no one makes a profit. The legislative history and case law is pretty clear on that point. These clubs are way beyond what the legislature contemplated. People are mad at the city, but it's really the law that needs to change.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thanks for all the info, everyone. It sounds to me like clubs are stuck between a rock and a hard place and will soon have to shut down (after the hearing plays out)? Am I overreacting to this news or is this the harsh reality?

Well of course it depends what happens at the hearing, and any outside-the-hearing dealmaking going on between the club owners (and their lawyers) and the city. We don't know what the reality will be, harsh or not. Even we poker players can't predict the future! But yes, it looks bad for the clubs.

Porter, seems like having house tournament directors and having the house set the structures would be a disqualifying thing itself. Sucks.

I've spent a decent amount of time looking at the legal issues involved, and I really don't see a way for the clubs to continue to operate under the current law. Again, the relevant law/legislative history/case law/administrative opinions are clear that "social gaming" indeed means "social": no one should be making money off it. "Deal making" would kind of have to include the city simply turning it's head, which seems doubtful at this point. The fact is, the clubs have existed for so long because the city didn't care, or didn't have the resources to enforce. Now that the City's eye is on the clubs, I'm calling doomsday.

I've heard talk about the times of things the clubs are looking into to get "creative," but the law (and judges/administrative law judges) aren't big on pretense; everything I've heard is so laughably pretense, it would only delay the inevitable. The law has to change.

Because it's "facilitating?" Maybe, but that's the kind of grey area the city and state might ignore, so long as the clubs weren't charging money.


The Game, fka Ace of Spades, has been closed since before Christmas, and their website says they are closed until January 5th. However, and this is pure speculation, if I had to place a bet I'd say they won't reopen: two of their core employees have taken full-time (non-poker) jobs elsewhere.

The Game's website no longer says they will reopen on the 5th.

I've been playing at Final Table and everything seems normal.

My plan to move to Portland when I retire from the military is definitely in jeopardy at this point.

The Game is officially reopening tomorrow at 11AM (via the NW Poker Facebook group).

So, which places that had poker are shut down? Encore is gone, the Game is reopening,

So I won't name any places, my question will only be, which places stopped having games? Just curious because I'll be coming through Portland soon, and there's some places I like to play, and if they're gone, my stay will be shorter.

Encore - closed permanently
Rialto - roof caught fire on 1/5, will be closed for a few weeks
The Game - reopens 1/6
Final Table - open
Claudia's - open
Portland Meadows - open
Aces Player's Club - open, game moved downstairs

This document that Hey_Porter mentioned is useful, but I haven't seen any analysis that takes the Portland ordinances that I mentioned and that ruling and figures out what exactly is allowed in Portland. Both sets of rules would apply.

Also, keep in mind that the AG office advice in a situation like this doesn't set rules per se; it gives the public a hint about what types of things the AG office is likely to prosecute and which things are "on the line" that it will probably ignore. An AG has a lot of issues to deal with, and they are going to decline to prosecute most of the time. Guidance publication is a way for the AG office to tell the public what's likely so far over the line that the AG can't ignore.

Ultimately the statues and local ordinances will govern. At this point, it's the city of Portland who is concerned and holding hearings about the local clubs, so in some sense, the OR law itself and AG's office opinion won't come into play unless the Portland City Council and its appointees want it to. The OR law clearly delegates the licensing power to local cities and counties, and as such, that's where the discussion is. If Portland revokes someone's license, the licensee can sue at the state level and claim Portland violated OR statue in some way, but given that the clubs operate now right on the line, I think the clubs would have a hard time showing that in a OR court.

The main problem in my view remains that players are not organized to write to the city council and raise the issue. Journalists treat the story with only passing interest. I wrote to the PPA to ask for help and they ignored my email. (Anne Rolm ignored my email too, so I suspect it's the only one she got about this issue.) If something is going to change, players locally have to get organized and let the city council know that we want the games to continue. (I'm surprised that the clubs aren't trying to encourage players to organize, but I suspect that's because they fear any such action will be looked upon as inappropriate by regulators and weaken their case.)

We can stand up on our own and speak and complain. We need a local organization that is initially run by volunteers (or maybe contributions from players). I'm busy with my day job and have no time to run it (plus, no one PM'd me to say they wanted to start one , but I'd be willing to contribute advice and donate a few bucks.

Hey_Porter is right that Portland poker will probably disappear, but mainly because the city clearly sees it as an irritant with no popular support. If that equation is changed on either side, doomsday probably is not so imminent.

Carnivore, don't worry, you'll have plenty of opportunity to make a contribution to the Portland poker economy on your visit here. Welcome!
Shipitfish, I'd be willing to get involved in a players' organization but as you noted, the club owners aren't asking or encouraging us to do so. It's a tricky thing -- we're gamblers, not a group that easily arouses sympathy from city councilmembers or the public. If we start protesting that we might lose our places to gamble, why would anyone care?
And Porter, you're right that it's "doomsday" for the clubs sooner or later. But it's doomsday for every one of us sooner or later too! The goal, in the clubs' negotiations with the city and in our lives in general, is to delay that doomsday for as long as possible, and enjoy ourselves in the meantime.

So I've been wanting to write a longer post for a couple of days, but life keeps getting in the way. Long story short, as I was trying to find an older appeals court case I stumbled upon a recent (November 2016) case involving MT&M Gaming (who owns a couple of La Center Casinos) and the City of Portland. Long story short, WAY back in 2012 MT&M brought suit against the City, seeking a declaration that the poker clubs as ran violated state law, and asking that the court require the City to act by either requiring compliance or shutting down the clubs. The case got dismissed by the circuit court judge and made its way through the Court of Appeals and up to the Oregon Supreme Court on a procedural issue, i.e., whether MT&M had standing to challenge the application of the social gaming ordinance. Oregon Supreme Court ultimately ruled that they did not. What this means is no court ever actually addressed the merits of MT&M's arguments. With the Supreme Court opinion coming down so recently, I wouldn't be surprised if MT&M are working on a way to get the case back in front of the courts with a party with proper standing.

While the case never got to the merits, the briefing included some interesting bits, including insight into the City's position. This is from one of the City's briefs at the Court of Appeals:

This supports what I've believed for quite a while: it's not that the City supports and approves of how the clubs operate, it's that they have bigger fish to fry and this hasn't been on their radar. This lawsuit put it on their radar. I don't think it's a coincidence that the lawsuit was argued before the Oregon Supreme Court in May 2016, and the City sent out the initial "black friday" letters to the clubs in June. Moving to pure speculation, I would guess that after the argument, or around the same time, the City attorneys met with the folks in charge of social gaming and said, "hey, there's a good chance we win this because the La Center folks don't have standing, but it sure looks like they're correct that the way the clubs run they are violating state law."

Current rumors are the City is actually working in conjunction with the State re: how to proceed with the clubs, and what is "legal" under the social gaming statutes. That's not a good sign for the clubs. If the State is going off the 2010 AG opinion, ANY situation where the house (including dealers) makes money on poker (including tips) makes the game fall outside the social gaming exception. Could be a long battle, though, as clubs try pre-textual stuff like putting a monopoly game behind the front desk and say, "look, we have other activities." That's hyperbole, but courts aren't big on pre-text.

I just googled "Portland poker" to see if there was any recent news and came across this press release from Jan 10.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jackpot-e...130000626.html

Whoa. That makes a lot of sense actually. Not sure how people will adapt to them but does seem to help get a round a lot of the issues that Hey Porter adeptly summarized.