Except pot is legal in Oregon, illegal federally. In this case, the clubs are illegal on both the state level and city level. Lack of enforcement doesn't make it legal (or else in your example, it would be "legal" federally as well).

Lack of enforcement by the city isn't why clubs in Portland are still operating. They're licensed by the city as places where people play poker. You can't get a license to open an establishment to sell weed in a state where recreational and medicinal marijuana is illegal. You're not making any sense.

If you want to make the argument that the city shouldn't be licensing poker rooms under the state's social gaming rules, or that some ways the clubs operate violate state law, that's a different kettle of fish, but claiming that the "clubs are illegal" completely ignores the fact that Portland (along with a number of other municipalities) has been treating them as legally-run businesses. Even the Secretary of State's office has been doing so, to some extent. Nobody's holding a gun to their head to issue business licenses to companies with "Poker" in their business name.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find out that poker is going on in here!"

So is your position that because a business is licensed by the Secretary of State or the city it is presumed legal? I disagree with that 100%, and now we're just rehashing. For one, it ignores the reality of how the Secretary of State operates. Like I said above:

The Secretary of State doesn't treat them like anything, other than an incorporated business. It is not the Secretary of State's job investigate the ins and outs of the business. Same is true with the city, to a lesser extent. I've said this before, but as of a few years back, at least, the city didn't really know how the clubs operated, and Anne Holm took the position that if they were making money off poker (essentially) as opposed to a more general social club environment, they'd be violating the City Code and state law.

Sticking with marijuana, if I wanted to I could register a new business with the Secretary of State, list my primary business as a "greenhouse," and be a valid, Oregon corporation in 25 minutes (online registration is sweet). I could also get a business license from the City of Portland, also nearly instantaneous. If my business started growing marijuana and selling it, the fact that I'm a valid Oregon corporation and have a business license doesn't make my business any more illegal.

You will say that my scenario is different because the city "knows" that poker is being played. Yeah, they do. But that isn't why the clubs are illegal. They are illegal because.....well, I don't have time to list ALL of the reasons, but mainly because both dealers* and the house make money off poker. That's been going on for years (i.e., when the city has been "treaty them as legally-run businesses"), and when the city actually sends in investigators, the clubs get fined and have their licenses threatened.

Maybe we just have a different definition of illegal. I'm using it in the sense that if the way the clubs operate (even after whatever conditions they agree to) was ever presented to a judge, I'd bet my house the judge finds that they violate the state social gaming laws.

Hey_Porter owning people ITT

You seem to have a lot invested in this viewpoint, but if there was actually a bright line of illegality, there would be no need for HB2190, would there?

Slavery is way more illegal than poker in Portland.

I'm not sure what you mean by "invested." It's simply what I believe is correct legally. If by "invested" you mean passionate or dedicated, that probably started with having to put up with stupid rules created by arm-chair lawyers thinking it makes their games legal, e.g., only cashing at on the hour at Encore. It continued, and continues, because I find the seeming sense of entitlement of the Portland poker community grating. We are lucky to have had what we have had for so long. But it's not legal, and there should have been movement much earlier to try to protect what we have offensively by changing social gaming laws. I'm glad poker players are now getting involved in the legislative process, but it's also really annoying because I've been saying that for years. Extra annoying because I wasted my breath the last year (when the city fines) commenting repeatedly that people should call and talk to their legislators, and wasn't just ignored, but essentially told that was a waste of time. Now, when it might be too late, everyone's a ****ing lobbyist.

I'm of the opinion that before one can work towards fixing a problem (actually fixing it, not putting a bandaid over it), one should identify and accept what the problem is. Our problem is the clubs are illegal. Denying it doesn't help at all. I haven't heard a single substantive argument, from you or anyone, regarding how the clubs are legal under the social gaming statutes. "But the city seems to think they're legal" or ""we've been doing it this way for a decade" are not substantive legal arguments.

When there is a grey area/ambiguity on the face of a statute, you analyze the legislative history. That's what the 2010 Attorney General's opinion did. In detail. Have you read it? It's long, but the legislative history is clear: no one can make profit, in any way, shape, or form from poker. Dealers, house, anyone. I'm sure poker players would read it and poke holes, but most poker players aren't lawyers, and statutory interpretation isn't the easiest to follow and understand. I found the opinion extremely convincing (obviously), and as a lawyer I have experience; trust me, as an avid poker player, I wish I could have found some holes.

Why do they need a bill? I'll give you the honest answer (in my opinion): it's cheaper than digging up another lawsuit and suing. Since the casinos aren't Oregon residents, they don't have standing to challenge the City of Portland's permits in court (as determined by the Oregon Supreme Court). After that opinion my guess was they'd try to get some charity that runs bingo or charity poker tournaments to sue since they'd have standing, but rules against funding another person's lawsuit might have been problematic. Even so, getting this bill passed is cheaper. If it doesn't pass, I'd put my money on them digging up some way to bring a lawsuit. Going back to the bandaid, and what the real problem is: if we succeed in killing this bill in the senate, we are far from out of the woods. La Center isn't going away. And I'll continue to beat the dead horse: if you get this in front of a judge, and the judge found the clubs legal, it would be one of the most shocking legal opinions I've seen (and I've seen some doozies).

Yo do realize it's not just Portland that's going to be affected by this, don't you? Portland has more presumably "entitled" players, but HB2190 is going to shut down clubs in Albany, Bend, Eugene, and elsewhere. They're all operating under the same social gaming rules.

There was, from what I understand.

Three or four years tops and Last Frontier's doors will be closed, HB2190 or no.

I don't think the AG's opinion was all that long, was it? I mean, if it's this one you're talking about, it's only 17 pages, including a lot of quotes. The conclusion of that piece is actually less than a page. It was also written more than seven years ago.

We're passing in the night on this, because I don't get your point. I can't speak to clubs in all of those cities, but I CAN speak to a popular non-Portland club I went to (whose name I'll keep anonymous) where they straight up took a rake.* I imagine you'd have a hard time arguing for that one.

If there was, the fact that you can't speak with personal knowledge shows that it was horribly conducted. Every single poker player in this town should have known about it, and there should have been a legislator blitz like there is now.


Could be. Could even be less. If they do close, it could be because Ilani opens up a poker room. You think Cowlitz/Mohegan (and their money) will be cool letting hundreds of potential customers play down here without a fight (I'm actually super surprised Grand Ronde hasn't tried something given their pension for picking fights and their once robust poker room, so who knows what their thought process is).

Whether it's La Center or Last Frontier, given the recent media blitz and the fact the issue has now been brought to the attention of legislators, I'd be really surprised if this simply goes away if HB 2190 doesn't pass.

What substantive, legal arguments do you have against the conclusions? If you have them, I'd love to hear them. This is pretty damning:

I could pull a bunch of similar quotes, and quotes cutting off pretty much all "creative" ways around the law (the law, and judges, aren't big fans of pretext). If your only argument against the opinion is that it's seven years old, that fact isn't relevant at all. The statute hasn't been materially amended since then, so it would be analyzed within the same context now as when this opinion came out. Legislative history doesn't change unless the statute changes, and legislative history and intent when enacted is the relevant analysis. That it "has a lot of quotes" isn't really relevant either, since that's what legislative history is: finding what the legislature said and meant at the time. I've seen a lot of legislative history analysis, and whether you consider that opinion "long" or not, it's certainly thorough, detailed, and well supported.


*Their "creative" way around rake is one of my favorite examples of ridiculous pretextual rules: a certain percentage of the pot is replaced with "special chips," which are then shipped to you if you win the pot. The cash-value chips are taken from the pot and dropped. You can keep the "special chips" if you want, but they cannot be used to make or call any bets, and they cannot be cashed out. Free, worthless plastic!

it surprises me so few people talk about how poker provides competition for Oregon Lottery. We know it is not a big overlap of players but government folks must be protective of that revenue from anyone. Which in my mind lessens the influence of Ilani and others who are also competition for Oregon Lottery.

True enough. Not to mention that the talk about all the "volunteer" dealer jobs the poker clubs create raises the question of income tax.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Why do you guys think the Last Frontier poker room will be closing soon? I figured that would happen if the new Indian casino took their business, but news here says they won't even have a poker room.

Not at first, no. But it's my understanding that's just a matter of time as part of the agreement that they made to get approvals. I think LF will face some problems because everything around it has been closing up shop.

There's a critical mass that needs to be maintained for any poker room to stay open. It needs new blood from time to time, people need to wander in from other establishments to water the tree of poker. If it gets to the point where people who would have been the new blood see the big shiny casino on the side of the freeway instead of heading two miles down the hill to La Center, it'll just shrink to the point of collapse.

And if Ilani opens a poker room in a couple of years, why would anyone bother?

http://www.kgw.com/news/investigatio...nomy/428570743

Future plans tentatively include a hotel, poker rooms, and moving the Cowlitz tribe’s government buildings to the land.

That doesn't follow whatsoever. I wasn't involved in the lobbying effort; at the time I was just a schlub playing cheap tournaments to get my mind off the fact that I'd been unemployed for six years. Now I'm an employed schlub with a blog, so people occasionally tell me stuff.

That's actually my entire point. I wasn't referring to and narrowing "you" to the poker blogger you are now, just as a poker player generally. Under a properly conducted lobbying effort, every schlub who set foot in a poker room should have known about the lobbying effort, and there should have been a push for the same type of contact-your-legislators movement that's happening now (but with a much more organized and cohesive message; Stacey's been hitting the nail on the head re: what needs to be done differently this go round, including the need for conscious decisions regarding who should and shouldn't speak on behalf of the community).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is prob old news but I just realized that Final Table went to self-deal. This is on their site now: Come visit us daily. We are a self deal club with player option to pass their deal.

Self-deal sounds terrible especially since some of the players are high/drinking. Who manages the pots and action? Could be a nightmare. Is anyone playing in the self-deal games around town and how has it gone?

I think the key is the option to "pass the deal"

I went there one night a few months ago. There actually was a dealer, and he had to ask every hand if the player with the button wanted to deal. The crazy thing was, that 2 times during the night a player took that option, and both times the player got stacked. By me.

Were people tipping the "dealer"? If so, I can't imagine the option to deal yourself would change anything in the eyes of law enforcement.

LOL. Love it! I hope this option is considered OK, though I doubt it flies long term.

I would never play a self dealt game. I just can't imagine somebody in the 2-3-7-8 seat dealing across the table.

You jinxed it: http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/05/21...tate-contract/

Having now seen the agreement with the city, and what the Lotto has identified as problems, I REALLY don't see how they survive long term. The agreement with the City says they can't violate the prohibition on a house bank. How can they do that, other than the city ignoring it? There's very little grey area there.

Interesting that the City agreement simply says tips can't be "solicited," while the Lotto Letter seems to prohibit it entirely.

Since I owned a bar I knew those lottery folks do not mess around.

Is Meadows still open?

Seems like the lottery is being shortsighted

I went to Meadows last night. Some terrible changes were made between Sunday and Monday:

-You're given a wristband after paying the door fee (not terrible)

-Back to one-hour shootout tournaments. You cannot leave the table (to switch tables, cash out, etc.) until the hour is up.

-You cannot tip with chips.

-At the end of the hour, you must cash out all chips with the dealer. This process takes at least 10-15 minutes for each player. You can then tip with cash.

-Because you cash out, you are only able to rebuy for the maximum or below. This takes tons of money off the table at the end of each hour.

-I couldn't really follow this well, but the dealer, in order to prove that he/she is a player, was going "all-in" with a self-dealt hand for $3, creating a main pot with all other players in the hand and requiring any remaining action to build the side pot. The dealer won this main pot twice while I was there.

Meadows said they were experimenting with these new rules, but the game was just really awful and slow. Players are constantly checking how much time is left in a given hour, the dealers are getting tipped less, game selection is dead, and stacks are shallower.

Seems like the end is imminent.

So every hand goes to showdown?