No idea about bomb pots, but there were networks back in the day with the majority of their SNG traffic in 50/50s while other sites/networks had scrapped them due to rampant collusion.

Theoretically it was a terrible idea to run 50/50s or double ups, but these smaller networks didn't have the collusion problems(or handled it) as far as I could tell.

They're grimy dirtbags plain and simple. I have played with a lot of people better than me and that's fine. I don't begrudge them for it at all. I've played with some euros better than me, some worse than me and that's not the issue. They are anti social tanking no tipping colluding scum who suck every ounce of fun out of the game. Maybe there's some German poker school where they train all the euros who are bottom feeders with zero personality and send them over here.

ITT we learnedÂ…

3 steps to crush live poker:

1. Move to Texas
2. Ban the euros
3. Print

Vs

Masons 3 steps to running a proper poker room:

1. Go to Texas message board
2. Ban bomb pots
3. Print

I think what Mason wants to prevent is:

1.Move to Texas with three friends

2. Collude in bomb pots

3. Print

Something similar could happen to The Lodge Card Club ?

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2022/01/20/...ths-approving/

"The Texas Card House Dallas is a poker room whose owners thought they were operating legally, until the city decided to revoke their permit."

That would be a huge L for Doug et. al. Never understood why you lot over the pond have such a problem with cards.

Of course it could happen, but you have to understand the dynamics are much different in Dallas than they are in the Austin area (and frankly, most of the state). It's my understanding that card rooms in the Austin area have been free to operate without major impediments for close to 7 years now.

By contrast, there was a club located in Dallas 4 years ago and it was raided and shut down. TCH, which opened in October 2020, was the first poker room to be approved by the city of Dallas. Since then, a couple other large poker rooms attempted to open in Dallas but were thwarted by the city and local politicians.

On a side note, I will say that news article was great positive press for TCH. Good press could be the lifeline that TCH needs.

Because Lil Baby Jesus says that gambling is bad except for state run lotteries.

Also, because the largest casino in the world, which is located in the middle of ****ing nowhere (population under 500), is located right on the other side of the Oklahoma border and nearly all of its customers are from Texas.

I think you are very wrong about this. I have a friend who is a lawyer in Dallas and he told me this could be the beginning of a domino effect where lots of these card rooms will be forced to close all over the state. If I were any of the owners of the Lodge I would be nervous as hell right now.

I think it was interesting that Doug said on his podcast he thought they were pretty safe from legislative measures.
He might be right.

What I find interesting about this report is that it seems directed just at TCH, not other card rooms in the city.

They are clearly alleging something happened that they have proof of.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

I am hearing differently.

If you seriously would be "nervous as hell" owning the Lodge, maybe the business of poker operator would not be for you anyway, "Balla".

I trust my lawyer friend who lives in Dallas over your opinion, "Davey"

I'm a lawyer who lives in Austin, and I agree with DC and Gzesh.

Sure, I suppose anything can happen but what is likely to happen? 4.5 years ago a bunch of clubs in the Dallas area were all forced to shut down and yet clubs all over the rest of the state continued to operate without issue.

If these clubs aren't allowed to operate in Dallas, then I'd argue that there should be less legislative pressure to shut down other clubs, not more.

Btw, it's not like this is a done deal. There is still a fight to be had. The fact that the card room is getting positive press and the city council member representing that area supports the poker room, is a good sign.

Even if Dallas does shut TCH down, it's no guarantee they will be down for good. Theoretically, TCH could move .1 mile away from its current location and be out of the grasp of the city of Dallas.

From the article:

But the owners recently received a letter revoking their permit for “keeping a gambling place.” That’s despite the fact the house doesn’t take a cut from each hand, which would be illegal gambling. Instead, players pay $13 an hour to sit at a table, some of the games are even live-streamed. District 6 City Councilman Omar Narvaez, who represents the neighborhood supports Texas Card House. “I think it’s unfair that all of the sudden all of these COs (certificates of occupancy) for all these card rooms have suddenly been revoked,” he said. “Unfortunately our city attorney has decided to change the idea of what he believes constitutes card rules according to the law.”

This is the common talking point of the clubs but it's not supported by legislation. Sec. 47.02 bans gambling but makes an exception if all of the following are true:

• (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.

There is nothing in the Texas statutes which limits the definition of "economic benefit" from gambling to a rake taken from every pot.

Lots of people take that to mean economic benefit directly from the gambling. What if I host a rake free poker tourney and someone parks in a paid parking lot. Does the fact that the lot owner received economic benefit that they wouldn't have otherwise if the game didn't exist now make the tourney illegal gambling?

Balla, trust whoever you want. I certainly was not giving you any opinion on Texas law. I was just saying I was hearing differently, from people in the poker industry in Texas.

I then opined your vicarious case of being "nervous as hell" suggests that the business of poker would not be for you.

I know, EastCoast, Let's have a spelling contest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PXlUjWz5M

To quote the law firm of Thelma & Louise, "The law is some tricky sh*t". Under the federal Illegal Gambling Business Act for example, a jurisdictional requirement of 5 persons engaged in the targeted gambling "business" has been stretched to count someone who only swept the floors.

If the only reason you held the free poker tournament was to earn money from parking fees for yourself and/or the parking lot operator then yes, it would be illegal.

A reasonable question you might then ask is how would a judge distinguish between a legitimate free poker tournament whose earnings from parking were only incidental vs an endeavor created solely to earn an (illegal) economic benefit from its gambling? To that the judge might formulate a series questions to determine the intent of the tournament organizer and parking lot operator, such as:

1. Was there any financial relationship or quid pro quo between the tournament organizer and parking lot operator?
2. How often was the tournament held?
3. If not for the gambling offered, would the individuals playing have any other reason to patronize the parking lot?
4. Was the amount charged for parking consistent with parking rates in the area?
5. Was the parking lot a bona fide for-profit operation before the poker tournaments were held?
6. What percentage of the parking lot's income can be attributed to parking for the poker tournaments?
7. Would the parking lot be economically viable as a for-profit business if not for the patronage of the tournament players?
8. Does the parking lot operator have employees, utility, maintenance costs, and other expenses which can be uniquely attributed or apportioned to operating costs that arise out of the patronage of the tournament players?

If we replace "parking lot" with "private poker club" for the above and re-ask the questions I think the intent of the club operator would be clear to any reasonable-minded judge.

But the statute doesn't say "the economic benefit has to be the reason for the gambling." The words are that no person can receive any economic benefit from the gambling, which could theoretically be a person that doesn't even know the gambling exists.

I previously played a rake-free tourney in an empty office space and the restaurant/coffee shop next door got a huge influx of business on days when the tourney happened. That business clearly derived economic benefit from the fact that gambling happened, but obviously, as your questions and points raise, that isn't the situation or circumstance targeted by the law.

So then the question is how to interpret those words, and many feel comfortable saying it is economic benefit directly from the money gambled, such as rake or juice.

Dallas is very different than the rest of the state. A lot of money from winstar/Choctaw flows through the politicians in Dallas. Obviously policy is different there than elsewhere.

You posted a scenario of someone earning money incidentally without knowledge of the gambling. Their defense then would be the absence of criminal intent. In evaluating that defense the judge would ask questions similar to what I posed, to independently establish intent. The questions in of themselves are not an interpretation of the statute.

The person making money from the gambling doesn't have to be the person prosecuted under a plain-language reading of the statute. Thus, that person's intent becomes irrelevant. You're reading the second prong of the defense as if it said "the actor" and not "no person".

The listed items are also not elements of the offense so don't require mens rea on the part of the actor.

You're arguing he would never need to prove intent because he would never be prosecuted in the first place? That's impressive a priori jiu jitsu.

Sigh. No.

I'm saying the person deriving the economic benefit doesn't have to be the person prosecuted. And since the person deriving the economic benefit isn't always being the person prosecuted, they don't have to "intend the economic benefit."

You are house-sitting for me. While house-sitting, you host a poker tourney. You rake out $40 from each entry and give it to me when I return. I have economically benefitted, although I had no intent to, and in fact had no knowledge of the gambling. I haven't committed a criminal offense, and thus can't be prosecuted. You can be prosecuted, despite that you didn't derive any economic benefit yourself.