This is obviously the risk. Perhaps Doug and his partners have good reasons to believe this is much less likely to happen than you do.

Mason

Also, doesn't even seem like a fight worth fighting for a politician considering all the Texas politicians claim to be anti-regulation and have shown that to be the case with laws they have passed in recent years

You said Texas politicians claim to be anti-regulation and said you believed they have shown that to be the case.

Andrew and Brad have also successfully been running their own businesses for a while now. Poker has not been their primary source of income for a long time.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...E.47.htm#47.02

So you didn't even fully read the law you just sent. "It is a defense to prosecution"

Seems like you are just trying to derail this thread with a different subject that you lack expertise on.

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.

If you can argue that the owner of the poker room was able to sell off a large stake for a substantial sum of money to Polk et al but that the value of that room is not an economic benefit from the gambling occurring within it then you are proffering the most ingenious legal argument since the Chewbacca defense.

What surprised me about this is that Neeme said the 3 of them bought out a majority stake in the business. Based on the turnout that Neeme and Owen get at their meetup games, and assuming the business is already profitable, they should be printing money from here. I remember a while ago Neeme talked about how he was thinking of opening up a bar in Vegas, which sounded like a dumb idea. Their brand is very valuable and buying out a poker business that is already up and running is a great way to leverage that.

I doubt any of them will be involved in the day to day operations so hopefully they have solid people managing the place and it's not a repeat of the Johnny Chan mess. I don't think they bought it with the intent of doing the "tedious and time consuming work that a business will often require" as Mason described it. The other risk is if there is a crackdown on these casinos that are legally in a grey area. But I assume they did their due diligence and found the chances of that are slim to none.

This is a legal grey area, so we could argue back and forth on this law until the sun goes down. As a layman I actually agree with what you are saying BUT most lawyers that have studied this do not share your opinion and these clubs have been operating in the state of Texas since 2015 so I think it's prudent to stick with what the lawyers say until proven otherwise.

The only question I have is the next time the lodge raises their "rake" does Dnegs by a billboard???

It's only a grey area because the abuse of the law in this specific scenario hasn't been adjudicated in a courtroom yet. The legislative intent of the law is clear. Adding a trivial level of monetary indirection to the economic benefit enjoyed by the purveyors of a gambling establishment via the membership arrangement will IMO wilt under legal challenge.

I didn’t know this, but that makes things even better.

Mason

It seems like you probably aren't aware that the original idea and first implementation of one of these poker rooms came from a former member of the Texas Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee which oversees gaming in the state of Texas. It may be your opinion that these will fail under legal challenge, but the experts on the subject do not agree with you.

They make most of their money from social media activities (ie poker vlogging, selling merchandise, meetup games, etc). Of course they don't have a lot of operational experience running a business, but should at the very least be very adept at marketing.

It seems like you probably aren't aware that the idea of using membership clubs to circumvent a law in Texas predates this use by poker rooms. For example in 1988 by the Dallas Buyer's Club.

If the fact this came from a former member of a gaming committee meant something in the eyes of the law then you wouldn't need to call it a grey area. One individual's interpretation of the law who himself stands to financially benefit from that specific interpretation won't carry much weight in its eventual legal challenge

I'm well aware that poker has been played in private clubs throughout the state of Texas for many decades. That fact only strengthens the defense of these clubs though.

Sooner or later the Texas anti-gambling legislature will close this loophole and these clubs will be shutdown. Polk, Owen and Neeme better hope it's much later. But I don't see how they are going to make much money from this anyways, with this membership fees structure. But I wish them well.

If they can market it properly and dominate the market then they'll make an absolute killing. That's what TCH is doing in Dallas with just 20 tables plus a few temporary tables. The lodge has over 60 tables.

Then why did the owner want to sell off with an expansion into a new room and a livestream going on 3 days a week?

It's not just membership fees but also an hourly time charge. I have no doubt the clubs are likely insanely profitable in their current structure, and will only be more so with Polk/Owen/Neeme's additional draw. But I agree with you that their legal standing is tenuous.

Oh okay. But I still don't understand why the Lodge owner wanted out? Lodge has a good reputation and expanded and has a nice following through the Livestreams.

Maybe it is the worry of being shutdown all of a sudden.

Doesn't hurt to take some money off the table. Plus with Polk and gang drawing in more customers the business stands a very good chance to grow significantly, so his smaller stake may eventually be worth more than what his full stake was worth before this deal. Again, all provided they can stay in business.

It’s a win-win for Doug and co and the old owners and a loss for TCH and other local clubs. That’s the consensus of players based on what I’ve heard.

Lodge owners have been confident that there’s no imminent threat of shutdown. That’s why they’ve told their members and I’m confident in that assessment of the legal situation. Texas poker faced its biggest threat a few years back after the Houston raids. With that behind us, it seems like it’ll be smooth sailing for the time being. Local officials are already operating with inefficiency due to the pandemic and law enforcement has enough on their hands due to the crime surge. Why would any officials waste their time trying to stamp out local poker rooms that are small peanuts to them,

Cashing out is just one of many reasons businesses sell equity. Growth is usually the reason and bringing on strategic partners is another reason, both of which may apply here. We’d just be speculating about why the owners decided to sell, but it’s exciting news for the vloggers. I wish them luck.

Yeah exactly. It's a bit of an unfounded assertion to say the existing owners 'wanted out'. It makes sense to sell some of their share to new partners to help grow the business. Especially as if they didn't those partners were likely to set up a competing card house which could over take them! Seems like a good move all round.

Can't make it in Vegas? Chicken out and run to Texas. LOL.