Looks like (3) is a positive defense, no one gambling has a better chance of winning than anyone else. In other words, the venue owner/operator isn't participating in gambling, unlike blackjack where the house plays and has better odds.

Obv I must misunderstand this law b/c it wouldn't be an issue if I were right.

You missed the "and" at the end of #2. #1, #2, and #3 must all be true. #3 by itself is not a valid defense.

In my view, tournament fees are no different than seat fees for cash games. They are structured differently but the fee is still completely separate from the money being gambled.

I tend to agree regarding tips. The room's defense is that this amount is voluntarily paid by players and not required. It's very clear why a poker room would like dealer compensation structured this way, but if tips ended up being the sticking point, dealer compensation could be restructured in order to remove tips completely. I suspect many good dealers might leave though.

They could be playing monopoly, except they're instead running a poker room 24/7. These enterprises did not exist before poker was offered, and any reasonable person would conclude they exist solely for that purpose. People watch too many trial movies where they think judges just blindly read statutes and ignore intent. There is no need to amend the laws - the verbiage is quite clear:

"no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings"

A bunch of proprietors desperate to open card rooms went to lawyers, who someone managed to convince the proprietors that only a rake would represent economic benefit. Lawyers will tell their paying clients anything to keep the fees coming in.

An administrative tournament fee or dealer bonus can be equated to a gratuity. It's money that never entered the prizepool.

The economic benefit comes from funds that were never associated with player contributions to the cash game pot or the prizepool.

I can understand arguments from both sides. It's going to be up to the judges.

So whichever counsel is better at kiss-ass will probably win the case, because that's how it's been in my observation in courts of "law".

Stay safe and inconspicuous out there Waldo.

People keep posting this except there are way more lawyers involved than just those representing clients. There are at least like a dozen District Attorneys that have allowed these poker rooms to operate freely within their counties (for up to 7 years) . The Dallas County DA is one of them. There is an Attorney General, which is the state's top law enforcement officer, who has refused to say these poker rooms are illegal. There are many city attorneys which have allowed these poker rooms to receive the occupancy permits (and such) necessary to have the green light to operate within these cities.

This is true. The rooms are allowed to operate at the discretion of local authorities. If they decided to enforce the law, these rooms can be shut down at any time . Some local authorities have already shut down rooms or proclaimed that rooms cannot open in their jurisdictions.
It is on a case by case basis.
Right now, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio seem safe.
Things can change for the positive or the negative based on each election cycle.
i.e. new DAs or new laws

There is no way around the economic benefits clause. House can’t make money. Dealers can’t make money.

Doesn't matter, it's state law. The fact it hasn't been adjudicated doesn't stop making it so, nor does it represent a de facto opinion on the law. There are a multitude of reasons why DA's may choose not to bring a case that have nothing to do with their presumed interpretation of the law.

Just because you say your interpretation of the law is the valid interpretation of the law doesn't necessarily make it so.

You don't think the city of Dallas (and others in power) went to the Dallas County DA to try to get these poker rooms shut down? In their presentation to the Board of Adjustments, the city of Dallas actually cited support for shutting rooms down from the Collin County DA (which has no jurisdiction over TCH Dallas and only has jurisdiction over a very small portion of the city of Dallas). Logically speaking, this tells me they had no support from the Dallas County DA on this matter.

You're repeating the same assumption in your last post - that their inaction somehow represents their position on the law. You have no evidence to support that. Again, there are a multitude of reasons the DAs might have chosen not to act.

It certainly makes a hell of a lot more logical sense than your assumption that your interpretation of the law IS definitely the law. The fact is that the legality of this poker room is a gray area and opinions about the room's legality differ. Powerful people at the state and local level have fought to shut down poker rooms in Dallas and the fact that the DA has not acted is in itself quite telling.

Why does it make more sense? Your take requires mind-reading District Attorneys motivations whereas mine only requires acknowledging the simple and plain language of the statute.

Just 100% NOT true. As a former lawyer, my experience would suggest almost the opposite. If you come to me for a legal opinion, asking me if you can do something legally or not, if anything I am motivated to always tell you no. If I say yes, and write up the opinion that says so, I get paid. Then, if you do it, and it turns out it was illegal, I am facing the risk of getting sued for malpractice. However, if instead I look into it, and tell you no, you can't do it, I STILL GET PAID. And if you don't do it, you can't sue me for malpractice. And if you do it despite my advice, you still can't sue me for malpractice.

It is quite literally true that a lawyer is way more likely to tell you no if the answer has any uncertainty to it at all. And yet, several lawyers have provided their clients with opinion letters spelling out how their client can run a poker room legally within Texas.

There having been ZERO lawsuits yet adjudicated in Texas, anybody who claims their interpretation of the law or prediction of such a lawsuit is 100% accurate is full of ****. Nobody can be certain. There is no clear and obvious interpretation of this law. If it seems 100% obvious to you, that just means you don't know what you're talking about, and have little experience with the law. If you instead say one side seems heavily favored, in your opinion, that can be a reasonable statement, whether you end up being right or wrong. But anybody saying 100% is an idiot.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

I 100% agree! Ahh, wait a minute...

It is 100% obvious to any reasonable person reading of the statute. I would never claim 100% certainty that it would be adjudicated as such.

As for lawyers not taking on billable hours even if they disagree with a legal strategy or chances, the court dockets are filled with baseless lawsuits that argues otherwise.

Hello Greg, I played at your table when you came to Houston to play in the Champions Club Tournament.
I was wondering if you had any links to the lawyer’s opinions that these clubs are legal or can be run in a legal way. Or can you post the opinion letters here. I have never seen any such documents and would be curious to see how they are worded.

Agreed, would love to see the legal opinion as well, specifically how they can go from the statue:

"no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings"

To "but it's ok that a for-profit club, whose existence was preconceived and executed for the purpose of monetizing a commercial 24/7 poker operation, is somehow legally conforming to the above statute simply because the economic benefit accrued comes from an hourly rental fee rather than a per-pot rake.

He is not stating any interpretation of the law

Good to know that tournament fees can be equated to gratuities. I will have to take up tournaments. I will just tell them I don’t feel like tipping the tournament today.

Btw wher3 do you get idea that the economic benefit is limited to cash in the pot or prize pool?

I do not agree with Greg on the legal opinion letter. First of all you do not get paid the same. There is no “opinion letter” written if you disagree with the client’s position. You only write the opinion letter if it favors the client’s position. You might get paid the same for doing research but the letter in support of the client’s position usually has a price (I have seen 10k up to 60k involving other non gaming related matters). This is not illegal or unethical. You are making a legal argument on behalf of the client like you would in court or in a lawsuit/motion. You are not the judge or jury but rather an advocate.

Malpractice is not an issue because the attorney will have a “cover your ass” memo to the client explaining that there are no guarantees and that the client is aware that the courts and law enforcement may have a very different opinion. The client is told this is a gray area but we can write a persuasive opinion letter justifying their position.

I have seen some of the biggest law firms in the country write opinion letters for their clients on issues that did not even come close to passing the smell test. I am pretty sure Full Tilt Poker had opinion letters saying that it was still legal for them to continue servicing US clients after the UIGEA passed. I know Enron had opinion letters from one of the biggest law firms in Texas that supported their illegal methods to keep losses off the books.

So you are in fact buying a persuasive argument that supports your position in the form of an “opinion letter”. If it holds up, great. If it does not hold up, oh well we tried.

I think the courts in Texas will rule that the clubs in are in violation of the current statute. Think of it this way, if poker clubs were legal in Texas you would have already seen MGM, Caesar’s, or Wynn build big beautiful poker rooms in Dallas, Houston, and Austin. It has never happened. Maybe one day if they change the law.

Good post. One benefit of legal opinion letters is they create plausible deniability for clients in the eyes of juries for matters that turn from civil to criminal. This is common in the tax industry and audits.

“mine only requires acknowledging the simple and plain language”……….


DonÂ’t you mean YOUR INTERPRETATION of said language? You are acting as if your interpretation is concrete & irrefutable. The complete opposite is true.

If they wanted to stop poker in Texas, they would have done so already. Each additional day that it is allowed, the harder it will be for some overzealous politician/DA to stop it. They have allowed a Texas poker industry to get established and grow to the point to where it would make a significant impact to have it removed. Most believe that ship has already sailed, and itÂ’s too late to outlaw it now

Same thing was said about online poker in the USA, right up until Black Friday happened.

Yes, he is.

In fact, he claims that it’s obvious if anyone just reads the law.

Greg is 100% correct. Anyone making such a statement is just full of shiitt.

If it was that obvious, the Texas poker industry would never have started. The fact that poker has been allowed to spread throughout the state like it has shows that there are MORE lawyers/politicians that interpret the law to allow poker to continue. Yes, there are some that want to stop Texas poker, but their interpretation of the law is not in the majority.

There is a huge difference between going to court, and writing an opinion letter. You come to me as a lawyer, and want to sue somebody. I explain there is a significant chance you will lose. You insist you want to sue anyway. I take your case, and get paid by the hour. Pretty hard for you to sue me for malpractice when you lose under these facts. If you did win a malpractice suit, it would have to be due to something incompetent I did in the process, not for the fact that you lost in general.

I am not sure why you keep making all these claims about something with which you have no personal experience, or education or training. Seems like a lot of hubris.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)