He is playing the "corporation" heads up. Do you think he would let Todd and Doyle sit 3 handed with him, knowing they were playing out of the same bankroll, and could work together potentially. This high stakes game is a very unique situation, and if the downside of this law being passed is that Andy Beal can't play super high stakes, then so be it.

I'm under the impression virtually all staking arrangements are not 1:1 "you pay for 10% of the buy-in and get 10% of the winnings, and nothing else". Almost always there is some form of mark-up (Selling 10% of your action at 1.1, for example), or rules for giving money to the investors first (Return your investment in its full amount, then split all profits 50/50, if you have just one backer, for example), or anything along those lines. All it takes is ANY sort of deviation from a pure "You pay 10% of my buy-in, and get 10% of my proceeds" for this law to kick-in for sure, and as Gzesh points out, it's quite easy for a lawyer (and therefore quite easy for a gaming regulator, a tax administrator, or an agent of the state or federal government) to make a case that you are still receiving compensation because you wouldn't be able to play in the tournament if it weren't for the stake, and said ability to play in the tournament is compensation enough.

But even without that claim, the law would make staking arrangements of any sort that are not entirely, 100% simply "you get 10% of the entry fee, and you get 10% of whatever I win" illegal.

This is an argument against cash game staking which I wasn't addressing, I was referring to tournament staking. I used the example with Andy Beal and Todd Brunson to show that it isn't unusual or frowned upon by amateurs to know that their opponent might be staked. He stated several times that amateurs feel "ganged up on" when they find out people at their tournament tables have sold pieces of their action to outside investors which is absolutely ridiculous.

What on earth does "future contingent event" mean?

Can anyone with a legal background comment on the use of that particular term? When I first read the text "the result of any race, sporting event or future contingent event", I assumed the INTENT was "any type of bet you can typically make in a sports book". NOT "any type of gambling result in general".

I think the "future contingent event" was added to include bets you can make in sports books that might not be the result of a race or sporting event, such as bets on political results or random prop bets. I suppose this would include side bets on the outcome of the WSOP that are booked in the sports book. But it seems like a stretch to me to include actual poker play or play at other casino games.

If the term "future contingent event" is so vague, isn't it likely that it will be clarified before the legislation is passed? If they really intended to include any wagering activity of any type, it would have been very easy to do so.

"I am not accusing anyone of actual cheating they were very open about the whole thing but it clearly affected play in some spots."-Honeybadger

I'm no poker or ethics or tournament poker ethics expert but If you're going around softplaying people in final tables (as it clearly affected certain spots) when you're staking one another then they pretty much were cheating, no?

Youre dead wrong here, if whats been written is true, beal plays HU specifically to combat collusion and the "corporation" plays huge so that no other pros can sit. Ted Forrest sat in originally and the coproration just put him on the payroll. THIS IS EXACTLY WHATS WRONG WITH POKER.

Laliberte and Larry Flynt also quit games because they found out all there opponents were part of a swapping/staking team. This is bad for poker.

I love that there are people actually arguing for playing at the same table with someone elses money secretly. What a fuxxed up culture poker has become.

"Me and the guys I secretly do business with always play each other tough at the same table"---Motto future cheaters of America.

Fell free to call into the podcast to discuss further. It airs FREE Live on Mondays at 6pm PST.

I'm not that familiar with cash game staking arrangements I was more referring to what you said about people selling action to live tournaments. I mentioned Beal because he is well aware he is playing people that have pooled their money and it doesn't bother him.

This makes absolutely no sense. Its like saying, "If I could go back to Einsteins time i woulda totally written that e=mc stuff". lol. its all relative.

youre soooooo wrong here. you think it wouldnt bother him to be in a full ring game with a team playing off a single bankroll in secret? laughable, thats what happened to laliberte and flynt and it bothered them, it bothered them A LOT.

thats why he insists the game is HU. as most would do if the deals were in the open like his not in secret like most.

I wonder how some people's opinions carry over into things other than poker.

Loans in general (mortgage, car, business, etc.)?
Companies selling ownership interests to investors for capital?
Insurance?
Etc.

I realize staking is a fairly common part of the poker “ecosystem”, if that is a thing but gonna have to echo agreement with anti-stakers here. Staking itself bothers me on a basic level, because poker is supposedly “every player v. everyone else” kind of scenario. The almost certain existence of staking teams must obviously cause more harm than good. If (one of) the pro-stakers’ main argument(s) is that high-stakes tourneys will disappear, then I’d ask who would really be getting hurt by that. Going by ESPN’s steadily decreasing coverage of the WSOP, it seems the public’s appetite for poker - watching/playing - is already past its peak.

I’d argue that all the well-publicized online cheating scandals (FTP et al.) has negated much of the positive imaging poker has struggled to attain over the last 10-15 years. Even if there’s no actual colluding re:staking, the appearance of cheating is still there. Imo, poker needs to take steps like these to emphasize the concern for integrity, so that rec players come back to the game.

I meant that he is fine with the person he is playing HU not playing with 100% of his action. Also my main point was about tournament staking which you still haven't replied to.

The sky is not falling.

I am nearly certain that the current language in SB40 ("Accepting or facilitating any bet or wager upon the result of any race, sporting event or future contingent event") does not include staking in poker tournaments or cash games, or blackjack teams, or any other gambling activities except sports and race book bets and similar wagers. (However, it would apply to making bets like a sports book might accept on the outcome of a poker tournament.)

There are several canons of statutory interpretation that should apply here, including the rule against surplusage, ejusdem generis, and the rule of lenity. First, if the phrase "future contingent event" would include anything that could be bet or wagered on, then the entire clause "upon the result of any race, sporting event or future contingent event" would be redundant ("surplusage"). Thus, under the rule against surplusage, a more narrow interpretation of "future contingent event" would be appropriate.

Second, under ejusdem generis (Latin for "of the same kind"), when a general term follows more specific terms, the general term is to be interpreted to be of the same class as the more specific terms. Here, the first two terms ("race, sporting event") suggest that "bet or wager upon the result of any... future contingent event" only means a bet that a race and sports book might accept, and would not include backing in a poker tournament or investing in a blackjack team, etc.

Third, under the rule of lenity, courts should interpret any ambiguity in criminal laws in favor of the defendant. Unless "future contingent event" is defined clearly somewhere else (in another statute, or possibly another source such as a regulation or prior court decision) and unambiguously includes the winnings of a single player in a poker tournament or a cash game, courts should not interpret it in this criminal law to include such an event.

A few caveats: (1) The language of SB40 could be changed. (2) Courts don't always follow all the canons of statutory interpretation, and there may be other canons that lead to the opposite conclusion. (3) The backing may already be illegal, depending on the location of the backer. For example, at least facially, it would be illegal for someone in the state of Washington to back someone else, if information was transmitted by the internet, telephone, text messaging, etc. (But I've never heard of any prosecution for remote backing, and a prosecution in Washington under its internet gambling statute would implicate First Amendment issues -- such a reading of the statute could make much of the posting on 2+2 a felony.) (4) This post is legal information and not legal advice. You should consult your own lawyer for advice on your own legal situation.

Prosecutorial interpretation of terms under gaming statutes frequently have shown little adherence to the canons your post would rely upon.

"[F]uture contingent event" may not include a poker tournament cashout to you, but there are folks who might disagree. Consider historic anti-gambling statutes at the Federal level.

1.How many years after In Re MasterCard Litigation was decided by a Federal Court of appeals did it take for the Department of Justice to change its interpretation of the Wire Act ,to exclude poker coverage under the term "sporting event or contest" ?

2.How many times does the word "poker" ever appear in the text of the UIGEA ?

3. How do poker businesses, whose business model never bets or wagers and takes no outcome risk, engage in the "business of betting of wagering" under the UIGEA ?

I would be glad if it were as clear as you think that SB40 does not cover staking in poker events or games (or blackjack teams either), but it is not clear as to the whether staking is a bet on the outcome of a poker tournament. The tournament outcome clearly is a "future contingent event" as to the return available from a staked player's play, under the plain meaning of the words.

(Consider also, fwiw, whether a DFS outcome might also be a "future contingent event", roping those businesses in under SB40).

There is some ambiguity, by the way, in that SB40 does not cover "making" a bet, only "accepting or facilitating" a bet or "transmitting or delivering anything of value" arising from a bet or wager whose acceptance is prohibited. The stake investor is likely not covered, as a "mere bettor" is not covered under the Wire Act, just the player or business or team who accepts a stake/bet seems at risk.

Interestingly, a licensed casino CAN do all these otherwise prohibited acts, so maybe it can act as the staking business itself to support something like the One Drop ... allowing prospective players to offer stakes in themselves through the casino'ssupport.

Bottom line: Some clarity should be sought regarding the language anf scope of SB40, rather than blithely whistling past the graveyard or the poker or blackjack table.

+1 (i didn't want to rejam the whole post)

... it's not important, what will happen definitely, but it's important, what might be happen. laws are probably never 100% clear and especially the black friday has shown, that there's always some room for interpretation.

gosh, i don't get the name of this utah bank guy (the one who married the playboy girl and went on twitter rant after a few months of jailtime) ... anyway, he once said in an interview, that he had a legal team and they said it's within the laws, what they do ... i don't say, he didn't know, that there was a risk, but i'm sure, he thought there's some possibility, that he won't be sentenced

this is gonna throw a substantial wrench in the ole business

It's still a tough case to make legally, regardless of the staking terms. The player is not being compensated for accepting or facilitating the wager but rather for winning the event (he doesn't get paid anything unless he wins). Yet I agree that changing the wording of the bill to prevent any widening of its intent is the way to go.

Any amendment sought to solve the problem with poker staking should not be aimed at getting a poker carveout, but rather a clarification of the particular phrase, imo. This would be sufficient:
"the result of any race, sporting event or similar contingent event".

Lobbying for carveout language is much more complicated and difficult. This simple change would be more achievable.

call in tonight

Andy,

fyp.

I wanted to get back to your canons of construction arguments.

FWIW, the choice of the term "future contingent event" does echoes similar language in Nevada Gaming shorthand for Futures bets, such as the wagers offered on the 2015 Kentucky Derby, the Winner of the 2015 World Series of Baseball. e.g. the reserves required of a sportsbook must cover such liability for "contingencies whose outcomes have not been determined".

So, maybe the SB40 drafters on the industry side never even considered poker or never even knew there was such a thing as poker-staking important to the Nevada MTT economy, but they sure made it easy, as you note, to leap from bets on the outcome of the 2015 World Series (of Baseball) to bet on the outcome of the 2015 "World Series of Poker". It becomes a small step to betting on various individual player performances, individually or in some aggregate or parlay combination. Sunday's Big Game is the basis for all sorts of parlay card offers based upon individual players' performances rather than the outcome or scoring of the game itself. Such Big Game proposition wagers or parlay cards are clearly bets on a future contingent event in this State.

Given the hot topic of anti-money laundering and B&M gaming around the Silver State, it seems prudent to clarify whether player staking, which might characterized as betting on the outcome for a particular player in some 2015 World Series of Poker future event, was intended to be covered by SB40.

If racehorses can be invested in and entry fees paid for races, and NFL teams can raise funds to pay player salaries and franchise costs, without those transactions triggering gambling violations afaik, why not allow investment in specific players in poker games and tournaments ?

The trouble is the SB40 language as written is unclear, and a prospective felony charge is pretty severe for unintended violations; a clear carve-out for actual poker player staking is needed from the scope of covered "future contingent events"....

I agree that the language as written ("future contingent events") is unclear and needs to be changed. But there are a couple problems with clarifying the language by adding carve-out language to the bill.

When you add carve-out language, that immediately changes the intent of the bill from covering only sportsbook wagering to covering all wagering except for those with a carveout. You have now clarified the language of the bill in the opposite direction from that which you want - you have expanded its scope instead of narrowed it, with only the specified carve-outs now excluded.

Once you do that, you have opened the discussion in the legislature as to what should or should not be given a carve-out from the language. Instead of just a proposition as to whether or not sportsbook wagering practices should be limited by passing this bill, you've added a proposition as to whether or not all gaming practices should be limited by this bill. Suddenly, poker staking becomes an issue under consideration rather than just a grey area of possible collateral damage.

How would you word a carve-out that would not add to the scope of the law? FlatTireSuited suggested:

"Nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to include people from paying a participant in a licensed and regulated table games or poker event (to include baccarat tournaments and the like) for all or a portion of any profits won from the results of the event".

So now you have added to the scope of what is illegal under the bill all straight-up loans to poker players since you have carved out only paying a participant for profits of the poker event. This is just one example.

I believe it is far better to just ask for the wording of the phrase which includes "future contingent events" to be modified so that it won't be misinterpreted to include wagering beyond the sportsbook. Something like changing the original wording:

"the result of any race, sporting event or future contingent event"

to

"the result of any animal race, sporting event, political vote or similar contingent event".

This would expand the specific terms such that the more general term "similar contingent event" becomes narrowed, and the law principles which were explained by Andy Bloch (the rule against surplusage, ejusdem generis, and the rule of lenity) become firmly applicable.

If you still feel that getting a carve-out is the better strategy, then go for a more general carve-out. Something like this should do the trick:

"Nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to require a person who is placing bets or wagers at table games in duly licensed gaming facilities to obtain any gaming licenses in order to compensate or reward another person who has provided some or all of the money or property played."

Of course, then the conversation in the legislature will become whether or not table games should be included in the prohibition.

Just had to slightly correct you because I hear people express it this way, and it's wrong. There are very few states where it's illegal to actually play online poker.

The vast majority, you are allowed to play online poker.

It is not illegal to play online poker. Nothing prevents you from playing on Bovada, or Carbon, or a few others.

Now, it's possible that the DOJ could decide to shut those sites down at least in terms of them offering to US residents, but people playing on them are allowed to play on them.

When you say, for example, Nevada, it's as if you're talking about the very few states that have regulated it. But, you can play outside of those states as well.

You could just use NRS language. Basically use the same language that NRS 463 or 464 (or if there's a even more apt term of art used by the NGC in their regulatory framework) uses to clarify that this is supposed to be for sportsbooks. For example:

NRS 463.0193  “Sports pool” defined.  “Sports pool” means the business of accepting wagers on sporting events or other events by any system or method of wagering.

So change

"the result of any race, sporting event or future contingent event"

to

"the result of any sports pool wagering".

I admit that I am not an expert in this area of the law, so there may be a better "phrase that pays", sort to speak, but it would seem to me that your idea to change the language directly instead of a carve-out would be best served by just yanking the language right out of the NRS or the Gaming Commission's regulations and putting it right into SB-40.

Now, as for whether that's better than the carve-out, I haven't the slighest idea. The key, IMO, is which option the NGC (and others) are more comfortable with, because it seems fairly obvious that this law is going to pass in some form as there are apparently a lot of agencies, both state and federal, who are quite perturbed at the amount of sports-betting-by-proxy that currently goes on and want to put an immediate stop to it or at least make it only possible under an NGC regulation/license. If the NGC prefers the carve-out to the shift in language (or vice versa), go with that one, because having them on board with either option is the most important thing, because the last thing any of us would want is the NGC or the Legislature flatting rejecting both options and proceeding with the bill as is. Stopping the bill entirely isn't going to happen. Just gotta make sure the bill sticks to sports betting.

Correct on all fronts until the last paragraph. If anything, the NGC would want it as broad as possible because that gives them the ability to try to use the law wherever they feel they can bring the behavior in question under the terms of the law. Unless future contingent event has a specifically defined meaning, without clarity, there is always the chance agents or officials try to use the law to curb behavior that was never even remotely considered applicable to the law. The likelihood may not be probable, but it is definitely more than negligible/marginal, and so therefore it's critical to get more clarity into the law.

Playing more places is great
There should be a gap between 1 and 2, it should be encouraged to play to win! I like flat payouts with at least a 3/2 1st to 2nd ratio.

Although not shown, I'm worried the payouts/payjumps further down are going to suffer. Wouldn't mind taking more from the final table, hopefully a greater turnout means there can be 9 millionaires and good payouts for 10-100.

Worries over staking now all over -- news will be out tomorrow