considered editing out the "blood-soaked lands" reference but decided to leave it in... it's become a catch phrase now!

Like it or not, we are stuck with him as the poker war poster-child. At least for this round.

Not sure if the docket has been updated yet but the trial date has in fact moved back (again). Next pre-trial status conference is not until July 1.

So what happens if the old man dies before the trial?

Or is killed, gangland execution style? You know that the gambling syndicate are not nice people, and Lee is scared for his life. Just ask his former partner Johnny Ray in Tucson what they did to him...

I agree with your 9-point summary up to the middle of point 5.

They didn't stop him from taking a button fee -- until now.

---

As to my ivory tower... It's fine, thank you.

I've said, repeatedly, that I'd be happy to help in the fight for legislation changes to poker in Arizona, but that I won't follow Judge Lee, because I believe he's tilting at windmills by pursuing this as some sort of BIA conspiracy.

I've said that I'd flat out donate to a 100% no-rake room. For example: Find a location that can be run for $2,000/mo that's close enough to my part of town, and find 19 other guys who want NOTHING in return. I'll donate $100 a month of my hard-earned cash, I'll provide labor and plans and tools to build tables, I'll commit to provide my share of tip-free compensation-free dealing with my 19 co-donators. That, my friends, is a labor of love. Then, nobody, will take a dime off the table except people gambling. No button fee. No "voluntary donation." No tips. NOTHING leaves the table, and I never, ever, get a dime of my $100 back or any compensation for my time.

That's me putting my money where my mouth is, and being willing to sacrifice my own time and labor for something I'm passionate about.

I've further said I'd be first to sign any proposed change to laws, and that I'd offer (little does he know!) my state administrative law specialist up -- compensating him myself out of pocket as necessary -- to review those proposed legislative changes.


[And don't pretend your "collective" already does this. We all know what the +5 in $25+5 means...]

---

That said, I participate in a couple of home games, and I'll describe them and tell you what the difference is between me and Judge Lee regarding them.

I play in a home poker league in Chandler and Gilbert on Wednesday nights. We each pony up $10, of which $2 is held for the finals and most of the remaining $8 is held for the finals every 16 weeks. A grand total of $5 per game is set aside and used to buy durable supplies (cards, tables, chairs), trophies, and fixed expenses (our web hosting bill). Those items belong to the club, and move from house to house every week. Any unspent cash also belongs to the club and is held in escrow for it. No host or organizer of the club receives any benefit from the club.

You could argue that the $5 (total, net) per game we use to maintain ourselves is benefit (for whom I have no I idea - I don't hold the $5, and the tables move every week), and if so, I'll gladly go to court and take my plea. That's what separates me from Judge Lee. I'm willing to work within the spirit of the law, and I'm willing to accept the letter of the law if I'm found to be on the wrong side of it.

I also co-run a home game played mostly in Gilbert where we play cash, and "rake" ourselves $1 at $20 to later send players to the WSOP in an end-of-year freeroll tournament. No money leaves the rake for supplies or goods. 100% of it is returned to the players in that EOY tournament. I just finished building a $2000 table and purchasing a Windows Media hosting plan to broadcast our games live with hole-cards to the internet. I eat the cost of running our website and the time logging stats and keeping ledgers. I do this for the love of the game. Sometimes the game happens in the Phoenix city limits, so you might have me there.

Feel free to watch my game on Saturday night.

http://singledollarblind.com/index.php/Live_Cam

Heck, feel free to play in it -- if your $25+5 tournament is over by then...

[QUOTE=The Palimax;26935340]
> believe he's tilting at windmills by pursuing this as some sort of BIA conspiracy.

"some sort of..." implies that you just don't get it. And that's fine. The judge may be tilted, but then again, so is Jack.

> Then, nobody, will take a dime off the table except people gambling. No button fee. No "voluntary donation." No tips. NOTHING leaves the table, and I never, ever, get a dime of my $100 back or any compensation for my time.

Try telling the bartender at Stix next time that you don't want to pay $1.50 to use the pool table. See if he laughs at you or says "that's ok, it's voluntary and optional, here ya go pal, 6 quarters. Next?"

No tips, no pro dealers... this game is gonna take a long time, have a lot of errors, and am i really comfortable putting $6K on your table when we take turns dealing? Do I even want to deal? No. I want to play. Professionally. Hire a dealer for your home game, and I'll come play. Paying that dealer is no different than paying yourselves thru a satellite lottery. It's no different than pub poker bars offering $50 prizes with no purchase necessary.

> That's me putting my money where my mouth is, and being willing to sacrifice my own time and labor for something I'm passionate about.

So Palimax, if you're so passionate, why not just propose the changes in the law, using your knowledge, your vision, and your state admin specialist to review it. Why not? Is it too much time, too much effort? That's where the ivory tower comment came from... you're all conjecture and hyperbole. Do something about it, why are you waiting for someone else to do it for you? Get it started.

> [And don't pretend your "collective" already does this. We all know what the +5 in $25+5 means...]

And even after we become a npo "collective" [sic] there will be a +5 and a button fee. We got no problem with that. Even if both are 100% voluntary and optional. We already do a one-time free trial on the memberships. Why not get your buyin while we're at it?

---

> A grand total of $5 per game is set aside and used to buy durable supplies (cards, tables, chairs), trophies, and fixed expenses (our web hosting bill). Those items belong to the club, and move from house to house every week. Any unspent cash also belongs to the club and is held in escrow for it.

Replace "cooperative" with club, and same with TTJ.

> You could argue that the $5 (total, net) per game we use to maintain ourselves is benefit (for whom I have no I idea - I don't hold the $5, and the tables move every week), and if so, I'll gladly go to court and take my plea.

You could indeed.

> No host or organizer of the club receives any benefit from the club.

Oh ya, you hire no professional dealers. Why? Because the BIA's blood soaked lands prevent you from doing so, because their casino overlords (Harrah's and the like) don't want your home game to compete with their card rooms.

LOL

So you take turns auditing the accounts, in a self-regulating, open and transparent methodology no doubt... same as the coop.

> That's what separates me from Judge Lee. I'm willing to work within the spirit of the law, and I'm willing to accept the letter of the law if I'm found to be on the wrong side of it.

That's what separates TTJ from all the other clubs too. Paradise Cove is a non-profit, so was the ICGPA, but there's nothing to prevent every single club in the Valley from shutting down with a simple cease and desist order once the judge loses round one at the state supreme court level...

Except in a cooperative, we CAN HIRE dealers, OFF DUTY COPS, WINDOW WASHERS, MANAGERS, CHIP RUNNERS, whatever we like... and we do it democratically, through a process, through a review, a vote, and our key personnel go thru the same scrutinizing process the DoG puts licensed casino vendors and employees through, including FBI fingerprinting and background checks.

Yep, I can create a job for myself, or for you even, or the next member. You gotta be a member to apply, volunteer, or submit a proposal, but by god, TTJ will hire you and YOU CAN BENEFIT because we are NOT ILLEGAL GAMBLING.

It doesn't even matter if we RAKE THE POT if we wanna. We're not about loopholes and skirting. We're moving full head, full bore and balls deep into the smarmy underworld of the BIA conspiracy and you're worried that charging a button fee might be money laundering or organized crime? Prove that, and haul me away in cuffs today.

OMG, you've just described the cooperative concept. I can't wait till we're all straightened away and legally a npo cooperative (or "collective"). I'll be the first to walk into the AIGA and talk to my old friend Sheila Morago who I used to work with when she was Gila River's Marketing Manager. Won't she be surprised to hear what I propose, and would like to propose, to all Valley casinos with card rooms. Oh boy, can we get a press release?

> Feel free to watch my game on Saturday night.
http://singledollarblind.com/index.php/Live_Cam

Cool beans. Some security ala Poker Nation style. :O LOL

I'd play, but not if my wife can see me playing online. Or do you blur faces upon request? LOL

> Heck, feel free to play in it -- if your $25+5 tournament is over by then...

No way dude. Crazy Pineapple No Limit with Unlimited Rebuys for an hour? I think we'll be going till 10pm.

Palimax, you and I know what is wrong with most of the clubs and why they are all gonna be going away here very soon. Except one. I know of one that is willing to bend over and take it like a judge. LOL Oh, Tommy, where's the KY?

You can say that you're not breaking Arizona law all you want, but Arizona law disagrees with you.

It's sad that you dismiss my offer of donating my time and money because it's not "professional" enough for you. 19 more guys like me, and there'd be a room that didn't have a +5 after its tournaments.

Why is it sad that I don't care to play the same 10 15 or 20 guys? You have a great web broadcasted home league, so do a growing number of players. I think at least 20% of TTJ members are also part of a friendly social league. These home game players are just an extension of the pub poker popularity, or vice versa. I suppose there have always been home games. And some, great games. Safe, everyone becomes friends, the same 10 or 12 or 20 people each week, or each month. Others, invitation only, higher stakes, questionable areas or shady characters... and how do you find a good, safe, game? Via the casino? craigslist? homepokergame.com? roll the dice. I'd come play in your game sometime though pallimax.

In the casino, you can always find a table with unknown faces. You can also find 2000 seat tournaments with six figure prize pools. It's safe, it's regulated, and it funds the BIA and some 8-10% of the proceeds are ear-marked for specific state funds, including the Department of Gaming and all of its employees/agents.

These agents are charged with monitoring the BIA casinos. They make sure that the rakes are correct, that promotional raffles and the like are on the up and up. It's weird, you can't really find a job description or information about the departmental setup and the names of these non-public employees. It's definitely unlike any other "law enforcement agency" I know of.

In a poker club, you can find a game every night of the week. It's safe, safer than your home games or leagues, it's fun and social, low stakes, soft play, and at TTJ your membership and eventual equal ownership via the cooperative non-profit concept, makes our private social club unique. And legal.

Nowhere in the Statutes does it say "poker is illegal".

You have to stretch pretty hard to turn laws meant to curb organized crime and money laundering into a non-profit every member equal owner cooperative.

We elect our volunteer board and executive committee, we contract for any required professional services through an RFP process, we contract for tenant improvements, we hire our managers and dealers through a third party HR company, lease our equipment from a third party vendor, we pay our taxes and give to charitably community programs. In fact, we are sending $90 to the VFW (100% collected on Memorial Day) and who knows how much we will send to the Christmas In July children's benefit dinner and auction next month. We'll donate some JacKa$h too, I'm sure.

Like I said, the cooperative model is the epitome of the home game/home league. The laws say nobody other than the gamblers can benefit from the gambling. If all of the gamblers are equal owners, it's only the non members that are non owners and they do not benefit. Only the gamblers/owners do. And that's okay. That's social.

We'd love for the state, the county, the city to benefit too, and we're hoping that once we are 100% a cooperative entity, that when we approach them, the judge's case is still flapping out there in the wind. Wouldn't mind riding on the coat tails of that monumental decision in AZ superior court, as I suspect that TTJ will be one of only a few clubs still standing.

If what we are doing is illegal, then so are most home leagues that send a player to some big event, some home games are illegal, most free pub poker games exceed amusement gambling with their jackpot prize pools by the house (we do that to a certain extent too, with our JacKa$h), and certainly the casinos raking the pots are illegal and wrong and bad for the game. The casinos should adopt the button fee so everyone always knows how much is in the pot and how much is in the "rake".

Remember that casinos got to keep their poker rooms because of the same social gambling exemptions... class II gaming is played elsewhere in the state. It's that language that allowed Congress and the BIA to claim poker as a "gambling industry" game, when really, there is no house edge.

And the DoG, those industry watchdogs funded by the casinos, that are the State's expert witness and administrative law experts on how the statutes are to be understood.

If casinos could put in 20 lanes and people wanted to gamble on a bowling match, then bowling alleys and all be in the same hot water as the judge for renting shoes and balls and lane time.

Unless they are a true non-profit entity, with cooperative ownership with all the members benefitting equally and having equal opportunity to bid for any contracts, vote on contracts, audition for any position, or volunteer to run for office.

And Palimax, I am not rejecting your assistance, eyes, and knowledge on a pass at any legislative language that we develop. Hopefully that happens before the end of the year.

You keep making arguments about things that are irrelevant.

• Poker isn't illegal in Arizona.
• Betting on things isn't illegal in Arizona.
• Betting on poker isn't illegal in Arizona.
• It is irrelevant if the BIA or anyone else thinks any game is or isn't a "gambling industry" game - whatever that is.
• It doesn't matter if you are or aren't non-profit. The law makes no distinction.

The only thing that matters in Arizona is if a third party benefits from the gambling of others.

The law of Arizona doesn't say that it's OK to make money on other people betting as long as you're a collective, or as long as the game is skill.

The law of Arizona says that, even if it were "Amusement" (your newest dodge, I see), that it still has to pass the test of no benefit.

The law of Arizona makes no distinction to who or what the 3rd party is, or what the activity gambled upon is. The 3rd party can be Mother Teresa collecting money for starving children, and the activity could be a chess match between Kasparov and Fischer. If Bobby bets Gary $100 and Teresa gets 2% for holding the cash, then they're breaking Arizona law.

---

And since I guess you can't or aren't interested in reading what I type, I'll reiterate my "money where my mouth is" offer:

I believe a room could be run for $2,000/mo. If you found me 10+ other people who simply loved poker enough to donate their time and money with no remuneration whatsoever, I'd join them. I'd just be one of a handful of guys paying the bills for a room that never, ever, under any circumstances, ever took in a dime of money. I'd donate my share of cash. I'd donate my share of time. I'd build tables. I'd deal poker. I'd campaign for donations of time and money from others.

There would be a storefront with a poker game owned by people who loved the game. ...and anyone could come play in it, and I'd lose money every month it was open, and in return, I'd get nothing.

The players in that room would not, and could not ever pay or tip one red cent.

----

In the meantime, I'll do my best to get a game together for tomorrow night (or "tonight" now that it's 12:40am), because a couple of my regulars are out of town.

We're going to be playing live on the web with hole-card "cameras" on us -- provided I fill the seats.

Thank you. In a cooperative, there is no third party Mother Theresa. And stop calling it a collective. There is a difference. And it's not just the dot coop.

> The law of Arizona doesn't say that it's OK to make money on other people betting as long as you're a collective, or as long as the game is skill.

Am I making money Palimax? Is anyone other than the players? No. We are not.

The law of Arizona doesn't say anything about the BIA either.

> The law of Arizona says that, even if it were "Amusement" (your newest dodge, I see), that it still has to pass the test of no benefit.

We don't dodge dude. Jebus. Amusement, I said, is where the free pub poker games with $50-100 visa cards run into trouble... with the silly gambling and not gambling "slot machine laws" anyway.

> The law of Arizona makes no distinction to who or what the 3rd party is, or what the activity gambled upon is. The 3rd party can be Mother Teresa collecting money for starving children, and the activity could be a chess match between Kasparov and Fischer. If Bobby bets Gary $100 and Teresa gets 2% for holding the cash, then they're breaking Arizona law.

Well I think I have a problem with that law then, because Mommy T is clearly not laundering money or enhancing her connections with organized crime, which is the reason your poorly written stupid laws are on the books. Let Mommy T have her 2%, I say. Unless you can prove where the harm and foul are, don't waste my tax money prosecuting her.

And by all means, don't look the other way too, or say "we can't win against mommy t" so that 20 other mommy t's spring up, all collecting their 2% on chess matches. Don't do that and then come back and say "we changed our mind! April Fools! You're all going to jail!"

> And since I guess you can't or aren't interested in reading what I type, I'll reiterate my "money where my mouth is" offer:

This is silly. I can, and I am, I just don't see your point. I asked you to take your skills and understanding and knowledge and propose the legislative law changes that would make strip mall poker clubs as commonplace as bowling alleys and billiard halls.

Palimax, if you spent 1% of the time you spend blowing smoke on 2+2 with your poo-bah 20K posts and instead of poo-pooing others and CONSTANTLY being a devil's advocate from your ivory tower, spent that time with your legislative buddy and proposed what needs to be taken to the next step, then and only then, will you have, in my opinion, put your money where your mouth is. And you say you can probably get it done for free?

You know the issues, you know the law. Fix it. I'm tired of such a valuable resource and "friend" of poker giving lip service and saying "do this do that" and breaking your liplock with bnorvich long enough to sputter "what you're doing is bad and wrong and you sir, are no mother theresa".

No Palimax, what we are doing at TTJ is the best most legal thing any room can do today, barring our successful lobbying and legislative efforts that may be 2-3 years away from having any effect.

> I'd just be one of a handful of guys paying the bills for a room that never, ever, under any circumstances, ever took in a dime of money.

That's fine. And that's legal today too, right?

So nobody but your handful of guys play that month? Lame. What if someone drops out? Are we then all in for $111.82 next month?

I can already see the young padawan "Palimin" on 2+2 playing devil's advocate with your idea and suggesting "Isn't the landlord "benefitting"?"

> I'd donate my share of cash. I'd donate my share of time. I'd build tables. I'd deal poker.

Why are you donating? Seriously dude. You and 20 friends are donating $100 for what? And WHY? You've gone off the deep end Palimax. Why not just do this in your home and rotate hosting duties?

Let's think for a moment Palimax, on what the benefits of a true cooperative are versus this lame-brained idea for a $100 monthly cover for 20 friends to play poker in a store front instead of their basement or garage.

This is the money where your mouth is offer reiterated? I'm sorry I asked.

To host a home game not at home but in a strip mall where you and 20 friends take turns dealing is such an awesome and exciting idea. Not.

Whoa! You think it's because "Tommy can't make money" or "Huck can't create a real job". No, before you cast that stone, that's not it at all. I like your idea, it almost feels like a collective in fact.

Palimax, you may be a good dealer but Bobby over exposes cards when he shuffles and Gary can't even deal without flipping over at least half the cards he pitches. Let's turn the fan off when Peggy deals. And Rob deals slower than my grandma and can't keep the action moving. Barbara can't chop a pot and we end up asking you to do it every time there is side action. Paulie is gay, not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't want him dealing to me. And I like Mick, but I know he's packing heat and it makes me uncomfortable knowing there is a gun at the table, can you do something about that host? Oh, little Timmy is hosting tonight. Egads. The meekest one of us, asking the new big Russian mafia looking dude for his piece. Maybe I better say something.

> I'd campaign for donations of time and money from others.

What others? You said it's you and 20 guys @ $100 each to bust the 2K nut. Are you campaigning for others to come into the group, make it to 40 guys and now the individual monthly "donation" or "dues" is $50 instead of $100?

How is your lame-brained analogy any different than:

Our nut is $2K. We charge $5 at the door as a pay-per-use membership fee. We don't charge a stated +5 on the tournament and we never charge a button fee. Just a door charge, which, I know, DoG has conveniently legislated substantive administrative bs that this is patently illegal too. But for the sake of simplifying and getting away from a +5 use fee or a +1/2 button, let's just say, for the sake of simplified argument....

We could, once we reach our 2K nut stop charging $5 at the door and the rest of that month is free for all member/users. But how is that fair to those that put in multiple fivers to get to the nut up to the break even point?

Better, I say, to collect $5 from everyone all month, and then, at the end of the month, if we collected $2500, $500 is disbursed back to the member/users next month, to be used for dues that month (as a credit) or to be used as a cash return/refund. We don't take a % of it, we return 100% of the over collection.

> There would be a storefront with a poker game owned by people who loved the game.

Sorry, is this your idea? This sentence defines the cooperative too. It does not define any other poker room in the Valley today though. Just one. Today willy be. We aren't legally a coop yet, but we operate as one. Today.

> ...and anyone could come play in it, and I'd lose money every month it was open, and in return, I'd get nothing.

Like I said, stupid. Now you've defined a BIA casino.

As I understand it Palimax:
20 guys plop down $100 in the hopes that "their strip mall game" will lure in enough chump change so that they can make their $100 investment back each month? Granted, you're happy to lose it to make a point that this is your vision of a legal strip mall club, but tell me who or how you prevent (even unintentional, or simple soft play) between your 20 owners?

I could poke(r) as many holes in this hair brained "scheme" as you seem to think you can in mine. :O LOL

We want to stop calling them loopholes and dodges and enact the change necessary to make poker a legitimate business. It's a big time global business and it's not owned by the gambling industry. At least not in Arizona. The people want it back. Palimax wants it back. So Palimax, put pen to paper and get to work. You're hair-brained dodge for a 20-front room is NOT what I asked you to step out of your ivory tower and do. You insult me with such insolence. And you do a disservice to the poker community by sitting in your ivory tower and dismissing any and everything that attempts to effect change and win popular support and appeal. Why? Is your ivory tower, like Willy Be's, in the DoG offices downtown?

> The players in that room would not, and could not ever pay or tip one red cent.

So even in your closed game you can't tip the dealer. Again, stupid. I like your idea, it illustrates the cooperative concept in several ways. The only thing I don't like is the idea of other players taking turns dealing. I'd like to hire the hottest, sexiest dealer and tip the heck out of her myself. Damn, State law prevents me from doing that. Why? Because there's blood on ill-begotten BIA soil my friends. Let's give the indians back their land. Disband the BIA. See where this poker issue stands then. Care to opine Palimax, or, as I suspect, do you simply lack -- how did you put it -- the ability or interest to read deeper into the subject and form an opinion that you can argue as well as the topic of what is and isn't gambling and how to go about changing what we all would like to see changed?

So let's take your silly notion and do that. Except I need us to get a pro dealer. And we need to pay that dealer. Obviously. And we should be able to tip that dealer. Obviously.

No? State law says we can't do that? Why? Oh. Ya. Um...

Stupid idea Palimax, and if intended as such, an even dumber dumbed-down analogy which, in your case, is surprising.

Put your money where your mouth is, get with your legislative pal, and come up with what we need to see changed. Anything short of that, and I'm afraid, my friend, that I am thru coming here to argue with you about things because it's becoming clear to me that you and Willy Be are of the same ilk and if you just like arguing to argue, count me out.

Stop dismissing issues you don't understand.

Stop with the lame analogies and hair-brained schemes that borderline on conspiracy... that landlord does benefit.

Another giant post full of (a) you continuing to make points that don't matter and (b) you continuing to ignore or not read what I wrote. You're so blind to someone actually willing to do the right thing, that you keep trying to monetize even the most altruistic of ideas and offers.

As to point (a)...

Bars that do it right can't get into trouble over their prizes like $50 Visa cards because there is no entry fee, at all, for the players. As such, there is no gambling. The players put up nothing of value, and as such, aren't gambling. There are prizes to be had, but nothing to be lost -- no wager = no gamble. The state definition of gamble (the only definition that matters) means to risk something of value. Nothing of value is risked in a free bar game. No entry fee = no risk. [Bars that require drink minimums or give extra chips for food orders are doing it wrong, however, and could get in trouble...]

To the second thing you keep saying that's irrelevant: It doesn't matter if you're a collective. The collective still makes benefit from the gambling. On this obviously you and I disagree, but good luck in court. The collective still takes a rake (or whatever you'll call donations and button fees and the +5 after tournaments), and not every person who walks through the door will be getting a paycheck or sharing equally in the benefits of the collective [does every person who ever pays a dime in rake get a key to the store and the combination to the safe for life?].

As to point (b)...

You either can't read or you're so blind to doing the right thing that you ignore it.

I said, repeatedly, that the game would be open to all. Me and 19 other people who just care about poker would open a room that even you and anyone else in the world could come and play in. There's a room, just sitting there, and a bunch guys pay for it because of their love of the game, and anyone can play in it. Yup, one guy quits paying and my share goes up until we find another benefactor, but that's what principals cost. And nobody tries to make their money back. We all know our money is gone forever to costs that we'll never try to recoup.

Just me and 19 other guys who love poker enough to pay a couple hundred a month for it to prove a point have a place where anyone can come play poker. Our storefront, our dealers, our air conditioning, our insurance, our money from our pockets, 100% completely independent from the gambling. We attempt to make no benefit from your gambling. We never take a dime. We charge no fees. We don't allow you to tip the dealers - whom we either pay out of our pockets or who, because they love poker, donate their time.

Is your room better because it has hot-looking professional dealers and a rake? Maybe. But at least mine is probably legal under Arizona law and morally right, and not just another cash-grab with a thinly veiled collective costume on it.

And finally John, I'm not qualified to write proposed legislative changes. And I'm not busy trying to run a room, so I don't have enough incentive to go find someone to make my changes for me. You can't call me out as not doing enough for your fight. If you think it's important, you're the one who's at risk of being in court next. I think you'd be the one trying to get the law changed by means better than trying to goad some guy on the internet into doing your work for you.

Palimax you claim to have a leg law pal. Dont wanna fight the fight from the ivory tower, thats fine. Thats the problem. All talk. No action. Now apparently you are happy with a silly 20 person owner model and therefore don't need to propose legislation. Nor does the coop. But to be for profit and thereby compete, we want to see how we can work with city amd state to work out something that makes everyone happy.

Nevermind that your 20 passionate members concept makes no logical sense and would never work. Who cleans the room? Who buys the chips? The utilities? And forget about hiring a dealer... Or tipping. Rely instead on 20 benevolent owners who do it for the love of the game. Silly. Nice dodge sir.

Dont wanna fight "my" fight? Then come up with a realistic alternative. I have. But rather than climb on board its more fun for you to drink pina coladas and make your fajitas in your home game at the ivory tower

Yeah, it'd be impossible to find 20 people in a city of over 4 million who have $100 a month in disposable income and love poker...

Your post there honestly says volumes about you. You can't even see that people love poker enough that they can put their time and effort into it without expecting a return. You're blind to anything that doesn't generate a profit for you.

I've offered my assistance, but I won't do your work for you.

You can't take your problem -- the desire to run poker as a business when the law of the State of Arizona says pretty clearly that you can't -- and pass it off on me, and then exclaim, "Ah-ha! You're all talk."

I'm not the one who needs a change to the legislation. I'll get by just fine without one.

But despite your willful ignorance, my offer still stands -- when you're ready to make the changes that you need to make to run poker as a business in Arizona -- when you go and propose legislative changes, when you need signatures collected, when you do what you have to do in Arizona to run poker as a business (even as a collective), I'll gladly offer my assistance.

In the meantime, follow your sage leader Judge Lee and keep drinking his Kool-Ade. Keep spouting off about government treaties and BIA conspiracies. Repeat nonsense about how we're all slave-owners. Wave your hand and say it's all legal because of "amusement" or "the law of contracts" or explain how button fees aren't rakes. Pretend that being a collective somehow means there's no benefit. Go ahead. You know you'll make a buck or two before they shut your doors; and we both know that's all that matters here.

When you wake up, get back to me. I'll still be here, in reality.

From someone who has read this from the beginning, I just want to comment on something you may not be aware (or maybe you are). You come off like a long-winded nutcase. Take it for what it is worth.

I would love it if you and 1000 like you were as committed, animated and helpful in fighting online poker problems with Congress/DOJ/etc. We could probably get Congress off their butts if we had people like you fighting everyday.

IMO Shame you waste you efforts/talents on this waste of time where you are not going to win in the long run and not that many people really care if you can open a poker room in a strip mall as long as Phoenix is dotted with plenty of places to play poker and you are allowed to play in your home as well.

sorry john to say this but your sad, you consider your dealers prosat ttj? or even these other poker rooms? come on man wake up. as for your comment about palimax home league why play with them same 10-20 guys, ITS THE SAME THING IN THESE POKER CLUBS. you have the same players playing everyday 90%

by the way i have to ask who is financing ttj?

> I've said, repeatedly, that I'd be happy to help in the fight for legislation changes to poker in Arizona, but that I won't follow Judge Lee, because I believe he's tilting at windmills by pursuing this as some sort of BIA conspiracy.

The cooperative is not judge lee, and your 20 man "home league" in a store front open to all has no need for legislation.

So just what legislative changes wouls you be so happy to make?

>yeah, it'd be impossible to find 20 people in a city of over 4 million who have $100 a month in disposable income and love poker...

Impossible yes... Because its the stupidest idea. There are already hundreds of home games in the Valley. Some are legal to the letter, some are not. If you COULD, and i dont doubt you can, find 2k a month and spread it out over 20 members then why havent you? Its not because you love the game, its because its a stupid idea. Or you would do it, right?

Lets not list the reasons why the idea is stupid or tell you more ways why a cooperative private Adult social club is better. And the constitution allows us to pursue life, liberty and happiness does it not!?

We have 370 members pursuing that dream today. 370 members that know what we are doing is not illegal, is not money laundering, is not criminal enterprise. Our books are open, our management and dealers elected by the members at large and again, private, adult, cooperative, non profit. Stop whining because... Why? Explain to me why you have such anger about such a great concept. Lets assume it is illegal, for the sake of argument... Why does ttj make you so angry?

Your grammar skills are sad, 7 post noob.

Wtf is prosat?

And whoa, no sir, our poker cooperative has had 120 different players sonfar this month. We have high quality equipment. Pro dealers. And get this: we play every night because we have a game. 20 guys with $100 a month do make the same 20 guys playing once or twice a week at most i think. Its not anywhere close ... The only similarity is that both ideas offer a true no profit situation that avoids prosecution.

The cooperative finances itself. That +5 goes somewhere right?

Oh pros at...

Yes, we have dealers that are pros. Two have dealt at casinos in AZ. One of our dealers is off to deal the WSOP. So are they pros? Yes.

So your next question: why aren't they dealing at the casinos?

Simple: dealing at the casinos is like working at walmart. There are no full timers and thus no benefits. You can make more in tips dealing a twelve hour shift at TN even with 20% going to the for-profit house owner. Our dealers, like all members, primarily enjoy owning an equal share of the room as all members do. We control the room, the common expenses, the promotions, the movement, the goals... Democratically. Truly a thing of beauty. Dealers dont have any leverage or say in how the casinos run their room. Sad, really.

I would guess he hasn't because he does not need to. He is satisfied (and rightly so) with what appears to be quite a good group of people who play regularly in his completely legal home game. ( for the love of it)
I think he is merely stating an example of how, IF he were to pursue some sort of "public" room, he would do it and stay legal as interpreted by those who would do the interpreting.

It would be interesting to see how many of these dealers and owner operators could or would pass what is a very stringent state licensing process.
I know of several dealers who work in these rooms that were previous employees of Tribal rooms. They did not leave the casinos because they weren't full time and felt like they where they were working was akin to WalMart. That is laughable, if they had a choice they would still be there.

Id bet that many of the former casino dealers could not get re-licensed, and if it comes to that (as John stated in another post/thread somewhere) these rooms are going to lose employees.

Well, Jobo, or John, or whatever gimmick account this is -- mods, seriously, can we limit John to one account -- it's simple, and I'll explain it to you.

I don't open a room right now with 19 other people because, wait for it, I don't have 19 other people. You're welcome to volunteer to be #2 though. Me offering to be #1 on the list is me putting my money where my mouth is for the love of the game.

I know you won't volunteer to be #2 though -- because you can't make money that way. And you don't care about poker -- YOU CARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY.

You act as if you're the only room that could use "professional" (read: Can't get a job at the real casinos, or were fired from the real casinos) dealers and who could buy a good table*.

If a completely free, no-tipping, no-rake room with the same quality of equipment and dealers as your room opened up down the street from your room, how long do you think your room would last?

Which room would be more likely to foster change -- the one that has to operate in the shadows, or the one that could hold a press conference any day of the week?

At least my taxes would be easy. $0 again...

My idea is only stupid if you've got a small mind or a small pocket-book.

[*I think I already have Phoenix's best table, but that's just me...]

no use in trying to explain to these club owners of what they are doing is illegal, and how these club owners manipulate there own games. They have there dollars signs and button signs in there head and thats all that matters. I hope your rooms get regulated, because then we will really know who owns a room for the sake of the game and players, because when it gets regulated you guys wont be able to pull half the crap you are doing now in your rooms.

all of you will fold up, you will not want any part of it when the state tells you how to run your social card room. So you will just take the money that was made and close your doors, and those poor proffesional dealers will have to go back to there jobs back at the casinos, oh yeah they will not be able to get hired again, there are reasons why they are not there working any longer trust me, its a long laundry list.

who really opened up ttj? i mean who put there money on the line in that room?

MY GOD CAN YOU IMAGINE SOME OF THESE DEALERS GIVING ADVISE ON HOW TO RUN A CARD ROOM. COME ON DUDE WAKE UP LIKE A VEGAS CASINO OR CA WOULD LISTEN DEALERS INPUT. YOU ARE WHO YOU ARE

DEALER WORKING IN CARD ROOM= CANT GET A JOB AT A CASINO OR FIRED
POKER CLUB OWNER= GREEDY GIVE ME THAT $2.00 OH DEALER IF PLAYERS ARENT WATCHING SWIPE ANOTHER CHIP PLEASE

1. Online poker sucks. It's for the addiction-prone pseudo-gamblers. Online and live poker don't even compare. I've never put a dime into an online poker site myself. Sure, I play for free, or used to when I had the time. But online, what, you're playing with real money in a fake environment subject to corrupt algorithms and back door cheats, and basing your action on betting patterns and delays that may or may not have anything to do with the action? Playing 100 hands an hour and playing 8 games simultaneously with four of your buddies in the same room as you with unique IPs, colluding happily away. No, online? Not passionate about that AT ALL Ubintook, sorry.

2. PPA has gone completely (100% of their time and energy) towards fighting for online poker IN WASHINGTON. Look where that's gotten us. Washington DC legalized online gambling in their district a few days after the FBI shuts down three of the largest online poker dot coms. Nice government work there for ya.

3. There is no grassroots movement that fights for our rights to organize the international sport of poker at a localized, neighborhood level. Government works from the bottom to the top, folks, not fed->state->city->me and you. We could enact change, if necessary, or find a city to bless our poker cooperative and go from there. Let the state sue the city if there is a problem.

IMO I'm sorry you don't feel as passionate about owning your own poker room as I am, or any of our members. None of us feel like our mission or our goals are a waste of effort, time, or talents. We're all behind our movement and we will see some changes made.

Not going to win what? The poker war? Humbly disagree.

People don't really care? Come visit TTJ and ask anyone present if they care. Go to the casinos and poll the players "would you play in a city or state sanctioned off BIA casino poker room if (a) the rake was 1/6 to 1/3 less than the casino and was used only for the poker room, not the shrimp cocktail napkins in the fifth restaurant, (b) was closer to your home, (c) was more social, (d) allowed members to control the promotions, the house rules, and the entire process democratically, in not-for-profit cooperative business model?

Oh, people care. People just don't think it's possible to win so they don't even care to look. But we hope that changes.

You're giving this long winded nutcase a lot of reasons to list off the reasons why the silly notion that 20 philanthropic benevolent "owners" could sustain a public room with no rake, no button fee, no door charge, no chair rental, no tips and no donations by the public beyond the core group. Not gonna bite.

Glad you mentioned this Ubintook. As a former casino sub I've been licensed and it's not that stringent of a state licensing process. Our dealers all go thru an FBI background check, an expensive process but worth it. We've modeled our self-regulating methods after the processes outlined in the compacts. Obviously scaled down and as applicable to the card rooms only, but with Willy Be ranting on about crooked dealers, we wanted to ensure our members that our dealers COULD all pass the state licensing requirements.

And the dealers I mentioned that were former BIA dealers? Poll former casino dealers, well, any that were professional and capable anyway... there are plenty of sucky dealers locally and in Vegas that have no business being on the tables and should be fired on the spot. But I would bet if you polled former casino dealers, that the majority of 'em will tell ya a story about how they were shafted by the casino. "They fired me because I took my vacation", "They fired me because I was late one time, without warning, I was just let go like that after 8 years."

> That is laughable, if they had a choice they would still be there.

If the choice is casino or no job, then ya, take the casino job choice. If the choice is casino dealer or club dealer, the dealers that know what's up will take the club job hands down.

Try to find a casino dealer who works 40 hours a week and gets benefits today. Then speculate on the Walmart culture the BIA aspires to emulate.

I'm not anti-casino or even anti-casino poker. A 3 or 10 table room isn't gonna compete with a 60 table room with 24/7/365 action and 600 seat tournaments with tens of thousands in prize pools. The way I see poker, the home games/kitchen table/online players learn the game, maybe they go directly to the casino, but a LOT of home gamers are intimidated by the shark infested casino tables and instead go to free pub poker leagues, or maybe get into a home game or home league. These amateur games are social enough, but they lack professional dealers and other amenities. A lot of people find a good balance between the social free pub poker games and the private social poker club scene, which I see as a stepping stone towards turning more beginners into intermediate players that are comfortable competing in the larger formats the BIA casinos offer. And we will be talking to the local valley casinos and the AIGA about how we do what we do and how we can benefit each other by working together instead of fighting or feeling threatened by each other.