What is advanced deposit wagering? Is that betting dog races today that dont run until a future date?

Another question. While they seemed to change around the same time, was the increase in poker limits/buyins part of the compact? I seem to recall something about it being addressed in a separate bill. Is poker safe regardless of whether the compact expires?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Deposit_Wagering

Here is a good article about it:
http://contextflorida.com/jeff-kottk...das-taxpayers/

It was separate legislation. Poker is safe regardless of the compact.

By the way, the compact does not expire this year. It is only the section of the compact that authorizes table games at the tribal casinos (blackjack, baccarat) that expires. The rest of the compact stays in force until 2030.

Senate offers up one-year extension on gaming compact, buys time

I thought something must be happening as I've started seeing TV commercials by the Seminoles saying what a great deal for FL the compact is, and how much money they have given the state.

As for delaying it a year, that means it would come back up right before all the 2016 election stuff hits, so I wouldn't think that would bode well for the side that wants to expand gambling.

IMO, ts just yet another example of failed politics. They have had years to deal with this and even used hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to commission a study on the exact issue which they don't even seem to consider in doing anything. There is just poor leadership and no one wants to take a stand or try to learn about these issues.

There is a hearing scheduled for later this week to discuss the 1 year expansion. Hopefully some information will come from that to let us know if this is actually being seriously considered.

Push for resort casinos in Florida dies again in Legislature

Looking like it's going to be this year (imo):
A one-year extension of the Seminole compact, to allow further time for renegotiation of the compact.
Pretty good chance for some greyhound de-coupling and 24/7 pari-mutuel cardrooms. (Along with a bunch of other changes for pari-mutuels, tightening up all the contentious loopholes.)
A possibility of the switch to a new gambling commission and board.

Seminole gaming bill expands to include Tampa horse track
Can you say "poison pill"?:

Politics at its best today. Senator Abruzzo started laughing during a hearing on an amendment to the bill when he was trying to say that he wouldn't consider slots in Palm Beach County as an expansion of gambling. Like really uncontrollable laughing.

I get the feeling decoupling will happen this year in some form but there is no way the Seminoles agree to a 1 year extension with an absolute deadline. Its silly.

I took a look at the Abruzzo amendment. It's really nothing. It says that all the parimutuels in the state get slots if the Seminoles agree. Hah!

By the way, If you didn't see the thread, I'm currently writing a bill for ipoker in Florida, for the 2016 legislative session. You can see highlights here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=11

Not sure I'm following what you're saying here. Are you saying the seminoles wont agree to extend the current compact by one year and would rather just let the current one expire in July? What do you mean about an absolute deadline? Sorry, i'm confused.

The bill specifies: "providing for automatic termination of those games after that date without a grace period", referring to the banked card games (blackjack, baccarat, etc.). Currently, the compact gives the tribe 90 days following expiration of that provision of the compact this July to shut down those card games. This bill would give them a one-year extension until next July, but require them to shut down those games immediately at the expiration.

The way it works is that the bill gives the governor the authority to negotiate this change to the compact without returning to the legislature for approval. The governor could stick strictly to these terms, or could come back to the legislature with anything else agreed to with the tribe, for legislative approval.

I don't see any reason this bill wouldn't be passed by the legislature as amended. Here is what it does:

Authorizes banked card games to be extended one year under the Seminole compact.
Decouples cardrooms from greyhound races for most tracks (any that have run live races for 10 years, but no minimum number or races).
Eliminates a number of complicated parimutuel taxes.
Requires injury reporting for greyhounds.
Requires greyhounds to be fixed before adoption.
Relaxes restrictions on intertrack wagering.
Slots can be authorized for any parimutuel in the state, if the Seminoles agree to change the compact to allow it. The amount of the revenue-sharing from the Seminoles for slot revenues would be reduced by 90% of the taxes paid by the parimutuel slots for the prior year.

It does not extend cardroom hours to 24/7.

Sure. I'll try.

Think of the compact as a contract between the state and the Seminoles. One side can't change the terms of the contract unilaterally. For any changes the governor needs to negotiate and the legislature then ratifies. This bill essentially preemptively ratifies a 1 year extension IF the Governor can get the Seminoles to agree to it.

The current deal has a possibly confusing winding down period of the banked games. I say confusing because people keep suggesting different days, end of June, July 1, July 31. There is also a 90 day window in the current compact (I would get more specific but I'm in a hurry, might post again later). The bill for the 1 year extension makes it very clear that those games cannot be played after a certain date. It has been discussed that the timing of the current deal was set up so that there were 90 days to negotiate an extension after a legislative session so that it wouldn't get bogged down with politics. The 1 year extension bill does not have this type of negotiating window.

As far as thinking about what the Seminoles want to do, from a business point of view EVERYONE is better off without the 1 year extension. Think about how hard it would be to get any kind of investment in the mean time.

From a legal standing the Seminoles are in a better position with the current compact if they want to continue playing the games (a real threat IMO) than if they agree to a new deal. More leverage in negotiating after the exclusivity expires, more threat to continue playing. The 1 year extension just doesn't make sense IMO.

I hope that helps, sorry its quick and not as specific as it could be. (edit -- PX filled in some of the details, I don't feel as bad lol)

PX, I will try to look at your bill sometime today. I am interested, just busy with whats been going on.

I see the amendment to the compact in this bill as a fallback position. There is still time for the governor and tribe to renegotiate the compact this year before the tribe is required to shut down banked card games, and present it to the legislature for approval. If they are unable to come to terms in time, at least the governor will have the authority to extend the current compact terms until next year, giving more time for the negotiations.

Thanks to both of you for the clarification.

Florida Gambling Bill Remains A Long Shot

Bradley: Gambling bills face long odds as compact discussions are now underway

Not poker specific but a few things worth noting are going on right now.

The special session to deal with the budget starts today. Normally this wouldn't mean much but because of a recent decision in the first DCA there could be some changes to Florida gaming. On Friday the 1st DCA ruled in favor of Gretna in a case involving an application for a slot license. The ruling will have the effect of making any county that has a voter referendum eligible for a slot license. A few counties have already had these referendums; Palm Beach and Gadsden for example. IMO this greatly expands the legislative intent present in the slot amendment to the constitution.

It could go a few ways from here. With the legislature meeting they may try to creatively deal with it during the special session. It could (imo will) also be appealed to the state Supreme Court. It could also just be ignored and slots would expand into a bunch of new counties and rooms.

Whatever happens there is some new stuff to follow.

^Thanks for the update. I've been wondering if the slots court decision would be addressed by the legislature. Hard to imagine that they would just let it go, as it's the very thing they have stopped from proceeding in the legislature for a few years now. But I suppose it's one way to allow gaming expansion without voting for it on the record.

Some news today:

The Seminoles delivered a letter to the governor's office today requesting a hearing for dispute resolution within 30 days. This is done in accordance with the compact and is based on the state's alleged failure to maintain the Seminole exclusivity provisions regarding banked gamed.

In the letter, the Seminoles argue that the state violated the exclusivity provision by letting cardrooms operate banked games in two ways. First, in electronic form via certain slot machines, and second by allowing designated player games at the cardrooms.

You can read the letter here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files...mmencement.pdf

The exclusivity over banked games was set to expire next month (a week according to most) so the timing of this letter is interesting and leaves a bit up for interpretation. These things have been going on for a while so doing this now is definitely significant. It looks like its mostly for negotiation purposes to me.

IMO it is forcing the governor and the legislature to deal with the compact provisions that were about to expire. If they don't the Seminoles have set it up so that they can continue to offer banked games without having to make any additional payments. This could mean another special session or it could just be something that gets dealt with during the next regular session which is an early session (January 2016).

This letter and the resulting fall out will also have an impact on the non-tribal cardrooms. If the state suddenly changes its position towards designated player games the cardrooms will have to stop offering them but will probably fight it in courts over an extended period of time. If the state doesn't change its position and instead just makes a new deal for carps/roulette the cardrooms will continue to offer the designated player games and probably be able to include black jack.

Add to the mix the recent decision regarding slots in counties other than Miami-dade and Broward and you have a lot for the legislature to deal with. Not sure if it will happen in a special session or during the next session but it looks like its forcing the state to address some significant issues regarding their gaming policy.

Interesting move by the tribe. I have been wondering how the cardrooms have been getting away with running 3-card poker and double-hand poker. Seems the tribe has held this violation in reserve to force the issue of compact re-negotiation. I thought maybe the tribe actually preferred to just end revenue-sharing under the compact, but they have made a court challenge to the Gretna decision so it looks more like they prefer to force continued exclusivity for slots outside of South Florida and banked table games, and try to get craps & roulette too.

Any hint if there are any closed-door deals going on behind this? Or is it just the usual Florida political mess of state gambling policy?

If the legislature does close the door on slots and banked poker at the pari-mutuels, perhaps they'll open the door for de-coupling and Internet poker.

They definitely want craps and roulette and ideally would keep exclusive rights to the things they already have. I think that is part of this whole thing. Its like anchoring in a negotiation. With this letter the Seminoles have set the bar so far to the side of being able to do whatever they want that anything they agree to will be a win for them.

The state now has to draw a clearer line regarding table/poker games. They either (a) say no more designated player games and then can use banked games in negotiations with the Seminoles, or (b) they continue to turn their back on it and make their stand with craps and roulette. Either way the Seminoles are going to maintain at least banked games.

Slots are also probably going to be revisited at some point. I still don't understand how the state lost that case. I have read the opinion several times and it just seems like the state got lost trying to defend poor parts of the argument and missed the boat. They have petitioned the Court of Appeals to re-hear it but who knows what happens with that. I think no matter what happens the legislature will address it soon. I could see them expand slots to Palm Beach and Hillsborough counties and maybe a few others but not state wide.

Typical Florida politics is a big part of what created this mess and it will continue as this is resolved. Gaming in this state is so odd. Florida could have such a great gaming industry because of all the tourism it already has but its just unable to stop shooting itself in the foot.

The timing may be good for your online poker stuff to be presented and maybe get some attention but I don't see much chance of it being considered in the immediate/near future. Just too much already going on that they can't understand or deal with correctly. If you inject the mess that is U.S. online gaming into it their heads might explode (if they even try to understand).

Thanks for the insights. I like to be more optimistic.

I can't see the legislature voting to expand slots, which would end the Seminole revenue-sharing. And I can't see the Gretna court decision standing upon re-consideration by the full court and appeal - it is just too obviously the original intent of the constitutional amendment to limit slots to just the two SoFL counties.

So all that is left to save the pari-mutuels outside of SoFL, without violating the compact terms, is de-coupling and Internet poker.

I guess we'll know by next summer at the latest which way the winds will blow. Like you say, putting my draft bill for online poker before the lawmakers now will at least get it some attention. And I'd much rather have my bill, written with full protections and benefits for players, be the one on the docket rather than one written by some politicians who don't fully understand Internet poker.

And who knows, maybe at some point in the messy political process someone behind closed doors will interject Internet poker and they'll grab my bill to put in, just because it's there and all set to go. At least, that's my pipe dream.

Now on the flip side, if the pari-mutuels get slots, craps & roulette aren't the only two games that the state can hold out to the Seminoles for exclusivity negotiations. There is also Internet poker. I'd much rather see the pari-mutuels get Internet poker (as my bill is written) for open-market competition, but it wouldn't be the worst thing (for players) if the Seminoles got it exclusively, which I believe would be operated by PokerStars.

We know what the Seminoles want and do not want. They do not want any expansion of gaming in Florida, except their own. Hence, in their Compact negotiations with Gov. Scott during 2013/2014 they sought to 1) build a casino on their Fort Pierce reservation, 2) add roulette and craps to their South Florida casinos, and 3) block the construction of any destination casinos in Miami/Ft. Lauderdale for seven years.

Apparently Gov. Scott was agreeable to these demands. But the deal failed in the spring of 2014 because of opposition from "top legislators."

Why the "top legislators" opposed the deal has never been explained. Were they opposed to gaming (Disney and the Bible Belt)? Did they want table games for the pari-mutuels? Did they want expanded slots outside southern Florida? Did they want destination casinos? Who were these “top legislators?”

When Gov. Scott failed to resume the Compact renegotiations, the Seminoles tried to put pressure on him and the legislature to reach a deal. Remember the TV ads that began last December and continued into this year. The ads extolled the virtues of the Compact, i.e., a revenue generator for Florida and the preventor (sic) of gaming expansion.

Although the banked table games portion of the current Compact will expire next week (perhaps at the end of July), the Seminoles have not given up their goals. The letter delivered to Gov. Scott yesterday puts pressure on him and the legislature to reach new Compact terms with the tribe. The letter makes it clear that the Seminoles will continue with their table games notwithstanding the 90-day termination provision of the Compact. It also hints that payments to Florida could cease if the Compact is not renegotiated.

IMO the Seminoles will not stop making payments to Florida; to do so would likely make the legislature more receptive to expanding gaming, including table games at pari-mutuels, slots at other locations within the state, and perhaps destination casinos.

The biggest threat to the Seminoles is the May 29, 2015 decision by the First District Court of Appeals in the Gretna Racing, LLC case in which the three member panel ruling authorizes any county with a pari-mutuel facility to have slots if a county wide referendum authorizing slots has passed. A couple of counties have already met these qualifications and expect others to follow.

Obviously, the Seminoles are opposed to the added competition. If the decision is upheld, might cause the Seminoles to stop making all payments to the state. But the real danger to the Seminoles is what affect this ruling, if upheld, will have on the legislature. Might the legislature conclude that gambling has been greatly expanded within the state and convince them to pass legislation authoring destination casino resorts and table games for the existing pari-mutuels?

Florida has petitioned the First District Court of Appeals for a re-hearing en banc (by all the judges of the First District Court of Appeals). The Seminoles are no fools. They have sought and, I believe, been granted permission to intervene in the case. I am unaware if the Petition for Re-hearing en banc has been granted. I will be surprised if the Florida Supreme Court does not ultimately decide this case sometime next year.

The Seminoles, the Governor, the Senate, the House, the Florida Courts, and the gaming industry players are all in a high stakes game. The Seminoles and the First District Court of Appeals have called the clock, the Seminoles by delivering their two letters and the First District Court of Appeals by issuing their Gretna decision. The outcome should be known within a year. It will be interesting to follow and see who wins.

^ Nice synopsis, although I would add a few notes.

I'm pretty sure the "top legislators" who are opposing a new includes the Senate leadership, and most specifically Senate President Andy Gardiner:

http://tbo.com/news/politics/new-sta...tion-20141115/

His is part of the anti-gambling crowd, and as the article says, firmly in the camp of Disney. He wouldn't mind letting the table games in the compact expire.

Also standing opposed to the new compact is House Speaker Steve Crisafulli. But his camp is support for pari-mutuels getting expanded gaming:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/state...noles_74039817

Regarding the Gretna court case, just to make the point clear, the petition by the Seminole tribe to "intervene" is a petition to testify in support of the position of the State of Florida for the court to rehear the case against the Poarch Creek Indians. This article gives good details:

http://www.northescambia.com/2015/06...-slots-lawsuit

I'd be surprised if the request to rehear the case en blanc were denied. I'd be surprised if the decision of the full court were favorable to the Poarch tribe. And I'd be surprised if the State Supreme Case, where as you say the case will ultimately reside, were to find in favor of the Poarch tribe.

Meanwhile, the state legislature could just give slots to the other counties. But that ain't going to happen, imo. Nor will destination casinos.

The action from the Seminole tribe to challenge the state on grounds of table games at the pari-mutuels is a nice legal move for leverage to renegotiate the compact. The legal issues are complex, but I'd take the over on the state winning if it goes to court or federal arbitration.


The real issue is if and when the legislature will act on any of the issues. The table games in the compact expire at the end of July, with another 90 days after until the tribe is required to shut them down per the compact. That leaves just a couple months stretch at the end of the year until the 2016 legislative session begins. It would take at least that long for the state to get the feds to take action against the Seminole tribe if they weren't to shut down the table games.

So if I had to guess, I think the state won't take any action until 2016 except to get administrative delays on the compact process. In the meantime, the tribe will continue to run all their gaming and make their payments to the state. Next year, the legislature will have to finally decide which way they want to go. As an election year, it will be much harder to pass legislation that authorizes expansion of slots or destination casinos, so it will probably be the usual "keep the genie in the bottle" by renewing the exclusivities in the compact with the tribe. But that will require some concessions to the pari-mutuels as well. My fingers are crossed that one of them will be Internet poker.