Florida Amendment 3

Election date
November 6, 2018

Florida Amendment 3, the Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative, is on the ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

A "yes" vote supports this amendment to provide voters, through citizen-initiated ballot measures, with the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in Florida.

A "no" vote opposes this amendment to provide voters, through citizen-initiated ballot measures, with the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in Florida.
In Florida, a constitutional amendment requires a 60 percent vote of electors to be approved.

Florida Amendment 13

Beginning on January 1, 2021, Amendment 13 would prohibit pari-mutuel (a type of betting pool) operations from racing greyhounds or any other dogs for wagering. The measure would also prohibit persons in the state from wagering on the outcome of live dog races occurring in the state. Amendment 13 would authorize the Florida State Legislature to specify civil or criminal penalties for violating the constitutional amendment.[1]

As a 2p2er. I want MORE gambling in FL. So which way seems more likely to facilitate that in terms of Amendment 3?

I am all for dog racing too, it's not like it's dog fighting.

As a layperson, Amendment 3 seems to allow Florida to sidestep all those exclusivity agreements with Seminoles and allow slots to be voted into all the racinos by the public. More slots tend to mean more fish at the tables.

I believe you are wrong in your assessments. When casino-style poker table games hit the pari-muteuls, it took away a lot of fish from the live poker tables. I think slots do the same.

A vote for Amendment 3 will tend to lock in the current status quo of gambling in the state. It is very difficult and expensive to get anything passed by voter referendum, making it unlikely that the public will vote to allow slots at all the race tracks throughout the state. That's why the Seminole tribe has backed Amendment 3 with almost $17 million dollars in contributions so far, and Disney has backed it with almost $20 million dollars in contributions so far.

I am for Amendment 3 and for Amendment 13. Both are good for live poker games, imo. Amendment 3 will keep out the slots from the race tracks, and may eventually result in the casino-style poker table games to be shut down, which will return the fish to the live poker tables. Amendment 13 will allow the dog tracks to run their poker rooms without also running races. Currently the poker revenues subsidize the dog races. Without the dog races, the tracks will be able to spend more on their poker rooms and poker promotions. It may also bring some gamblers away from the races to the poker room.

I didn't expect such a quick reply. Thank you. This is why I love 2p2. Like I said, I am a total layperson and completely ignorant as to how the sausage is made. I still think the Seminoles are going to eventually bury some bones in downtown Orlando to stake a claim. Legislation tends to be just as counter-intuitive as poker at times.

I agree that voting yes for both is good for poker in FL.

Poker Alliance came out strongly against Amendment 3

https://www.pokeralliance.com/vote-no-on-3/

Interesting. Here are their bullet points, and my thoughts:
Makes it sound like live poker could currently easily be expanded in Florida. This isn't the case. The number of licenses for cardrooms is limited. Increasing it would take a legislative vote plus a vote by the citizens of a county to accept a new pari-mutuel in their county, but there aren't really new locations where that is likely to happen. With about 30 poker rooms in the state already, I'm not sure what "expansion of live poker" is supposed to be.

Not true. The rulemaking process for poker and approval of new poker games has nothing to with Amendment 3. Amendment 3 specifically addresses "casino gambling", which is defined in the Amendment as games which are Class III under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Poker is Class II, so would be unaffected.

This is true. Except those are a longshot anyway due to the current politics of gambling in Florida and the lock the Seminole tribe already has through their gaming compact with the state. The exception to that is giving those forms of gambling to the Seminole casinos as part of a new state-tribal compact. That will still be possible if Amendment 3 passes.

Where they heck did they come up with "hundreds of millions"? The opposition campaigns to Amendment 3, funded mainly by the pari-mutuels as well as some money coming from MGM, claim that schools will lose $20M in funding if Amendment 3 passes. If you read the fine print in their printed materials, it says this is over a 10 year period (their TV ads don't mention this). That's just $2M per year loss in school funding. that is based on the anticipated loss in gambling revenues if the casino-style banked card games are shut down at the pari-mutuels, as required under Amendment 3. However, those banked card games will probably mostly go away anyway even if Amendment 3 doesn't pass, based on recent Florida court rulings that they violate the Seminole compact and a subsequent agreement between the State of Florida and the tribe for the state to crack down on those games. (They were originally mistakenly approved by the state regulators based on a loophole in the law.) In addition, I expect some of the players and money that were siphoned off of the peer-to-peer live poker games to the banked games to return to the peer-to-peer games. This will make up for at least some of the loss in revenues. Plus, $2M is a very small amount compared to the size of the Florida annual school budget, which stands at over $21Billion per year.

From the newspaper quotes on the PPA website:
True. But "expansion of gambling" means slots and banked card games at the pari-mutuels and/or new casinos. Both of those, in my opinion, will take players away from the live peer-to-peer poker tables at the pari-mutuel cardrooms.

True. But the efforts to authorize a destination casino in South Florida and slot machines in those eight counties have already failed in the Florida legislature. To authorize them would violate the state-Seminole compact and cause a loss of all revenue-sharing from the tribe to the state. These proposals were part of an overhaul of gambling law in Florida that included negotiations with the tribe for a new compact that included eliminating most of the banked card games at the pari-mutuels and giving the tribe craps and roulette at their casinos exclusively. The state has since lost the battle on banked games in the Florida courts, losing much of their negotiating leverage with the tribe. I don't see hardly any chance now that these two proposals will get any headway in the legislature.

True. But it is also true the currently voters that want a gaming facility in their locale can't just vote it in by themselves. They also need a vote by the state legislature to authorize it, which means state congressional representatives from around the state decide their fate. This has proven impossible because it includes representatives that have Disney or a Seminole casino in their jurisdiction, and those reps that are anti-gambling.

True. I agree this is a fault with Amendment 3.

I will absolutely be voting NO on Amendment 3. It seems pretty clear to me. Any time I see interests whom already have a monopoly pour more money into an effort to back their own business, I see an effort that is bad for consumers, bad for competition, which will lead to higher rake and fewer choices.

I will, however be voting YES on Amendment 13. Per the Sun Sentinel:

+1

it will kill poker
prop 13 will ban and shut down all dog racing
track owners will not pay the high overhead of those huge buildings for a small poker room
surrounding businesses will suffer as well

myself and several friends play at Daytona while the wives make $2 bets at the races.
no races ;no reason for wives to go which means no to the poker players going

the horse tracks will be the major benefactor's and have dumped millions into tv ads as horseracing has steadily declined and this would add billions to their bottom line

sun opinion is pure 100% garbage

funny they don't attack the horse racing with the same BS

Facts: The dog races run at a loss. The dog races are subsidized by poker revenues.

Therefore, the dog races do not pay the overhead of those huge buildings.

Perhaps if they weren't forced to run dog races (currently a requirement to keep their poker rooms open, which are their profit center), the pari-mutuels could put that space to profitable use, such as retail space, entertainment venues, etc.

facts West palm beach kennel club handles $425k to 500k a card
of which they get roughly 21%
this is not a loss, far from it.

retail space, entertainment venues, etc
this may be true but in the thread here this doesn't help poker.
those may be compelling reasons for revenue for the building but poker will die in the process.
bike weeks race weeks Daytona is packed with woman watching the dog races while the men go play poker.
no dog racing = no poker players= no poker

the dog tracks were there decades before poker or other table games came along
and they were all self sufficient

Could you explain this in a little more detail, please? What is a "card"? How many in a year? Is that 21% gross profit before expenses?

this is from today
http://www.trackinfo.com/trakdocs/ho...oon-Charts.pdf
bottom of page states handle = 413k

different bet types have different with-holdings but 21% is a close # and its gross before expenses
a card would be the 15 races run today
8 cards a week is about 650k gross every week

even the smaller tracks like Naples , Sarasota Etc do ok and have for decades.

your looking at a loss of 15 thousand jobs most likely more
and that doesn't count the surrounding businesses and the suppliers to these places,

whats going to happen to the thousands of dogs?????
doubt you will see any of the bill sponsors adopting greyhounds.

Thanks for the info. So you are giving the gross figures to say that the races are profitable. I'm referring to the net after expenses when I say that the races aren't.

Anyway, the point about loss of jobs is quite valid. I do think the better solution is de-coupling of the races from the cardrooms so each pari-mutuel can determine the future of their own track. However, the racing associations have always brought to bear a lot of opposition to such legislative bills, making them impossible to pass.

So now it's a choice between forcing the dog tracks to close (i.e., 'Yes' on Amendment 13) or having them subsidized by cardroom revenues almost ad infinitum (as I expect Amendment 3 will pass). With the dwindling interest and revenues in dog races, as proven by the yearly track revenue statistics over the past two decades, I think the later is unsustainable and will eventually lead to the demise of many of the cardrooms along with their race tracks.

Appreciate the genuine debate from both PokerXanadu and snowman ITT. I'm not a resident of Florida so it's a great help when there's informed discussion on the topic from two Floridians.

This thread contains the most informed information I've seen publicly spread about Florida Amendment 3. Most local TV/ONLINE affiliate coverage along with lobbyist messages are short clips/passages that grossly summarize each side, so it's refreshing to learn more in order to analyze whether Florida Amendment 3 would be good or bad for poker in the Sunshine State.

EDIT: Here's an Oct 17th video from Frank Cuzzocrea. He urges citizens to vote NO on Florida Amendment 3. However, the commentary doesn't address the issues from a poker player's perspective, so I'm unsure if his views would align with those of Florida poker players.

Happy to help!

Will the passage of the ammendment cause imminent closure of poker rooms at dog tracks?

From the text of Amendment 13:
The failure to conduct greyhound racing or wagering on greyhound racing after December 31, 2018, does not constitute grounds to revoke or deny renewal of other related gaming licenses held by a person who is a licensed greyhound permitholder on January 1, 2018, and does not affect the eligibility of such permitholder, or such permitholder’s facility, to conduct other pari-mutuel activities authorized by general
law.

once they stop racing
it will be a slow painful death

and painful to those of us sitting there looking at other regs with
no fish, snowbirds, or tourists to fill those empty seats

No.

The dog tracks can now run their cardrooms without also running the dog races. For the most part, the races ran at a financial loss, subsidized by poker revenues. The dog tracks will probably either re-purpose or divest their racing facilities, but the cardrooms (as well as the existing slots in So. Florida) can continue to operate.

The exception is any facility which received a new greyhound racing permit during this calendar year. I'm not sure if there are any.

IDK about amendment 13 but dog racing doesn't seem like its that much action from my experience. most of the betting is horse betting through simulcast anyway .I've always heard the dogs were mistreated but I've never seen anything.

I'm pretty much for amendment 3 , I despise the " designated player" games at the racinos. I watch fish who were action players at the poker table just walk away and dump 1000's to these *******s. so its no love lost on that front for me.

I'm curious what will become of sports betting and online poker through this amendment. honestly it seems as if its more likely to become a reality ( however small). The people of Florida are freaks man and I don't think the Seminoles are willingly giving any action away to someone else so maybe its the way to go about it.

According to a Nov. 8th retweet by Andrew Neeme, roughly 8,000 Florida hounds are now in need of a home.

https://twitter.com/andrewneeme/stat...38552281600000

I think it's irresponsible for the industry to stop caring for animals once they no longer serve commercial purposes.

I agree it is irresponsible. But that was also the case generally for all the decades of dog racing in Florida.

The usual racing life of a greyhound is two to two-and-a-half years. The race tracks have to shut down their dog races by the end of 2020. So as long as the tracks shut down the races in a incremental fashion, the adoption burden won't be much more than the usual for the two years until the races must be ended.

Here is a good article about the typical life of a racing greyhound:
https://www.ngap.org/greyhound-racin...rack-y423.html

Legalized sports betting would have required a statewide voter referendum for authorization even before passage of Amendment 3. The only difference now is that the only way it can get on the ballot now is by voter initiative (the signature process), not by vote of the legislature to put it on the ballot.

The same is probably true of online poker as well, although not for certain. Depends on how the game is interpreted under law. It could be interpreted that "poker" is already authorized, so the electronic version could be licensed to the cardrooms if approved by the legislature. Or it could be interpreted that the electronic version of poker is a simulation that makes it a different class of gambling (Class III under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), and therefore it would be an expansion of casino gambling that needs voter referendum for approval and now can only be put on the ballot by voter initiative.

Florida gaming landscape is going to change a lot due to the two amendments that just passed. As PX has already provided the owners of the places with dog racing are going to be able to change their businesses beginning Jan 19. How it changes is going to vary based on the place and some will probably continue racing (in the short term) but all-in-all amendment 13 is good for the poker rooms and poker players because most dog facilities were not making money on the dogs so they will theoretically have more money to re-invest in cards when they stop racing. They may also be able to take advantage of some oddities in the law to do some unexpected things that would have been hard/impossible if they were required to continue racing.

Amendment 3 is more of a wild card. If you are optimistic you can easily argue that it can open the flood gates for gaming in Florida (this is the position I think is most likely). Now, instead of having bills die at the legislature due to political issues and lobbyists an interested party just needs to worry about marketing. Out of state interests can get enough signatures to get something on a ballet and ask the voters to do essentially anything they want. They can sell it the same way this amendment was sold, as a way to raise money for schools or teachers or whatever, and put anything they want up to a vote. Destination resorts, sports betting, internet wagering, its really an open door.

The pessimistic view is the one that has been presented in this topic, in that its usually tough to get 60% to approve anything. I'm usually in this camp, but after what happened last week with all but one amendment passing and some passing with really crazy numbers, I don't think this is really true. I think it even less true when you have large gaming interests that can pump money into marketing.

It makes sense that there will be a gaming bill in the legislature this year to try to clean up the GH racing and that might have some impact on the poker rooms. Amendment 3 seems to clearly outlaw the banked games the rooms are running but I don't see the industry going down without a fight on that. Its probably extremely profitable and when poker revenues are declining around the country it just makes sense to want to fight for the banked games.