The reality is working for legislatiion if far better than trying to do ballot measures ... ballot measures cost far more, and the risk of failure is no lower

Nice analysis, white_lytning!

Exactly! Plus, if the banked card games go away, much of those players and money will return to the live poker tables. In essence, there are ten facilities in Florida that will be converted to stand-alone poker rooms with some OTB, plus one that will be poker & slots.

While there is some advantage to eliminating the legislative path, the ballot amendment process is difficult at best and very expensive. Any gambling expansion amendment will probably take a minimum of $10M and probably more on the order of $25M to push through. It was surprising that all but one amendment this year passed. I speculate that a lot of voters had no real handle on what they were voting on, and simply figured that if it made it on the ballot then it was good - voted yes by default. I think a gambling expansion amendment would not be met with the same default thinking.

As to online poker, it is not clear if a ballot amendment would be required to authorize it in Florida. It depends how it would be classified under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. If it is simply classified as another form of Class II poker, then Florida Amendment 3 doesn't apply and a state legislative vote could authorize it. If instead it is classified as Class III gaming as an "electronic facsimile" of a game of chance, then a Florida voter referendum would be required under Amendment 3. That's a battle yet to be fought, and one that maybe now the race tracks will be willing to take on (they refused before, prioritizing authorization of slots throughout the state over online poker). Interestingly, licensed and regulated online poker in Florida would not violate the Seminole compact. The compact terms say that if online poker were authorized to anyone in the state, then the Seminoles can do it too and if it causes a threshold drop in Seminole casino revenues, the revenue-sharing to the state would be lowered proportionately as well. But that threshold would never be reached, imo.

Yeah, they'll probably fight it some. But they'll lose eventually. The Florida courts have already ruled that those banked games (as they are currently run, not true player-banked but rather an outside 'corporation' acting as the bank) violate the compact, and the state promised the Seminoles to crack down on them. Banked poker table games will no doubt be de-authorized by the state regulators in very short order, and now even any true player-banked version of them is illegal under Amendment 3. I wouldn't be surprised to see the legislature pass bill language making it clear that they are illegal, if the amendment language in itself isn't enough to do that.

What percentage of cardroom revenue comes from poker vs non-poker? Is the split similar to LA, where I have read that a place like Commerce Casino gets 2/3 of its revenue from banked games rather than poker? If banked card games going away costs cardrooms half their revenue, how would that affect poker?

Unknown. There's no public reporting of the revenues separately. However by law, the cardrooms can't provide the bank. The only revenues the cardrooms get from the banked games is the rake. Plus the banked games are relatively new (first one in Florida popped up in 2011 and they weren't sanctioned by the state regulators until 2014). Cumulative annual cardroom revenues across the state from all poker games other than tournaments is up less than 10% since 2011. So no matter what percent of the revenues currently come from rake on the banked games, it shouldn't be much of loss for the cardrooms as most of the players and action will return to the live poker games.

Some time ago Nick Sortal (formerly a columnist for Sun Sentinel, Miami Herald and SouthFloridaGambling.com) reported that the management of Magic City told him that up to 20% of its poker room gross receipts were generated by the "player" banked games.

Also, by law the dog tracks have been required to put at least 4% of their gross poker revenues into their race purses. That will go away as an expense for the cardrooms.

I like the theory of "following the money". The biggest backers of Amendment 3 were Disney, the Seminoles, and something called "No Casinos Inc.".
Regardless of how you or I think this will affect gambling/poker in FL going forward, these three entities have poured a ton of money into this and believe this will essentially make it much more difficult for any new casinos to open up in FL.

And to be honest, most voters has no clue what they were voting for. They heard "voters get the choice if new casinos are opened up"....sounds great! Ugh...no. Not that easy.

Also, if a poker room/casino was going to open up in....let's say Naples....why should people in Tallahassee or Jacksonville have a vote on yes or no for that casino?

This is definitely a blow to poker/gambling in FL.

[ ] Before passage of Amendment 3, a new casino could open in Florida just by legislative vote, without a statewide constitutional amendment vote.

[ ] Before passage of Amendment 3, opening a cardroom was not limited to a licensed pari-mutuel facility.

[ ] After passage of Amendment 3, it requires a statewide constitutional amendment vote to license a new cardroom for a licensed pari-mutuel facility.

[x] The false premise that opening new casinos could be accomplished by a local vote before passage of Amendment 3 was just fake propaganda promulgated by the vested interests who opposed the amendment.

[x] Disney and the Seminoles pumped money into their propaganda machine to get Amendment 3 passed. -- So what? That in itself doesn't make it good or bad for poker. By the same token, the opposition vested interests, including the pari-mutuels, pumped money into their propaganda machine to stop Amendment 3. That also in itself doesn't make it good or bad for poker. The battle was about the expansion of slots and other gambling in the state - the pari-mutuels and some casino corps wanted that, Disney and the Seminoles didn't. It was my opinion that keeping slots and casino-style table games out of the pari-mutuels is good for the live poker games as the players and money stay at the live poker tables.

See bolded
this is an incorrect conclusion or assumption.
you are thinking that if slots and other gambling are not available they will play poker, this is not true.
the so called casual player if having no other option may or may not stay in the game.
what you lose is the casual players who while they are playing poker their wife is playing slots or table games or the dogs.
If the wife has nothing to gamble on then both will never enter the facility and there goes the games .

Hard rock casinos will see a large influx
the rest will die off
leaving the state with very few options in which to play

will there be pro infested games with no fish sure
why do we wish for games like that
I enjoy fishing both inside and outside of Poker Rooms

My evidence is that after the table games came into the cardrooms, a lot of players and money disappeared off the live poker tables, leaving mostly regulars. My assumption is that after the table games go away, much of those players and money will return to the live poker tables. I think that is more solid than theories about the players' wives.

I hope you are correct


my view is twofold

1) in 2010 when they lifted the $100 buy-in cap
poker boomed ; then the fish lose lose lose and go away.
you are saying they went to the table games which may be true ;but in all other states
they go away from poker and if given other choices may go to that; but given no other choice they still go away from poker.

2) as a snowbird there are 25-30 couples I see regularly dining at the trackside restaurant , then the woman get together and bet the dogs whilst the men enter the poker room.
I do go to play while the wife stays home, I only see these other snowbirds while the wives accompany them and yes I'm making an assumption it is similar elsewhere.

I do hope to see poker live on so I am hoping I'm incorrect

Which room? My observations are in the Tampa Bay area.

Great points. I agree that sometimes the biggest poker fish are family members (both wives and husbands can apply here) who don't play poker much but do so while the rest of the family (or spouse) is playing slots or tables games.

I respectfully disagree. If you have big backers who do not want to see new casinos open up and want to continue with their dominance on the market (Seminoles), that is horrible for poker players.
In an ideal environment, there will be more poker rooms....more competition....less rake for players....etc etc.

And for what it's worth, I do agree that the old way of doing things wasn't working either. (Why weren't slots added to Bonita Springs greyhound track when it was voted in? )

Because even before Amendment 3 was voted in, it took a statewide voter referendum to expand casino gambling in the state, in any form (other than the Seminole compact). It was never an option for a countywide vote to authorize it. This was deceptive PR on the part of the parimutuels.

The only difference that Amendment 3 makes is how a constitutional amendment for casino gambling expansion can get on the voter ballot. Before there were three ways for it to get on the ballot for a statewide voter referendum:
1. The legislature votes to place it on the ballot.
2. The Constitutional Revision Committee, which meets once every 20 years, puts it on the ballot.
3. Voter initiative (the citizen petition process).

Now, under Amendment 3, the third method is the only option.

It is also false that new poker rooms cannot be opened now, under Amendment 3. Amendment 3 addresses only casino gambling. In Florida, poker is defined under law as type of pari-mutuel wagering. The legislature can pass any laws it wants for changes to pari-mutuel laws, including for cardrooms. The could de-couple all cardrooms from all other pari-mutuel activities, authorize anyone to open a cardroom, only the current permitholders to open more cardrooms, etc., etc. The legislature also could declare sports wagering as pari-mutuel wagering, and authorize all sorts of sports wagering for the pari-mutuels or others. They could also authorize all sorts of pari-mutuel wagering for other gaming. None of these things would require a constitutional amendment. There are lots of options.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Voter initiatives are VERY expensive, so only deep-pocketed interests will be able to participate. And, without legislative input, they will be the ones to decide the verbiage (aside from potential court challenges), with voters left simply to support or oppose.

Given the high bar, I suspect Amendment 3 has stopped new non-tribal gaming in Florida. Time will tell if that's good or bad for poker players.

FYP. New pari-mutuel gaming can still be authorized by the Florida legislature, which includes poker and many forms of sports wagering.