New poker room / social club - san marcos tx (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Meddler2
- Start date
OP
OP
Meddler2
Full House
Same approach as the one thatS been operating in Austin for the past year.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
These will prove to be an interesting test for the State. The letter of the law is not exactly clear in Texas, but these types of establishments certainly appear to be in violation of the gambling statutes. The defense is going to be the card rooms are the same as country clubs, which traditionally enjoy some form of exemption for the card rooms often found in the Men's Locker Room. Don't pay much attention to the blather spewed by the staff - they don't know what they are talking about as to why a seat fee + door fee is "legal" while a rake or tipping is not "legal".
I think the key issue is these card rooms are operating in the open. They advertise. They make public statements to the press. They appear to be hiring off duty law enforcement officers as security. I presume they are paying sales taxes and income taxes, though that is totally speculative. This puts the State (meaning law enforcement in general) in a difficult position. Do they act against the open defiance of the law or ignore it?
The owners are vocal about their belief as to the legality of the poker room. Each passing month strengthens the presumption and also heralds the opening of another such operation somewhere in the state.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Governor and AG are both vocally hostile to gambling, but that doesn't mean much if they don't prosecute in the face of open defiance of the law.
DrStrange
PS for what it is worth, I live less than ten minutes from this club. But playing in several unraked games each week kills the attraction for me.
I think the key issue is these card rooms are operating in the open. They advertise. They make public statements to the press. They appear to be hiring off duty law enforcement officers as security. I presume they are paying sales taxes and income taxes, though that is totally speculative. This puts the State (meaning law enforcement in general) in a difficult position. Do they act against the open defiance of the law or ignore it?
The owners are vocal about their belief as to the legality of the poker room. Each passing month strengthens the presumption and also heralds the opening of another such operation somewhere in the state.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Governor and AG are both vocally hostile to gambling, but that doesn't mean much if they don't prosecute in the face of open defiance of the law.
DrStrange
PS for what it is worth, I live less than ten minutes from this club. But playing in several unraked games each week kills the attraction for me.
What is your take on this? After reading through the Texas legal code it appears the reason you can't tip is to keep all money in play as an opportunity to be won. As I understand it a rake or a tip would be a flagrant violation of the law, while the door charge or seat fee as residing in the grey area of the law. I'm not a lawyer (although I watch them on TV) - but isn't that the same premise the card rooms in Austin are running under?
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Yes, the Austin room and the San Marcos room use the same business model. The Austin room tried to run without a time charge for almost a year, but couldn't make enough money that way. I have copied part of the Texas criminal code to discuss.
§ 47.02. Gambling
(a) A person commits an offense if he: (3) plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the actor engaged in gambling in a private place;
(2) no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
(3) except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants.
§ 47.04. Keeping a Gambling Place
(a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly uses or permits another to use as a gambling place any real estate, building, room, tent, vehicle, boat, or other property whatsoever owned by him or under his control, or rents or lets any such property with a view or expectation that it be so used.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the gambling occurred in a private place;
(2) no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
(3) except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants.
The code is clear that playing poker for money is gambling so they will need to fit under the "safe harbor" defined in the statute.
Is this a private place? Well, you have to pay a $20 membership fee to join. That might seem trivial but the state allowed a similar dodge for decades where you would join a "private club" for a day so you could buy a drink in a private place. I'd say they are good here.
Did any person receive an economic benefit other than personal winnings? It seems to me an $8/hr fee to sit at the table is an economic benefit to the operators. There isn't any other plausible reason to rent a chair in a room filled with poker tables besides playing poker. I think they clearly fail the test here - but I am not a lawyer and who knows what might happen at trial.
In the same way the owner of the building where the game is being played is at risk as are all the employees.
If the dealer gets tips, that is an economic benefit. But if the dealer gets a pay check, that also seems like an economic benefit.
All in all, I don't see any difference at all in the end results. The players are paying money to the "house" to play poker. Everyone involved is benefiting economically, the property owner, the dealers/employees, the business owner and the players.
They may never get prosecuted, but if they do I expect the government will win their case.
DrStrange
§ 47.02. Gambling
(a) A person commits an offense if he: (3) plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the actor engaged in gambling in a private place;
(2) no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
(3) except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants.
§ 47.04. Keeping a Gambling Place
(a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly uses or permits another to use as a gambling place any real estate, building, room, tent, vehicle, boat, or other property whatsoever owned by him or under his control, or rents or lets any such property with a view or expectation that it be so used.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the gambling occurred in a private place;
(2) no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
(3) except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants.
The code is clear that playing poker for money is gambling so they will need to fit under the "safe harbor" defined in the statute.
Is this a private place? Well, you have to pay a $20 membership fee to join. That might seem trivial but the state allowed a similar dodge for decades where you would join a "private club" for a day so you could buy a drink in a private place. I'd say they are good here.
Did any person receive an economic benefit other than personal winnings? It seems to me an $8/hr fee to sit at the table is an economic benefit to the operators. There isn't any other plausible reason to rent a chair in a room filled with poker tables besides playing poker. I think they clearly fail the test here - but I am not a lawyer and who knows what might happen at trial.
In the same way the owner of the building where the game is being played is at risk as are all the employees.
If the dealer gets tips, that is an economic benefit. But if the dealer gets a pay check, that also seems like an economic benefit.
All in all, I don't see any difference at all in the end results. The players are paying money to the "house" to play poker. Everyone involved is benefiting economically, the property owner, the dealers/employees, the business owner and the players.
They may never get prosecuted, but if they do I expect the government will win their case.
DrStrange
I didn't realize they were charging $8/hr in addition to the membership charge. I believe that this is what makes this illegal under Texas law. If they were simply charging a $20 a month (or day) membership fee, I think they could argue that (and win). Really a card room charging a membership fee really isn't more than the example you posted about the bar and drinks in a dry county or a country or golf club.
The other part of arguing is #2 in 47.04 - economic benefit. If I would have to argue this in court, I would take the position that all money brought for poker is used for poker. The economic benefit of buying a snack or a beer I don't think violates the law. If it did, all the poker tournaments held by bars would be illegal. Without a rake or tips to the dealer - all money brought to the table is available to be won at the table. I would think that this satisfies the 3 requirements above.
ohio3302016
Flush
There's a similar club in Mansfield, Ohio that has been operating for a few years now. I always wonder how the get around Ohio gaming laws.
http://www.mansfieldgemini.com/mansfield/
http://www.mansfieldgemini.com/mansfield/
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
TABC - the Texas booze police periodically takes the point of view that bar poker is unacceptable if there is any connection between playing in the tournament and revenue to the club. A TABC officer has wide latitude in deciding to take action and can close a bar / seize its booze for anything he/she feels is immoral (Not illegal, not unlawful, but merely immoral). There are several places in town that will not host poker in any form fearing the loss of their liquor license. For good reason, we have a couple of "loose cannons" in our TABC office that could easily close a place down for playing cards.
The clubs in Austin and San Marcos do not hold a liquor license and do not sell it. While the local DA and the state AG might not be much of a threat, the booze cops certainly are.
DrStrange
The clubs in Austin and San Marcos do not hold a liquor license and do not sell it. While the local DA and the state AG might not be much of a threat, the booze cops certainly are.
DrStrange
So, what kind of chips are they using - any pics ?
OP
OP
Meddler2
Full House
Fyi they collect and pay taxes.
I heard back a few months ago that the Austin room was raided, but I can't find anything to support it.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
That raid rumor was an effort to discredit the operation on some social media pages. I can find no official evidence to support any claimed police raid on the Austin operation. Best I can tell, no such operation has been raided by the police nor prosecuted in any Texas jurisdiction. The San Marcos poker room has only been open few weeks, no telling how the County or City will respond.
One thing that does stand out to me is the San Marcos room has a 21 year old cut off, but the state rules allow an 18 year old to play the lottery and play bingo. But para-mutual betting is limited to people over age 21. The room does have a need to not become a public nuisance - even though there are tens of thousands of college students in the 18-20 age range, it might be wise not to let them through the door.
One thing that does stand out to me is the San Marcos room has a 21 year old cut off, but the state rules allow an 18 year old to play the lottery and play bingo. But para-mutual betting is limited to people over age 21. The room does have a need to not become a public nuisance - even though there are tens of thousands of college students in the 18-20 age range, it might be wise not to let them through the door.
OP
OP
Meddler2
Full House
I have been playing at the austin location 3-4x week and am cordial with the owner. No raid has ever taken place.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
