How Willl New Law Impact Cal Poker?

Since January 1989 court interpretation of state law has prevented California Card Clubs from being able to "rake the pot". Instead, time charges or an up front collection must be used.


Note that some parts of the state such as Los Angeles County interpret this strictly. There you will currently find the “dead button drop” in limits below 9/18 and almost all “ante” money being dropped in low limit stud. Even some 20/40-stud games drop ante money up front here in Los Angeles. Other locations such as Indian reservations and Ocean's 11 in Oceanside allow the big blind (or a portion of any blind) to be placed over the drop box, a token to replace the big blind in the case of 3/6 holdem, and the drop money returned if there is no flop (some used to return on a $20 threshold but that may have been eliminated a few years ago). This is considered a “good deal” by California standards.


There is a new law effective soon that apparently changes this. I was emailed a copy this morning and I’ve only been able to skim it. The gist of the law is that card clubs will be able to take collection from the pot rather then up front. I’m not sure what the clubs will do but there has been scuttlebutt concerning this matter for a month or two.


For now I’ll just post the link below. I might have time late tonight or tomorrow to comment. In the meantime input from the legal eagles and players is welcome.


Regards,


Rick

Well I hope this happens soon. I refuse to play in So.Cal lower limit games because of this silly system. It would be a nice change.

Kris

Goat,


I agree about low limit. This should make games such as 9/18 holdem more playable. OTOH, more players like yourself will be attracted to the games so they will tighten up over time (plus you should play tighter in a "drop from the pot" game).


Do you think they will start raking in top section where they currently take time? Keep in mind that clubs usuaally do not make full collections every half hour because new players don't pay if no list and so on.


Regards,


Rick

I also read this quickly. It seems to me that the difference is that the collection could come from the pot, but it would have to be a fixed amount. If that were the case, it would be a big advantage over the current method for tight aggressive players.


From Legislative Counsel's Digest:


"This bill would provide that no fee may be calculated as a fraction or percentage of wagers or winnings earned. This bill would provide that fees must be determined before the start of play, but may be collected before or after the start of play."


Alden

Rick,


As we both know, those Commerce 9-18 games are pretty crazy in the first place so calming them down a little certainly wont hurt things very much. In fact it might help psychologically since a little more mellow game results in smaller fluctuations. I have a feeling that this would tend to affect Omaha more noticably then Hold'em, I mean in terms of games tightening up. This may end up totally killing the game, but then again I don't really know. As for top sections, I would imagine they would keep it how it is, but once again I don't really know. Your guess is probably a helluva lot better then mine.

Later,

Kris

This is already done in the 60 and larger games at the Commerce. They call it a collection pot, whoever wins this pot, usually played on the hour and half hour, pays the time for the whole table. However, you can elect to pay your own time and not participate in the collection pot.


I like this method of collection, since the looser players end up paying most of the collections. But it kind of po's me that JF won't ever play a hand in these pots.

"But it kind of po's me that JF won't ever play a hand in these pots."


You think I won't notice if you just sneak in initials, huh?

Maybe I missed a discussion of this in the past, but it sounds like Brett is saying that you don't even play in a hand with a collection pot? Can't you just choose not to be part of the collection pool?

See how 3BB tries to get me in trouble? /images/wink.gif He was just trying to tarnish my "loose guy" image by claiming I won't play a hand in a collection pot. Well I say " /images/tongue.gif " to him.


In truth, though, in some games with collection pots you will see a major tightening around the table until someone wins a pot that qualifies and pays everyone's collection. For the record, I like collection pots, though nothing Brett says about anything at all is true.

The law is written in legalese but from what I gather the clubs will be allowed to take a fixed drop from the pot after the hand ends rather than before the hand begins (the current practice at limits below 9/18). If the drop is $3, it will always be taken. In other words, they can’t take the drop Las Vegas style where in mid level games 5% ($1) is taken at $20 thresholds with a $3 cap. However, it may be possible to have a “no flop-no drop” policy or a drop after a specific threshold is reached (let’s say five bets) but I am not sure. Does anyone out there know the answer to this?


Note that because of “missed collections” and the overhead associated with collecting time (e.g., tracking “paid leavers” and players moving from other games, floormen tied up settling collection disputes and so on), the clubs may have an incentive to drop from the pot in mid limit games (15/30 and 20/40) that currently charge time.


Let’s look at 20/40 holdem. Let’s say the drop is $4 per hand (and $2 six handed or less). Of course let’s hope there is a “no flop-no drop” policy or else tight games (yes, California games can get tight for a while) will come to a standstill or break after $4 is taken several times in a short period when there is no flop. Typical Los Angeles 20/40 holdem games average about 40 hands per hour. If 5 drops per hour are missed because there is no flop (either chopping blinds or because the blinds are stolen), and 5 drops are $2 because the table gets short the clubs still will collect about $130 per hour. The Commerce club charges $16 per hour “time” at this limit and would get $144 per hour in a full nine handed game. But games are not always full and breaks are given for new players and so on. If you add in the overhead headaches I think the two methods are close to revenue neutral at this limit.


Before posting any more thoughts on how this would impact other games and limits, I’d really like to know what the law actually allows and find out what the clubs are likely to do.


All comments are welcome and appreciated.


Regards,


Rick

These appear to be the relevant sentences:


"This bill would provide that no fee may be calculated as a

fraction or percentage of wagers or winnings earned. Fees charged for all wagers shall be determined prior to the start of play of any hand or round. The actual collection of the fee may occur before or after the start of play. Flat fees on each

wager may be assessed at different collection rates, but no more

than three collection rates may be established per table."


It is not clear to me that a "no flop no drop" policy would be more in compliance with this law than a rake-style collection. Since three collection rates can be established per table, why couldn't a club state that $1 will be charged for aggregate wagers of $1 to $19, $2 will be charged for aggregate wagers of $20 to $29, and $3 will be charged for aggregate wagers of $30 or more? This seems to meet the requirement that fees not be calculated as a percentage of wagers.


I think a possible problem with "no flop no drop" is that the fee for preflop wagers would not be determined prior to the start of play.


It also appears to me that current common collection policies for LA low limit games are not in compliance with this law. Some (or all?) LA casinos currently charge four different collection rates for some low-limit games based on the number of opponents dealt in.


-Mike

i love them. if the game is loose then i never pay collection much. if its tight and when the collection pot comes around no one wants to play in it because it makes them look stupid as playing in a pot that most of the money is gone. well im stupid so i raise most of these pots. so they tend to give them to me and i have to pay the collection for the table and only pocket say 75$ or so. boy thats dumb.

Rick,


Just got back into town, having been out of the country for a week. But the last time I played before I left, the table talk was that, for the mid-limit games at Commerce (15-30 to 40-80) the club was undecided about what they would do, the choices either being a button drop or a rake.


Regards,

Andy

Mike,


Wouldn't the number of players be an allowable method of determining the drop under the new law?


You also wrote: It is not clear to me that a "no flop no drop" policy would be more in compliance with this law than a rake-style collection. Since three collection rates can be established per table, why couldn't a club state that $1 will be charged for aggregate wagers of $1 to $19, $2 will be charged for aggregate wagers of $20 to $29, and $3 will be charged for aggregate wagers of $30 or more? This seems to meet the requirement that fees not be calculated as a percentage of wagers..


I don't know about this. I love the idea but it sounds like a funny way of describing a percentage drop.


Keep me informed if you learn anything new.


Regards,


Rick

Andy,


The whole point of the law seems to be that you can collect from the pot. They could have always had a button drop as long as it was dead and taken no matter what.


Let me know when you learn more.


Regards,


Rick

Andy, What country did you visit ?


Did you go to China ?


The commerce is going to a rake Jan. 1st for the 15/30 to 40/80. Its a done deal only not sure how much the rake will be.


Take care,


John

"Wouldn't the number of players be an allowable method of determining the drop under the new law?"


I see nothing prohibiting it. The problem is that some low limit LA games currently charge $1 for 4 players, $1.5 for 5 players, $2.50 for 6 players, and $3.00 for 7-9 players (for example). This appears to violate the provision that no more than three collection rates can be established per table.


"I love the idea but it sounds like a funny way of describing a percentage drop."


I don't think so. Under the system I described, the percentage of the pot represented by the collection would vary greatly. Consider a single-blinded 3-6 game. When nobody calls the BB, the collection would be 33% of the pot (which is more reasonable than the current 100%). In the same game, the collection would sometimes be less than 2% when pots grow large.


Perhaps I may be able to have some influence on this matter.


-Mike

John,


Will it be a rake from the pot or a dead button drop? If it is a rake will it be taken on a blind steal and/or a chop of the blinds?


My guess is that if it is a rake it will be $4 with nine to seven players, $3 six-handed and $2 five-handed or less. There is no way they will be willing to collect less than 9/18 and 6/12 holdem games.


They should make more on 40/80 versus 15/30 due to the speed of play.


Regards,


Rick

I went to Hong Kong, so technically, yes, I went to China.


No matter what they do, we can rest assured that the amount of money in the collection box will be greater than there is now. Unlikely I'll be going to play this week, but if I do, I'll ask and see what their plans are.

Rick,


Glen, the floor Mgr. said it would be a rake, but today I heard from relable players that they are re-thinking this.

So who knows ?


Andy, did you get a chance to cross over to the mainland and if you did you need a 30 day visa or can you freely travel on just your US passport fo and from say Shenzhen or Shekou ?


Thanks,

John

I did not go into the mainland this trip, but I frequently do. (The factories I use in my business are mostly in Guangdong.) You still need a visa anywhere outside of Hong Kong. I usually get mine at the Chinese Embassy here in L.A. (mid-Wilshire district); they are extremely rude and inefficient and there is a ridiculous charge of something like $30, more if you want a "rush." Alternatively, you can obtain the visa in Hong Kong. I once had a colleague refused a visa because the officials in Hong Kong claimed there was no room on the pages of his passport to stamp in the visa; it takes up a full page and they refused to stamp it on any page which had so much as one stamp already on it.


Food is still just as expensive in Hong Kong, but hotel rates are way down. I stayed at the Intercontinental (ex the Regent) for $1800 Hong Kong, including buffet breakfast. With the 13% "service" charge they add on, this comes to $260 a night, hardly a bargain, but close to half what my wife and I paid there two years ago. You can get great deals at the Kowloon (miniscule rooms, but very techno-up-to-date with free internet access); and at the Nikko in East Tsim Sha Tsui, still pretty nice. Both are probably half the price of the Intercontinental.


I paid $2600 for a last minute business class ticket on United; again this doesn't sound cheap, but it is more than a grand less than I paid last time. The problem is United doesn't go direct any more, you go through San Francisco. Cathay does go direct, but they have cut back their flights to half of what it once was; they only fly late at night, arriving in the morning. I can't sleep on the plane, so I have to arrive at night, thus forcing me to fly United thru SFO. Cathay is also much more expensive, but you can fly 2 for 1 on business class through American Express platinum.


Do you know me? Do I know you?


Andy

The reason players tighten up when there is a collection pot is that pot odds are greatly reduced, because a large portion of the pot goes to pay the time. If you choose not to take part in the collection pots, you just pay your time every half hour.


Tightwads like Feeney sit back and fold until someone wins the collection pot and the time is paid for them. I didn't actually see the following hand, but here is how it was relayed to me:


In a collection pot, everyone folded around to JF on the button, who tossed in his cards. They hit the dealer's hand and flipped up, revealing AQ sooooted.


Then he muttered something about a test.

there, i knew that feeney was tight. now its proven beyond a doubt. i even got some of those sissy hot dogs he eats and next week ill give a review of them and put the guy in his place once and for all.

Ah, good, we'll be talkin' 'bout "Tofu Ray" soon. /images/tongue.gif