End of NL for Lucky Chances?

[Cancer Merchant]

NL may be history in Colma.

Now I know that some cities have regulations against no limit games (e.g. Emeryville), but it's news to me that the state outlawed it. If this is true, how have the LA rooms gotten around it, or have they just not been prosecuted?

[Kevmath]

[ QUOTE ]
NL may be history in Colma.

Now I know that some cities have regulations against no limit games (e.g. Emeryville), but it's news to me that the state outlawed it. If this is true, how have the LA rooms gotten around it, or have they just not been prosecuted?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article you posted:

[ QUOTE ]
It all started in 1996 when card clubs, looking to cement their market share in the state's metropolitan areas, got a law passed barring any new clubs with "no limit" gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only know this from word of mouth but I'm told it's a city thing. San Diego and LA both have NL in all of their cardrooms. But there is no NL in San Jose and I have heard a number of people at Bay101 complain that the mayor could do something to change the ban, but won't. The closest they have is a 20-200 spread limit game.

[Tapin]

So, does anyone know what the actual legislation is? A "$200-a-hand" betting limit.. does that mean no (limit) games above 6/12, since capped betting on all rounds still comes in under $200 for an individual bettor?

Sucks to be LC. Hopefully this'll blow over.

[Soviet Exile]

What limits are permitted is controlled by the City. However, in 1996, the Gambling Control Act was passed by the state legislature. It essentially stated that gambling could continue in cities where it had already been permitted by local ordinance (such as Colma) but it could not be "expanded" without a vote of the City's electorate. Based on the news article, it appears that in 1996, when the Gambling Control Act was passed, Colma's ordinance restricted wagers to $200 per hand. After the Gambling Control Act became effective, the City Council passed an ordinance that repealed the $200 per hand limit. The Attorney General believes (rightly it would appear) that the ordinance repealing the $200 per hand limit had the effect of expanding gambling in Colma.

This issue won't effect cardrooms that did not have a local wagering limit in 1996, then this restriction would not apply to them. It seems that all of the Bay Area clubs, except the Palace in Hayward did have such a limit.

[elena_elphie]

By $200/hand, do they mean the total amount wagered on a given hand by a given person has to be less than $200. You couldn't even reasonably have a 20-40 game under those conditions.

[edtost]

they mean per bet - the reason why bay101 can have 100/200 and 20-200 spread.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
they mean per bet - the reason why bay101 can have 100/200 and 20-200 spread.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. To compound the idiocy, San Jose allows tournaments where the limits go be higher than 200 (just chips, right? not really money..), spread limits that are effectively NoLimit, but only 2 NoLimit tournaments per casino per year (my understanding of the current situation).

2. 'splain to me the $200 per hand limit and the multiple betting squares in the "Asian Games", not to mention letting the Bank be in the thou$and$ (and in control of the Corporation )

3. Doubt if the ruling will affect LC's poker business all that much. The big hit will be the Asian Games.

It is definitely a city thing. In Sacramento, the maximum bet is $50. Right outside Sacramento in Citrus Heights, they can spread no limit.