?

Log in

Before | After

Poker Problems

I've been running the Friday Night Poker Club games at Conquest for a while now, and this years would make the fifth.

However, it seems there may be problems. There are two Poker games run at Conquest, mine (which is silly) and the Poker Challenge (which is a "real" poker game).

The issue is that the entry fee to the convention and games may be considered a wager. If so, then it falls under the state laws on gambling which means Conquest could be sued over running it. It's unlikely that the law-suit would succeed, but it would still be a hell of a lot of expense that the con can't afford.

The important thing is the term "may be considered a wager". The legislation in question is still fairly new and as a result has a hell of a lot of grey areas.

Liz rang me this morning to chat about what was going on in addition to sending me an email. If we assume they are gambling events, then it would cost $40 per event to get the permits, and all these events would have to be held at a different venue as that venue would be classed as a "Casino" for the purpose of the event. There is no way the convention can afford all the extra expense to do it this way, so that's not an option.

There are three options at the moment as they see.

First option, is to run them as they are, and hope that everything goes ok. Second option is to run them as they are but don't charge for them. Third option is to cancel both games and not run them.

Option 2 is not really a feasible option as those entry fees are what allows the con to keep running every year. Running events and not charging for them are not really an option.

That leaves run and hope or cancel.

As far as I am concerned (and from talking to Liz, as far as she is concerned) the entry fee is not a wager. As I said before, the entry fee is not for the game, it is for venue hire. The only difference between playing those games at Conquest and playing them at home is the venue. Better venue and all the social aspect is what you are paying for, not the game itself.

However, if it ran and someone sued, Conquest might not survive, even if they won the suit (which is most likely).

The plan was to have the Conquest flyer out for Arcanacon, and they really don't want to have listed events on it that may end up having to be canceled, especially if the are determined to be "illegal" events, so they're running around at the moment trying to work out what the hell is going on. Liz is doing a marvellous job at the moment sorting all this out, and I really appreciate here at times like this.

So, as a result this is a warning to everyone reading this: Friday Night Poker Club: Heroes Edition and Poker Challenge 2008 may need to be cancelled, and there isn't anything I, Brendan or the Conquest organisers can do about it.

I hope not, but it might happen.

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
travisjhall
Jan. 15th, 2008 03:00 am (UTC)

I'd say that Liz is probably panicking over nothing concerning your game. I would guess that you would find that for a payment to be considered a wager, there would have to be a chance of winning a prize either of a monetary nature or of significant monetary value (relative to the collected entry fees). In the case of your game, there is no monetary prize, and the same seems to be indicated by the blurb for the Poker Challenge.

A small trophy can be won for either event. If this could be considered to have significant monetary value, then the events can still be run, and you protect yourselves by not giving out trophies. The certificates are worth all of about 10c, so certainly don't have significant monetary value.

Of course, trophies make those events gambling, then every other event at the con can be considered gambling as well (except any that don't give trophies at all). Better cancel the con.

My advice is to actually read the legislation. That goes for you, Brendan, and the Conquest committee (if any of you haven't already). I've found that doing so clears this stuff up more often than not.

halloranelder
Jan. 15th, 2008 03:49 am (UTC)
At the moment, Liz is reading the legislation and from what she told me there are so many grey areas that it's not that easy.

I'm checking it out now myself, and there's a lot of it to read.
paradigmshifty
Jan. 15th, 2008 04:36 am (UTC)
I was about to comment but Travis said it better than I was going to be able to :-)
pagrin
Jan. 15th, 2008 06:43 am (UTC)
As it happens we have been going over the legislation and this is where the problem has come from.
For the record, Not giving out prises, doesn't make it not gambling, we would have to not charge for the game, thus making them a gift. However giving them out regardless of value, does make it gambling. As far as the law in concerned, a prise is a prise, even if it's not worth much.
Not all games are affected by these new laws, because not all games are played in casinos. Hence the rest of the con is safe.
Basically the government is still sorting it's stuff out, so that they can get the right licensing fees out of the casinos, and at the same time make the casinos get something out of the license.
As a result, we have some new laws which are vague at best, and full of holes, they are still attempting to patch up.
Apart from reading the legislation itself, Liz has also been speaking directly with the department involved.
Our 3 options are from advice directly from them.

I'll put a public posting up about this as soon as we have a ruling.
Pagrin :-)
travisjhall
Jan. 15th, 2008 09:51 am (UTC)

So, if a certificate is deemed an illegal prize under the law, don't give certificates either. (Heck, I've always thought the FNPC prizes were a bit dodgy anyway, because the games are generally heavily biased in the favour of certain characters.)

As for the legislation, it seems to me that the relevant part is Chapter 2, Part 3 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003. Section 2.3.1 defines those games which are unlawful. Poker is not amongst them by name, leaving only, "any game with cards or other instruments of gaming wherefrom any person derives a percentage or share of the amount or amounts wagered" to include poker as an illegal game. Without a prize of monetary value, poker does not return a percentage or share of the monies to the players. The only persons who could be considered to be collecting monies are the convention organisers, but that brings us back to this applying to many games - including by-the-book Deadlands or any of Fi and Renee's 7th Sea games of the last few years. Also, dice are defined as an instrument of gaming just as playing cards are (2.2.1(2)(b)). There is no mention of casinos in relation to this provision.

Maybe I'm missing something in the relevant legislation, something in the earlier acts that still applies? Something added in the various sets of regulations? Something newer than the 2006 regulations which are available online?

Come to think of it, bridge clubs commonly collect fees and give small monetary prizes. How do they get away with it?

I'm not saying that it isn't something to look at carefully, but... well, let's face it, an employee of the DoJ who assures somebody that a poker game is a-okay and gets them prosecuted as a result is going to get his arse kicked. For them, the percentage lies with telling you "no", and you'll have to talk with someone who actually knows the legislation and pin them down on the facts to get something like that worked out.

psuedonym777
Jan. 15th, 2008 03:47 am (UTC)
Well that's mildly retarded. I mean, a wager would assume gambling. Gambiling would assume that somehow there was money or prizes being returned to the winning player.

I'm with Travis here. It's good forward thinking of Liz to spot this one early, but I think she might have over-cooked it. Still, as Travis says, make sure it's bleedingly bloody obvious that this is not a gambling event, there is no prize to be won. It's simply that the participant is paying for the hire of the venue in which the game is being held.
paradigmshifty
Jan. 15th, 2008 04:41 am (UTC)
Actually, I have had a pertinent thought. Maybe very specifically say in the con book that all games at the con are social only and that no prizemoney is on offer. Head the problem off upfront, just in case. That would indicate, in the case of a complaint, that the poker games were considered exactly the same as the other games and that no wager was made for entry to them (unless they wanted to claim the same for all of the games, which would kill the case on a reductio ad absurdum basis straight up.)
mareth_redorb
Jan. 15th, 2008 07:47 am (UTC)
Possibly try and classify the game as an improvisational theatre event, in which simulated gambling occurs, but does not entail any personal loss or gain as it is only the character who actually has a stake, not the "actor". Of course, you'd probably need to check with the department in question as to whether or not simulated gambling is considered gambling due to the fact that there is an imaginary wager. Otherwise, I will be demanding to see the gambling allowance certificate thing every time I go to the cinema, as I'm forking out $15 on a wager that the film I'm going to see is going to be a good one.


Government health warning: Mik's advice is often very silly and shouldn't be taken too seriously when he's in this sort of mood.
travisjhall
Jan. 15th, 2008 08:44 am (UTC)

Actually, with Friday Night Poker Club, you aren't too far off the mark with that advice. Due to the powers of the characters, the game doesn't follow the real rules of poker. It references them, but the game itself is not poker.

motokomaharet
Jan. 15th, 2008 08:59 am (UTC)
Get people to sign a disclaimer... State that the game cost is for venue only and that there is no chance of winning money.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

July 2016
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Desert Rose

I dream of rain
I dream of gardens in the desert sand
I wake in vain
I dream of love as time runs through my hand

I dream of fire
Those dreams are tied to a horse that will never tire
And in the flames
Her shadows play in the shape of a man's desire

This desert rose
Each of her veils, a secret promise
This desert flower
No sweet perfume ever tortured me more than this

And as she turns
This way she moves in the logic of all my dreams
This fire burns
I realize that nothing's as it seems

I dream of rain
I dream of gardens in the desert sand
I wake in vain
I dream of love as time runs through my hand

I dream of rain
I lift my gaze to empty skies above
I close my eyes
This rare perfume is the sweet intoxication of her love

I dream of rain
I dream of gardens in the desert sand
I wake in vain
I dream of love as time runs through my hand

Sweet desert rose
Each of her veils, a secret promise
This desert flower
No sweet perfume ever tortured me more than this

Sweet desert rose
This memory of Eden haunts us all
This desert flower
This rare perfume, is the sweet intoxication of the fall

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones