Battle about the right to offer banked card games

A longstanding battle about the right to offer banked card games could be about to boil over.
Who will prevail - the tribes or their rivals, in the card rooms? http://bit.ly/2L6icZP

* State regulators - comprised of a California Gambling Commission (CGC) under Governor Gavin Newsom and a BGC under Attorney General Xavier Becerra - are threatening to make drastic revisions in regulations and game rules for the state’s licensed card rooms.
The move is in response to pressure from American Indian casino operators who contend card rooms violate state law and the tribes’ constitutionally guaranteed exclusivity to not only slot machines but banked and percentage table games.
Proposition 1A, approved by 63% of California voters in 2000, launched what is today an $8.9 billion Indian casino industry comprised of 63 licensed casinos. http://bit.ly/2L6icZP

Interesting. I used to work for a banking corp.

The way these were originally set up, I don't think the tribes would have an argument. It was just players playing against each other, like in poker.

Now it's pretty sketchy. Players can bank, to a limited extent. But if you try to bank too much, the corporation will have you run out.

On top of that, the corporation pays the casino a large amount of money to be there. Where does that money come from? Obviously, from their winnings on the tables. So, in a round about way, the casinos have a stake in the action on the tables.

At best, they are exploiting a loophole to circumvent the spirit of the law. At worst, they are in violation of the letter of the law.

Provided that the player banking syndicate has no connection to the card room, and all players at the table are offered the chance to bank, I don't think the Indian casinos have a case. But who knows? They've become a very potent political force to the point that the spread of both US internet gaming and legal sports betting are in their hands to either crush or allow. And yet, evidently, there just isn't enough money in exclusive rights to slot machines for California tribes to get by on.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

The move is in response to pressure from American Indian casino operators who contend card rooms violate state law and the tribes’ constitutionally guaranteed exclusivity to not only slot machines but banked and percentage table games.

The California State Constitution says, "slot machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games are hereby permitted to be conducted and operated on tribal lands subject to those compacts." It says nothing about exclusivity, and the only ban is on "casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey."

Quote: Gialmere

Provided that the player banking syndicate has no connection to the card room, and all players at the table are offered the chance to bank, I don't think the Indian casinos have a case.

I think that's part of the problem - I am under the impression that the card rooms want to start dealing house-banked games.

I've never been to one of these cards rooms. How do they make money? Is there an admission fee or a seat charge?

Quote: billryan

I've never been to one of these cards rooms. How do they make money? Is there an admission fee or a seat charge?

In the past, the players would pay a collection to play. Typically, $1/hand for bets up to $100. Yes, it was an unbelievably bad deal for the players.

Now, I've been told, there are many games where the corporation/banker pays all the collection, based on how much action there is. I assume that this is balanced out by the dealer having a bigger edge. But, even if it's like an 8% HE or something, at least the small players aren't paying $1 upfront to play a $10 hand of blackjack.

What ever happened to the casinos banking the games and charging a commission, but any profits they made on the games had to be given back to the players via promotions? That's how it should be, or they need leave the non corporation bankers alone. I'm sure there has to be some of those casinos left in CA that do it that way. Does anyone have a list they can send me? I will owe you a dinner or something.




Why haven't all the Indian casinos tried get into the online gambling market? Seems to me they might be able to get away with it using their Injun status. Interesting note: I have seen Indian casino websites with non regulated online casino affiliate links on their site.

Quote: AxelWolf

What ever happened to the casinos banking the games and charging a commission, but any profits they made on the games had to be given back to the players via promotions?

I remember reading about this somewhere - in fact, I may have even posted about it here a few years back - but was this limited to the casinos, or did it apply to the card rooms as well? I can't find any reference to it in any of the 1999-era tribal compacts, which makes me think it was some sort of California Gambling Control Commission regulation more than anything else.

Quote: AxelWolf

Why haven't all the Indian casinos tried get into the online gambling market? Seems to me they might be able to get away with it using their Injun status.

Probably because they couldn't use their "status" to run sports books, either.