Here is the list of issues and my suggestions for them
VDACS adds a rule that concurrent tournaments cannot happen.
I want to address concurrent tournaments. VDACS'; restriction hurts players, dealers, and charities due to overstepping its boundaries and not being authorized by statute. This arbitrary limitation on legal poker tournaments seems excessive without a convincing regulatory need to ensure charitable gaming is protected. Why would regulations ban concurrent tournaments while the Code allows them? A fair solution is to remove proposed 11VAC20-30-90.F.
VDACS prohibits tipping dealers/staff.
My comment concerns tipping. VDACS’ prohibition harms dealers, players, and charities because, without the ability to provide standard poker room compensation, charities cannot effectively operate poker games, possibly not playing at all. Tipping is essential for dealers’ livelihoods in the poker industry. Why do regulations prohibit tipping when the Code allows it? This arbitrary restriction suggests VDACS lacks understanding of the poker sector. A reasonable solution is to remove this tipping constraint.
VDACS requires charities to give away more than the amount of money they have available after prize payouts and expenses.
My remark involves the use of proceeds amount. VDACS obliges charities to comply with 11VAC20-20-110 for its use of proceeds formula, which ruins charitable poker. Charities would face difficulties hosting tournaments, as they couldn't generate adequate funds for costs and the necessary use of proceeds. Examining a basic tournament budget shows this formula's ineffectiveness. The fix is to apply the recently introduced pull tab formula to poker.
VDACS confuses “rebuys” and “add-ons”
My comment relates to re-buys. VDACS confuses "rebuys" and "add-ons". This is harmful to players, dealers and charities. Rebuys" happen once a player loses all chips; a rule limiting them before elimination is unfeasible. VDACS imposes extra restrictions with questionable rationale, increasing administrative and legal costs for compliance with ill-suited regulations. VDACS creates confusion with guidelines misaligned with the game and industry. Since "rebuys" occur after chip loss, it's illogical to limit them before player elimination. VDACS' rule adds unnecessary constraints and associated compliance costs due to poorly conceived regulations. The published guidelines demonstrate a lack of understanding of the game and industry, causing confusion. One reasonable fix to this is to strike 11VAC20-30-100.H. If the justification is to limit the duration of a tournament, § 18.2-340.33.16 already provides that tournaments must have a predetermined end time (which is strange in its own right).
VDACS requires that charities may only pay a fixed fee to an operator for services, and not a percentage of the revenue.
My observation concerns operator fees. The VDACS stipulates that charities can only pay operators a set fee for their services, not a proportion of the revenue. This is detrimental to charities since they remain responsible for the flat fee even if revenue drops. It's strange that VDACS imposes this kind of arbitrary constraint. A logical solution would be to remove the first two sentences of 11VAC20-30-60.P. Commissioner Guthrie has emphasized the importance of charities meeting their use of proceeds requirements. Beyond this, there is no need for the state to interfere in the management of charities' business activities.
VDACS flatly restricts the use of technology.
My remark pertains to electromechanical devices. Imposing an outright restriction on technology use in poker operations by VDACS negatively affects dealers, players, and charities. In today's world, technology enhances all aspects of life. Utilizing technology software and hardware to manage the game improves efficiency, enjoyment, and accuracy. Relying on technology is far more advantageous for preserving the game's integrity than manually tracking everything and being prone to human error. The suggested 11VAC20-20-90.O should be eliminated.
11VAC20-30-90.C-D restricts all sorts of people connected in some way to someone connected to a poker game (yes, it’s that tenuous) from playing in the tournament.
With respect to player limitations, 11VAC20-30-90.C-D imposes unwarranted restrictions on people with remote links to poker games, negatively affecting players, dealers, and charities. These excessive constraints obstruct the poker community's bonding and game enjoyment, a result of VDACS' unfamiliarity with the industry. A suitable proposal would be to strike 11VAC20-30-90.C-D and prevent only a dealer's family member from playing at the table they are dealing.
VDACS specifies periods of operation ties to calendar days and weeks.
Pertaining to the calendar, VDACS' prescribed periods of operation tied to calendar days and weeks damage charities and the ideal functioning of charitable poker. This misunderstanding overlooks poker rooms' usual adjusted 24-hour timeframe, complicating reporting. A sensible amendment is to define "calendar day" as a continuous 24-hour period set by the charity, and adjust the "calendar week" definition to match.
VDACS requires printing each dealers’ full name, including first and last names on their badge.
My observation concerns badges: VDACS' requirement to display dealers' full names, including first and last names, puts dealers at risk of undue harassment or worse. This strays from the industry norm and dealers prefer consistency with other gaming environments. A logical solution is to mandate only the first name on badges.
VDACS prohibits using funds for fraternal activities.
I have a comment about use of proceeds. VDACS bans funds for fraternal activities, which is bad for charities because these groups help members in fun and social ways. VDACS' rule stops them from using poker money for their goal, causing issues with IRS rules. One solution is to not apply this rule to money from poker events.
VDACS creates a limitation on where an organization may host poker games.
VDACS lacks the jurisdiction to establish this regulation. The Code explicitly imposes this restriction concerning bingo and pull tabs while excluding it in relation to poker.
