Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
 
Board
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Charitable Gaming
 
chapter
Texas Hold’em Poker Tournament Regulations [11 VAC 20 ‑ 30]
Action Promulgation of regulations for Texas Hold’em poker tournaments by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 5/10/2023
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
4/20/23  5:11 pm
Commenter: Marvin Doggett

Poker Regulations
 

I play at Pop's and it's a wonderful place to come and play poker.  I would like to see it survive and prosper.

I'd like to comment on concurrent tournaments. VDACS' ban negatively affects players, dealers, and charities as it exceeds their authority and isn't supported by statute. This unwarranted limitation on legal poker events seems unjustified without a pressing regulatory necessity to protect charitable gaming. Why do the regulations forbid concurrent tournaments while the Code permits them? A sensible fix is to strike proposed 11VAC20-30-90.F.

I’d like to discuss tipping. VDACS’ ban on tipping harms dealers, players, and charities as it disallows standard poker room compensation, hindering charity poker operations and possibly preventing play. Tipping is crucial for dealers’ livelihoods in the poker sector. Why would regulations prohibit tipping when the Code approves it? This arbitrary constraint reveals VDACS’ lack of understanding of the poker domain. One logical fix is to eliminate this tipping restriction.

I want to address the use of proceeds amount. VDACS requires charities to follow 11VAC20-20-110 for its use of proceeds formula, which negatively impacts charitable poker. Charities would be incapable of hosting tournaments, not raising enough funds to meet expenses and the mandated use of proceeds. Assessing a simple tournament budget highlights this formula's inefficiency. A solution is to adopt the recently established pull tab formula for poker.

My comment is about re-buys. VDACS incorrectly equates "rebuys" with "add-ons," adversely impacting players, dealers, and charities. "Rebuys" happen when a player runs out of chips, so it's unreasonable to limit them pre-elimination. VDACS introduces unwarranted restrictions, raising compliance costs due to ill-advised regulations. VDACS's guidelines are inconsistent with the game and industry, leading to confusion. An appropriate fix is to strike 11VAC20-30-100.H, and if the purpose is to control tournament duration, § 18.2-340.33.16 already prescribes a fixed end time.

Thank you,

Marvin

CommentID: 216568