I'd like to discuss concurrent tournaments. VDACS' ban on such events harms players, dealers, and charities as it goes beyond their purview and isn't authorized by statute. This arbitrary restriction on legal poker tournaments seems unreasonable without a significant regulatory need to uphold charitable gaming integrity. Why would regulations prohibit concurrent tournaments when the Code approves them? One logical fix is to eliminate the proposed regulation

Regarding tipping. VDACS’ prohibition damages dealers, players, and charities because it prevents standard poker room compensation, impacting charity poker operations and possibly preventing play. Tipping is crucial for dealers’ earnings in the poker sphere. Why do the regulations disallow tipping when the Code approves it? This arbitrary constraint indicates VDACS is unfamiliar with the poker sector. One reasonable adjustment 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 remark pertains to re-buys. VDACS mistakes "rebuys" for "add-ons," negatively affecting players, dealers, and charities. "Rebuys" happen after a player loses all chips, so limiting them beforehand is illogical. VDACS imposes unnecessary restrictions, increasing administrative and legal costs due to ill-conceived regulations. VDACS's guidelines misalign with the game and industry, causing confusion. A sensible fix is to strike 11VAC20-30-100.H; if limiting tournament duration is the goal, § 18.2-340.33.16 already requires a set end time.

Thank you for listening to my feedback and considering these changes.