My comment relates to concurrent tournaments. Where VDACS prohibits concurrent tournaments, it hurts players, dealers, and charities because VDACS is overreaching in limiting play in a way not authorized by statute. It creates an arbitrary limitation on legal poker tournaments, and it feels like an unreasonable limitation without a compelling regulatory need to ensure the integrity of charitable gaming. Why would the regs add a prohibition on concurrent tournaments while the Code permits it? One reasonable fix to VDACS's error would be to strike proposed 11VAC20-30-90.F

My comment pertains to tipping. VDACS’ prohibition negatively impacts dealers, players, and charities because it stops normal poker room compensation, hampering charity poker operations and potentially eliminating play. Tipping is vital for dealers’ income in the poker world. Why do the regulations prevent tipping when the Code permits it? This random restriction demonstrates VDACS’ misunderstanding of the poker industry. A reasonable change is to strike this restriction on tipping.

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.

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).

Thank you,

William