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.

My remark involves 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'd like to comment on the use of proceeds amount. VDACS requires charities to blindly follow 11VAC20-20-110 for its use of proceeds formula, which harms charitable poker. Charities would be unable to host tournaments, failing to raise enough money for expenses and the required use of proceeds. Evaluating a simple tournament budget exposes this formula's incompetence. The remedy is to implement the newly adopted pull tab formula for poker.

I'd like to comment on re-buys. VDACS confounds "rebuys" and "add-ons," causing harm to players, dealers, and charities. "Rebuys" take place once a player's chips are gone, making it nonsensical to limit them before elimination. VDACS adds extra constraints without clear justification, leading to increased compliance costs due to unsuitable regulations. VDACS's published guidelines create confusion, not aligning with the game and industry. A rational remedy is to strike 11VAC20-30-100.H, and if the intent is to restrict tournament length, § 18.2-340.33.16 already stipulates a predetermined end time.

Thanks for all of your help