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.

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 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.

These changes must be made to make poker successful in Virginia.

Dennis