GOVERNME=
NT
REGULATION OF POKER
by Bob
Ciaffone
&nbs=
p; As the rapid growth rate of legalized gaming
The initial question to be asked is
“Who is going to do the regulating?” The attitude of a
state’s Attorney General’s Office can come pretty close to
abolitionism. The costly legal battles in
I think a state g=
aming
commission is good for poker, provided it is properly constructed. It is
obviously in the interest of our industry to have the image of being free f=
rom
cheating and competently supervised. A state gaming commission is helpful in
achieving both the appearance and the substance of poker being a wholesome
activity.
What should be the
function of such a commission? Here are some areas where the influence of s=
uch
a commission would be beneficial. First, the prevention=
of
cheating. Second, the standardization of certain rules, primarily th=
ose
rules which control who gets the pot. Third, the insuring of proper working conditions for employee=
s.
Let me elaborate on these ideas.
The first line of
defense against cheating is the use of mandatory house procedures that make
cheating much more difficult. People are very mobile these days. If you have
procedures in place that make it hard to cheat, you’re going to chase
most of the cheaters to a place where they will feel less encumbered.
Many of the needed
regulations to prevent cheating involve dealer procedure. Here are examples=
of
a few simple techniques that should be used by all dealers, but are often l=
axly
supervised by management. The cut should be made using one hand only, with a
complete release of the deck by the free hand from the start of the cut to =
the
finish. The free hand should be held in a position where all players are gi=
ven
an unimpeded view of the cut. The deck should be held as level as possible =
at
all times; rolling the deck over when taking in chips or discards is forbid=
den.
The free hand should be kept well away from the deck throughout a deal.
To reduce the lik=
elihood
of collusion between players – or its appearance – certain rules
are helpful. At limit poker, we need to place a restriction on the number of
raises permitted in a betting round. The more raises we allow, the greater =
the
benefit of collusion to whipsaw a player between two raising opponents. I t=
hink
the three-raise limit is the best place to draw the line. Pots should be pl=
ayed
to conclusion, not split by agreement. Having one card in the deck that is =
far
more valuable than any of the others encourages cheating. Use of the joker
(bug) is a firmly entrenched
Which poker rules
should be standardized by state law? We should all be using the same rules
controlling who gets the money at the end of a d=
eal,
specifically the following:
(1)
=
The result of a deal stand unless challenged bef=
ore
the next deal begins. A deal is considered to begin with the first riffle of
the shuffle.
(2)
=
In one-winner games, an odd chip in a pot divided
between tied hands goes to the first hand clockwise from the dealer button =
in a
button game and the high card by suit (S-H-D-C) in a stud game.
(3)
=
In high-low split games, an odd chip in a pot di=
vided
between the high hand and the low hand goes to the high hand.
(4)
=
An odd chip in a split pot is broken down to the
lowest chip denomination used in the betting structure.
These rules shoul=
d be
put forth as standard. This means if a cardroom wants to do anything differ=
ent,
the special rule must be prominently posted. As a practical matter, virtual=
ly
every establishment will prefer to use the standard rules. It is commonplac=
e to
see a player given the wrong amount of money at the conclusion of a deal, a=
nd
the main culprit in this type of error is the use of
A state gaming
commission would be very helpful in protecting dealers and other cardroom
employees against having to breathe secondhand tobacco smoke as a condition=
of
employment. We know enough now about the ill effects on health effected by tobacco to consider the way most casinos
presently fail to look out for their employees to be shockingly irresponsib=
le.
Help!
Most of us look f=
orward
to the day when it is simply illegal to smoke in a casino. Until that
approaching happy day, I recommend four rules:
(1)
=
Require air filtration systems meet certain mini=
mum
standards.
(2) = Ban the smoking of cigars and pipes in casinos.<= o:p>
(3)
=
Make the seats immediately adjacent to the dealer
nonsmoking areas.
(4)
=
Require that any time a new game is spread of th=
e same
type and limit as a game already in progress that one of those games be
designated as nonsmoking.
Any time a state
regulatory agency is set up, there must be prote=
ction
against over-regulation. My observation is this is especially important in =
an
agency controlling the gaming industry. Gaming always gets ushered in amid =
firm
assurances that the Mafia and other evil influences will be kept at bay.
Regulators sometimes equate a mandate for close monitoring against organized
crime and cheating to a mandate to control all sorts of minutiae that have =
no
bearing on the integrity of the game. A classic example is the state of
Here are a couple=
of things that
should not be controlled by
regulation. First, the stakes. Water finds its o=
wn
level, and high-stakes players are actually more often able to afford their
size game than low-stakes players. Second, the seating =
and
blind structure of a game. Should a regulatory commission really care
about the number of players seated at the table, whether there are two blin=
ds
or three, or whether the smallest blind is on the button or in the first se=
at
left of the button? Of course not.
Sensible regulati=
on is
beneficial to poker. We want to be a clean sport. Being held in good standi=
ng,
especially by the non-playing public, is important for the continued future
growth of our game. I feel most poker players realize this, and would welco=
me
regulation from an agency that was supportive in attitude and open to
innovation.