After a tense few days following the disclosure of the introduction of a new bill in the Nevada General Assembly, the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB), A. G. Burnett, has issued a statement regarding what that bill would cover.
In an e-mail to Jocelyn Wood of Pokerfuse.com on Wednesday, Burnett cleared up the intent of the bill, known as SB 40, and what it was to be focused upon. “To clarify, this isn’t a poker bill,” Burnett wrote to Wood. “It is solely related to sports betting only. The reason for the ‘future contingent event’ is that our sports books don’t always take strictly sports-related bets. We have allowed them to take non-sports bets in the past and the possibility exists that they might be allowed in the future.” Wood writes that Burnett once again emphasized that SB 40 was “centered on bets occurring in sports books only.”
The controversy arose regarding SB 40, which was introduced at the end of 2014, through discussion by many in the poker community. Earlier this month, gaming lawyer David Gzesh brought the subject of the bill to light in a post on the Two Plus Two forums, surmising that the wording of the bill put the subject of poker staking in jeopardy. In particular, a clause that stated that it was unlawful for anyone “to receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation or reward, or any percentage or share of the money or property played” unless the person was properly licensed by the NGCB, caught the attention of Gzesh.
Under Gzesh’s legal eye (and perhaps because of the ambiguous wording of the proposed bill), this would have encompassed the practice of ‘staking’ in the world of poker. ‘Staking’ is a very popular practice utilized by many in the poker community for a variety of reasons. In some cases, it can allow a player to enter into a tournament that otherwise might be too expensive for them to play; in another situation, it allows for players to limit the variance of playing on the tournament poker circuit; in still another situation, it allows for the “Average Joe” who wins a tournament series with his buddies to get into a major tournament, with all the participants in the hometown tournament getting a cut of what the “Average Joe” takes home.
Burnett’s explanation of SB 40 – and the insistence that it only applies to sports betting – seems to have removed some of the worries of Gzesh and the poker community. In an interview with Dan Cypra from PocketFives, Gzesh stated, “The clarification from Burnett should be sufficient to give assurance to poker players and stakers that it doesn’t cover poker staking with respect to Nevada activities like the World Series of Poker. The outcome is good for this bill…I think Burnett acted promptly to address the problem.”
Even if SB 40 had been used against poker staking, Gzesh concluded that the poker world would have found a way to adapt around the bill (if it became law). “There would have been ways to get the activities licensed or work under an existing licensee to provide staking services,” Gzesh commented to Cypra. “This was not a direct slam against poker staking…it was more of an unintended effect that has been cleared up.”
If SB 40 had been applied against poker tournaments, it could have had a significant impact on the tournament poker circuit. Major events such as the World Series of Poker and other major poker events might have seen a decline in player participation as players, forced to work off their own dime, might have bypassed higher buy-in tournaments simply because they lacked the bankroll to be able to play. It may have also forced the practice further underground as players and stakers alike looked to dodge running afoul of the proposed law. Instead, with the assurances of Chairman Burnett, it appears that the poker staking world is safe and players can move forward with their preparations for what should be a busy 2015 tournament poker schedule in Nevada.
