The Issue Whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.005(5)(b) and therefore also Section 849.086(14)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent held a Department-issued cardroom employee occupational license that expired June 30, 2007. After his license expired, Respondent applied for a new cardroom employee occupational license. By letter dated October 22, 2007, the Department advised Respondent that his application had been denied based upon the same alleged wrongdoing with which he had been charged in the instant case. The afternoon of November 15, 2006, Respondent was working as a dealer in the cardroom at the Mardi Gras Racetrack and Gaming Center (Mardi Gras) in Hallandale, Florida. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on that date, Respondent was manning Table #7, one of the "20 regular[2] poker tables"3 in the Mardi Gras cardroom.4 On the table directly in front of Respondent was an "imprest tray" (also known as the "bank").5 To the right of the "imprest tray" was a slide-activated "drop box" used to collect and temporarily store the rake6 (that is, the house's take) for each hand.7 To Respondent's left was a "tip box," which had a "drop slot" through which only one chip at time could be dropped.8 Positioned above the table was a fixed, surveillance camera, which continuously captured and recorded the activities at the table.9 The images caught by the camera could be viewed in real-time on the monitors in the cardroom's surveillance room.10 At 3:06 p.m. the hand being played at Table #7 had just ended. After giving the winner his winnings and gathering the "mucked" (that is, discarded) cards on the table, Respondent, with his right hand, took the five one-dollar chips (representing the "rake") that were on the front "ledge" of the "drop box" and put them on the table in front of the "imprest tray." He then, again with his right hand, took a five-dollar chip from the "imprest tray" and placed it on the front "ledge" of the "drop box" to replace the five one-dollar chips that he had just removed (Removed Chips).11 As Respondent was getting the five-dollar chip from the "imprest tray," the winner of the hand tossed on the table a one-dollar chip as a tip for Respondent (Tip Chip), and it rolled to a stop right next to the Removed Chips. Using his right hand, Respondent moved the Tip Chip away from the Removed Chips. He then picked up the Removed Chips. As he was picking up the Removed Chips with his right hand, Respondent moved his left hand (which had been palm-down on the "mucked" cards he had gathered) to the "imprest tray," where it remained for approximately a second,12 before he placed it, in a semi-clenched position, on the table to the left of the "mucked" cards. As he was moving his left hand away from the "imprest tray," he did not hold it (the hand) palm-up to the camera to show that it was empty. In failing to do so, he violated "one of the rules at Mardi Gras" that dealers are expected to follow. As he was repositioning his left hand, Respondent took the Removed Chips in his right hand and placed them in the "imprest tray." He then, with his now-empty right hand, pulled the "drop box" slide. On his second try, the five-dollar chip on the box's "ledge"(representing the "rake") fell into the box. Respondent next turned his attention to the Tip Chip that was on the table. He picked it up with his right hand, transferred it to his left hand, and then dropped it in the "tip box." Christopher Fisher, the Mardi Gras' dayshift surveillance supervisor, was in the cardroom's surveillance room observing Respondent at the time.13 It appeared to Mr. Fisher that Respondent was depositing two chips in the "tip box."14 Mr. Fisher thereupon reviewed the video recording of the hand that had just concluded to "find out where [Respondent had] got[ten] that second chip from." When he "played it the third time," Mr. Fisher "came to the conclusion that [Respondent] had put his left hand into the bank and took the chip from there." Mr. Fisher immediately contacted his supervisor, Christopher Hock, Mardi Gras' surveillance director. After reviewing the video recording of the incident, Mr. Hock concurred with Mr. Fisher's conclusion that Respondent had taken a chip from the "imprest tray" and dropped it into the "tip box." Respondent was terminated from his dealer position at Mardi Gras for "theft," effective November 15, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 2008.
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, which consist of the repeal of said rules, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s (Respondent), failure to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in chapter 120.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and cardrooms pursuant to section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Each Petitioner currently holds a permit and license under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering and a license under section 849.086 to conduct cardroom operations. Petitioners offer designated player games at their respective cardrooms. The rules proposed for repeal, rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), relate to the play of designated player games. Rule 61D-11.001(17) provides that “‘[d]esignated player’ means the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position.” Rule 61D-11.002(5) provides that: Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ potential wagers shall be governed by the cardroom operator’s house rules. The house rules shall: Establish uniform requirements to be a designated player; Ensure that the dealer button rotates around the table in a clockwise fashion on a hand to hand basis to provide each player desiring to be the designated player an equal opportunity to participate as the designated player; and Not require the designated player to cover all potential wagers. Both rules were adopted on July 21, 2014. Both rules list sections 550.0251(12), and 849.086(4) and (11) as rulemaking authority, and section 849.086 as the law implemented. Designated Player Games A designated player game is a subset of traditional poker games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table, instead of all players competing against each other. The term “designated player game” is used synonymously with “player banked games.”3/ However, a designated player is not a cardroom operator. In traditional “pool” poker games, each player bets into a central pool, with the winning hand(s) among all of the players collecting from the pool of bets, minus the cardroom rake. In designated player games, each player at the table makes an individual bet, and compares their hand against the designated player’s hand. If the player’s hand is better than the designated player’s hand, then the designated player pays the player from the designated player’s stack of chips. If the designated player’s hand is better than the player’s hand, then the designated player collects the player’s wager. At an eight- seat table, it is as though there are seven separate “player versus designated player” games. Designated player games were first played at the Ebro (Washington County Kennel Club) cardroom in 2011. The game, known as “double hand poker,” was demonstrated to Respondent, and subsequently approved for play. Though the internal control that describes the rules of game play was not offered in evidence, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the game used a designated player. After Respondent’s approval of Ebro’s double hand poker, Respondent entered an order rescinding its approval due to concerns that the use of a designated player resulted in the establishment of a banking game. That decision was challenged, and subsequently withdrawn, with the result being that “Ebro may immediately resume play of Double Hand Poker as approved by the division.” In 2012, the Palm Beach Kennel Club cardroom began offering “tree card poker” with a designated player. Although tree card poker had been approved by Respondent, the designated player element had not. Thus, since the game was not being played in accordance with the approved internal control, it was unauthorized. Respondent investigated the playing of tree card poker at Palm Beach Kennel Club. A video demonstration was provided that showed two hands of tree card poker being played with a designated player. The video depicted a single designated player playing his hand against each other player at the table, and paying or collecting wagers based on each individual hand. After having reviewed the demonstration video, Respondent ultimately determined that the use of a designated player did not violate the prohibition against banking games as defined. The Adoption of the Designated Player Rules As requests for approval of internal controls for games using designated players became more common, Respondent determined that it should adopt a rule to establish the parameters under which designated player games would be authorized. On December 16, 2013, after having taken public comment at a series of rulemaking workshops, Respondent published proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) which provided as follows: 61D-11.002 Cardroom Games. * * * Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ wagers shall: Allow for only one designated player during any single hand; Not require the designated player to cover all wagers that could be made by the other players in the game; Not allow other players to cover wagers to achieve winnings that the designated player could have won had he or she covered the same wagers; Not allow or require a player to buy in for a different amount than any other player in the game in order to participate as the designated player; and Rotate a button or other object to designate which player is the designated player. The button or other object shall rotate clockwise around the table to give each player the opportunity to participate as the designated player. On February 14, 2014, a challenge to the proposed rule was filed that objected to restrictions on the manner in which designated player games could be conducted. The rule challenge hearing was continued, and the case placed in abeyance pending negotiations between the parties. On March 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change to the proposed rule 61D-11.002, which added the following provisions to proposed rule 61D-11.002: The designated player shall: Cover the table minimum for each participating player; and Pay each player an amount above the table minimum equal to their pro rata share of the pot in the event the designated player cannot cover all wagers. A public hearing on the changes to the proposed rule was held on May 8, 2014. As to the designated player provisions of the proposed rule, Respondent received the following comment: [I]f we could modify this . . . taking the existing paragraph 5 and come up with three new criteria, one being uniform requirements for a designated player included within the house rules; allowing for the dealer button to rotate on a hand-by-hand basis for qualified designated players; also, not requiring the designated player to cover all potential wagers, but nonetheless allowing the house rules to set a designated minimum buy-in amount or just a chip count. I think if we had those particular parameters, we would allow the preservation of this game to continue in its current fashion . . . . And . . . we’re going to avoid [] any argument that the department has somehow created a banked card game, because the biggest thing here is that we’re not requiring that the designated player meet all the theoretical payouts of the game. On May 19, 2014, written comments were submitted on behalf of several pari-mutuel facilities. Those comments included proposed language that is identical to the rule that was ultimately adopted, and included the following: Multiple jurisdictions have determined a key element to banked card games is the house requiring all wagers be covered. We propose this language to distinguish between lawful games and impermissible banked games. On June 9, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change that adopted the industry’s proposed language, and changed proposed rule 61D-11.002 to its present form. On June 13, 2014, the challenge to proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) was voluntarily dismissed, and the case was closed. On July 21, 2014, rule 61D-11.002(5) became effective. There can be little doubt that Respondent understood that it was, by its adoption of rule 61D-11.002(5), recognizing player banked games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table. The rule is substantial evidence that, as of the date of adoption, Respondent had determined that designated player games did not violate the prohibition against “banking games” as that term is defined in section 849.086. Internal Controls Over the course of several years, beginning generally in 2011 and extending well into 2015, Respondent was presented with internal controls from cardrooms around the state for playing designated player games. Internal controls are required before a particular game may be offered, and describe the rules of the game and the wagering requirements. The internal controls submitted by the Jacksonville Kennel Club; the Daytona Beach Kennel Club; the West Flagler Associates/Magic City Poker Room; and the Naples/Ft. Myers Greyhound Track Cardroom, described games in which designated players played their hand against those of the other players at the table, and paid and collected wagers from the designated player’s chip stack based on the rank of the designated player’s hand against the individual players. The games described did not involve pooled wagers, and clearly described player banked games. Respondent approved the internal controls for each of the four facilities. The process of approving internal controls occasionally included the submission of video demonstrations of the games described in the internal controls for which approval was being sought. Approval of internal controls was never done without the review and assent of Respondent’s legal department or the division director. With regard to the rules of the designated player games that underwent review and approval by Respondent, “all of them are about the same, few differences.” From 2011 through mid-2015, Respondent approved internal controls for playing one-card poker, two-card poker, three-card poker, Florida Hold ‘Em, and Pai Gow poker using designated players at numerous cardroom facilities. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent was aware of the fact that, for at least several facilities, “eligible” designated players were required to meet minimum financial criteria, which ranged from a minimum of $20,000 in chips, up to $100,000 in chips. In the case of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club cardroom, internal controls called for a designated player to submit an application, agree to a background check, and submit a deposit of $100,000. Respondent approved those internal controls. DBPR Training In August 2015, Mr. Taylor was invited by the Bestbet cardroom in Jacksonville4/ to participate in a training session it was offering for its employees. Mr. Taylor is an investigator for Respondent, and visited the pari-mutuel facilities at least once per week. Mr. Taylor was invited by the facility to get an overview of how the cardroom games that had been approved by Respondent, including designated player games, were played. The games that were the subject of the training were substantially similar to those depicted in the April 2012 training video, and those he had observed during his weekly inspections. The designated player games for which training was provided had been approved by Respondent. In September 2015, training in designated player games was provided at Respondent’s Tallahassee offices to several of its employees. Mr. Taylor perceived the training “as an overview to give us an idea of what we are going to see.” Neither Mr. Taylor nor any other participant in the training offered any suggestion that the training was being provided in anticipation of a shift in Respondent’s practice of approving the internal controls for designated player games. Current Rulemaking On September 23, 2014, Respondent published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking. The notice cited 15 of the 30 subsections of chapter 61D-11 as being the subject areas affected by the notice, and provided that “[t]he purpose and effect of the proposed rulemaking will be to address issues discovered in the implementation and practical application of cardroom rules adopted on July 21, 2014.” There is nothing in the notice to suggest that Respondent had modified its position on designated player games, and its continued approval of institutional controls approving such games is strong evidence that it had not. On August 4, 2015, Respondent published a Notice of Meeting/Workshop Hearing for a rule workshop to be held on August 18, 2015. The Notice listed each rule in chapter 61D-11 as the “general subject matter to be considered,” including those related to games of dominos. Respondent asserted that it had “posted a version of amended cardroom rules that included the [repeal of rule 61D-11.005] on its website,” though such was not published, nor did Respondent provide a record citation in support of its assertion. On October 29, 2015, Respondent published its proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11. Rule 61D-11.001(17), which defines the term “designated player” as “the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position,” was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.002(5), as set forth above, which had established the standards for designated player games, was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.005 was proposed for amendment to add subsection (9), which provided that “[p]layer banked games, established by the house, are prohibited.” On December 2, 2015, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. During the public hearing, Mr. Zachem made it clear that the intent of the proposed amendments was to change the Division’s long-standing and consistently applied construction of section 849.086 as allowing designated player games to one of prohibiting designated player games, and in that regard stated that: The rules pertaining to designated player games are now going to be correlated with the statute that is the prohibition against designated player games. The statute does not allow designated player games. There has to be a specific authorization for a type of game in statute, and there is none in 849.086 pertaining to designated player games . . . . When some of these definitions in other areas were created, I don’t think that the concept of what these games could even become was fathomed by the division. Given the process by which internal controls for designated player games were approved by Respondent, including written descriptions and video demonstrations of play, the suggestion that Respondent could not “fathom” the effect of its rules and decisions is not accepted. On December 11, 2015, Petitioners individually filed petitions challenging the validity of the proposed rules. The cases were consolidated and ultimately placed into abeyance pending efforts to resolve the issues in dispute. Agency Action Concurrent with Rulemaking After the December 2015 public hearing, and prior to the adoption of any amendments to chapter 61D-11, Respondent filed a series of administrative complaints against cardrooms offering designated player games. Those administrative complaints were very broadly worded, and reflected Respondent’s newly-developed position that designated player games constituted “a banking game or a game not specifically authorized by Section 849.086, Florida Statutes.” In that regard, Mr. Zachem testified that a cardroom could have been operating in full compliance with its Respondent-approved internal controls and still have been the subject of an administrative complaint.5/ The position of Respondent was made clear by Mr. Zachem’s statement that if a cardroom has an approved designated player game “where a banker is using their table, their dealer, their facility they [the cardroom] are establishing a bank.”6/ Thus, there can be little doubt that Respondent now construes section 849.086 to mean that player banked games constitute prohibited “banking games” because, by allowing the player banked game in its facility, the cardroom “establishes” a bank against which participants play. After the December public hearing, Ms. Helms was instructed that she was to no longer approve internal controls if they included provisions regarding designated players. That blanket instruction came with no conditions. Since that instruction, the internal controls for at least one facility have been disapproved, despite their being “about the same” as internal controls that had been previously approved for other facilities. Ms. Helms testified that after the December 2015 rule hearing, “things kind of turned around” with regard to Respondent’s position on designated player games. She then rethought her selection of words, stating instead that “things changed.” Given the totality of the evidence in this case, Ms. Helms’ statement that the position of Respondent towards designated player games “turned around” is the more accurate descriptor. Notice of Change On January 15, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Change/Withdrawal of proposed rules. Through the issuance of this notice, the Division withdrew proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). The proposed repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5) remained unchanged. Since that notice of change, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has stopped approving internal controls that propose the offering of designated player games, and has continued to take action against facilities that offer designated player games. Respondent’s statements and actions, including those made in the course of this proceeding, demonstrate that Respondent intends the repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), to effectuate the prohibition of designated player games despite the withdrawal of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative When it proposed the subject amendments to rule 61D-11 on October 29, 2014, Respondent had not prepared a statement of estimated regulatory costs. Rather, the notice of proposed rule provided that: The agency has determined that this rule will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the agency. The agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: the economic review conducted by the agency. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. On November 19, 2015, in conjunction with the rulemaking process described above, a number of licensed cardroom operators, including some of the Petitioners, timely submitted a good faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (“LCRA”) to the proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11 that would have the effect of prohibiting designated player games, citing not only the creation of rule 61D-11.005(9), but the repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5). A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the LCRA indicated that the rule was likely to directly or indirectly increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. The LCRA, as described in the letter of transmittal, also concluded that regulatory costs could be reduced by not adopting the proposed rule amendments, thus maintaining Respondent’s previous long-standing interpretation of section 849.086, and thereby accomplishing the statutory objectives. Respondent employed no statisticians or economists, and there was no evidence to suggest that any such persons were retained to review the LCRA. Though Mr. Zachem did not “claim to be an expert in statistics,” he felt qualified to conclude that the LCRA was “a bit of a challenging representation.” Thus, Respondent simply concluded, with no explanation or support, that “the numbers that we received were unreliable.” Respondent did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs or otherwise respond to the LCRA. Respondent argues that its abandonment of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9), which was the more explicit expression of its intent to prohibit designated player games, made the LCRA inapplicable to the rule as it was proposed for amendment after the January 15, 2016, notice of change. That argument is undercut by the fact that Respondent did not amend its statement of estimated regulatory costs as a result of the change in the proposed rule. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that Respondent, by its decision to disapprove internal controls that included designated player games, and its enforcement actions taken against cardrooms offering designated player games, specifically intended the amendments repealing the designated player standards to have the effect of prohibiting designated player games. Thus, despite the elimination of the specific prohibition on designated player games, there was no substantive effect of the change. Therefore, the LCRA remained an accurate expression of Petitioners’ estimated regulatory costs of the proposed rule. Ultimate Findings Respondent has taken the position that the repeal of rule 61D-11.005(9) was undertaken “[f]or clarity with the industry.” That position is simply untenable. Rather, Respondent has taken an activity that it previously found to be legal and authorized and, by repealing the rule and simply being silent on its effect, determined that activity to be prohibited. By so doing, Respondent has left it to “the industry” to decipher the meaning and effect of a statute that is, quite obviously, ambiguous and in need of the interpretive guidance that has been and should be provided by rule. The evidence is conclusive that, by its repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5), Respondent simply changed its mind as to whether playing with a designated player constituted the establishment of a prohibited banking game.7/ It previously determined that such games were lawful under the terms of section 849.086; it has now determined they are not. Though there is substantial evidence to suggest that the reason for the change was related to the renegotiation of the Seminole Compact, the reason is not important. What is important is that Respondent has taken divergent views of the statute in a manner that has substantially affected the interests of Petitioners. For Respondent to suggest that its repeal of the rules is a clarification, a simplification, or a reflection of the unambiguous terms of the statute, and that Petitioners should just tailor their actions to the statute without any interpretive guidance from Respondent, works contrary to the role of government to provide meaningful and understandable standards for the regulation of business in Florida. Respondent cannot, with little more than a wave and well-wishes, expect regulated businesses to expose themselves to liability through their actions under a statute that is open to more than one interpretation, when the agency itself has found it problematic to decipher the statute under which it exercises its regulatory authority.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this matter, the Respondent, Robert L. Seamans, held alcoholic beverage license no. 23-00987, series 4-COP, for the licensed premises located at 11425 S.W. 40th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, known as the Lucky Lady. Respondent, age 64, has held alcoholic beverage licenses in the states of New York or Florida since 1963. Respondent has never been charged or reprimanded for a beverage law violation until these proceedings. At all times material to this case, the Respondent employed a barmaid at the Lucky Lady who was known as "Stella." Also present at the Lucky Lady during relevant time periods was a drifter known to the bar patrons as "Tom". In exchange for food and/or the use of the bar kitchen, Tom assisted the barmaids by carrying out trash, stocking the beer cooler, or filling the ice bins. Although Tom was not an employee at the Lucky Lady, he, like many of the regular patrons, had unrestricted use of the Lucky Lady's kitchen area. Sometime prior to April, 1990, a bar located near the Lucky Lady was closed by the Department following an investigation and a determination that controlled substances were being either sold or possessed on the licensed premises. Respondent was aware of the action taken to close the local bar and was further aware that undesirable persons from that bar might attempt to patronize the Lucky Lady. Respondent had considered joining the Department's Responsible Vendors Program but did not. Respondent's policy was to exclude any customer suspected of improper conduct whether related to drugs or other inappropriate activities. To effect that policy Respondent maintained a "barred" list which listed those individuals either by name or description who were not welcome at the Lucky Lady. Employees were instructed to request any person on the barred list to leave the facility. In the event such person refused, the police were to be summoned. On numerous occasions not described below, patrons of the Lucky Lady have observed Respondent escorting persons from the bar who were suspected of, or were known to have exhibited, improper conduct. Respondent relied on his wife, Tanya, to assist him to monitor the interior areas of the Lucky Lady. It was Mrs. Seamans' custom to remain in the licensed premises throughout the evening hours and to watch for any improper conduct. If she observed anything suspicious, she would either report the activity to her husband or to an employee for further investigation and/or action. Unfortunately, Mrs. Seamans sustained a broken hip on April 29, 1990, and was unable to supervise the licensed premises after that date. The Respondent did not obtain a replacement to perform Mrs. Seaman's monitoring function. During May, 1990, Vincent Weiner, a law enforcement investigator employed by the Department, conducted an undercover narcotics investigation of the Lucky Lady. To effect his purpose, Mr. Weiner assumed the name "Vinnie Capio" and began to patronize the licensed premises. On May 5, 1990, Mr. Weiner and a confidential informant went to the Lucky Lady and asked Stella if cocaine were available. Stella directed the two men to the restroom. Once there, they proceeded to complete the transaction with Tom based upon the price which had been negotiated with Stella ($25.00). On this occasion, in exchange for the $25.00, Mr. Weiner received a clear baggie containing a substance which was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 8, 1990, Mr. Weiner returned to the Lucky Lady and again inquired if cocaine were available for purchase. On this date, Stella went to the kitchen and returned with a packet which was exchanged with Mr. Weiner across the bar counter for $25.00. This packet was later analyzed to be cocaine. At all times when Mr. Weiner was seated at the bar counter, other patrons were also present at the counter during the course of the transactions. Mr. Weiner attempted to make a second purchase of cocaine on May 8, 1990. Similar to the prior transaction of that date, Stella went to the kitchen but returned with a written message for Mr. Weiner which she handed to him (instead of another packet). Tide message stated, "he's OUT he got rid of all of them already." Stella did not identify the "he" noted in the message. On May 15, 1990, Mr. Weiner purchased two packets of cocaine at the Lucky Lady. During the first transaction, Stella advised Mr. Weiner to enter the kitchen where he met Tom. Tom then took a packet from an envelope on the kitchen shelf and exchanged it for $25.00. Later in the evening, Mr. Weiner gave $25.00 to Stella while Tom removed another packet from the envelope and handed it to the investigator. This second exchange also took place in the Lucky Lady kitchen. Both of the packets purchased on this date were later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 18, 1990, the investigator returned to the Lucky Lady and purchased two packets from Stella and Tom. Again, the exchange took place within the kitchen and the amount for these transactions totalled $50.00. The substance obtained on this date was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Weiner was seated at the bar when Stella asked him if he would be needing anything that evening. The investigator placed $25.00 on the bar while Stella went to her purse (located behind the bar counter) and retrieved a packet which she then exchanged for the money. This transaction took place in front of the other patrons seated at the bar. Later in the evening, in the same manner as described above, Mr. Weiner purchased a second packet from Stella. Both of the packets obtained on this date were later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 29, 1990, Stella was again behind the bar at the Lucky Lady. On this date, Mr. Weiner negotiated for one packet (which she obtained from her purse located within the bar area) in exchange for $25.00. This packet was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent was present within the premises at the Lucky Lady during at least one of the transactions described above. There is no evidence that Respondent was personally involved in the exchanges nor that he was aware of the sales. The Respondent does not dispute that the substance purchased by Mr. Weiner on each of the occasions described above was cocaine. During the course of the investigation Mr. Weiner observed video poker games located within the licensed premises. The games were coin operated and required the player to choose a hand for five card draw poker. By discarding any or all of his original hand, the player attempts to, by the chance of the game, receive a winning hand. The game awards points for Winning hands and subtracts points for losing hands. If a player accrues more points than he paid for, he finishes ahead of the machine. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Weiner finished playing the video poker game with a total of 36 points. That total was 16 more than he had originally purchased. Mr. Weiner consulted Stella regarding the results and she wrote his name and the point total on a piece of paper which she then placed near the cash register. On May 23, 1990, Mr. Weiner returned to the Lucky Lady and requested his "mail." He intended to obtain his winnings related to the video game he had played the day before. He received $9.00 which he believed was the amount he was due for accruing the 36 points. No other explanation as to why Mr. Weiner would receive $9.00 from the bar (except in connection with video game results) was suggested by either party. On May 31, 1990, an Emergency Order of Suspension was executed by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That order was served on the Respondent on June 1, 1990, and the licensed premises have been closed since that time. On June 1, 1990, an inspection of the Lucky Lady premises was conducted by agents of the Department. The Respondent had keys to the video poker games described in Paragraphs 16 and 17.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 23-00987, series 4-COP, for the premises located at 11425 S.W. 40th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3447 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. To the extent the drug transactions are outlined in findings paragraphs 7 through 13, the Department's paragraphs 4 through 12 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. To the extent the video poker games are addressed in findings paragraphs 16 and 17, the Department's paragraphs 13-15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. But see also finding paragraphs 3 and 4. Except as addressed in finding paragraph 2, paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant, comment or argument not constituting a factual finding. Paragraph 5 is rejected as recitation of testimony. The video poker games were games of chance in that the machine, of its own design (not a player's choosing) dictated the hand received by the player. Paragraphs 6 through 9 are accepted. It is accepted that Respondent did not personally engage in the illegal sales recounted in the order; otherwise, paragraph 10 is rejected a irrelevant, argument or comment. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry A. Amoon Continental National Bank Building Suite 408 400 Southwest 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33174 John B. Fretwell Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz, d/b/a Flor-Lidita Restaurant, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4636. This license was a 2-COP license which authorized the sale of beer and wine for the premises known as Flor-Lidita Restaurant which is located at 4762 N. W. 183rd Street, Miami, Florida. In July, 1986, the FDLE began an investigation concerning an illegal gambling lottery commonly known as "bolita" which was believed to be operating in connection with the Flor-Lidita Restaurant. The investigation undertaken involved a surveillance of the restaurant together with undercover agents who were used to frequent the restaurant for the purposes of observing activities and placing bets with the restaurant personnel. An individual identified as Rafael Rosquete was determined to be a courier who would enter the restaurant, collect the gambling paraphernalia and returns, and deliver the items to a home located in Broward County. On July 9, 1986, a police officer, Hector Zeno, working undercover in connection with the FDLE, entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant and observed customers writing numbers on bolita slips. Officer Zeno also observed individuals placing bets with the owner, Julio Diaz. In turn, Zeno filled out a bolita slip and placed a $5.00 bet with the owner Julio Diaz. On July 16, 1986, Joyce Dawley and Jacqueline Sirven entered the Flor- Lidita Restaurant and observed customers placing bolita bets with the Respondents, Lida and Julio Diaz. These agents also observed another employee known to them as "Rolando" (later identified as Rolando Nunez) taking bets. Agents Dawley and Sirven placed $5.00 bets with Julio Diaz on this date and received carbon copies of their bolita slips. On July 22, 1986, Zeno returned to the restaurant for the purpose of observing the customers and again placed a $5.00 bet by completing a bolita slip and tendering money to Julio Diaz. During this visit Zeno observed Nunez and Lida Diaz taking money and bolita slips from other customers within the restaurant. On July 23, 1986, Dawley and Sirven returned to the restaurant and again placed two $5.00 bets with Julio Diaz. During this visit the agents observed other individuals inside the licensed premises place bets with Rolando Nunez and Lida Diaz. On July 24, 1986, Dawley and Sirven returned to the Flor-Lidita Restaurant for the purpose of picking up $70.00 in winnings which Agent Dawley was entitled to as a result of the bet she had placed the previous evening. On July 30, 1986, Dawley and Sirven went to the Flor- Lidita Restaurant and again placed two $5.00 bets. This time Lida Diaz took their money and the original bolita slips and gave them carbon copies of their bets. On July 31, 1986, Sirven entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant for the purpose of receiving $70.00 in winnings based on the prior day's bolita bet. On August 6, 1986, Dawley entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, received a bolita pad from Rolando Nunez and placed a $5.00 bet with Nunez in the present of Julio Diaz. On this visit Nunez showed Dawley a ledger which contained a list of dates together with numbers which indicated the winning numbers for the dates in question. On August 11, 1986, Dawley went to the Flor-Lidita Restaurant and observed Lida and Julio Diaz receiving bolita bets from persons within the restaurant. Dawley also observed Rolando Nunez taking bets. Dawley placed a $5.00 bet with Nunez on this date. After receiving a search warrant for the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, special agents of the FDLE entered the licensed premises on August 12, 1986 and searched the restaurant. During the search, agents took possession of various items of gambling paraphernalia which included bolita betting slips, Puerto Rican lottery tickets, blank bolita pads, currency and ledger books. Over $40,000 worth of U.S. currency and gambling paraphernalia was confiscated in connection with the police raid on the restaurant and the house in Broward County. In connection with the search of the licensed premises, Joseph Ogonowski seized an open bottle of scotch whiskey which was behind the counter at the restaurant. The scotch was not listed on the menu as a designated ingredient for any of the food items available for purchase at the restaurant. During the period of surveillance of the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, Rosquete was repeatedly observed by FDLE agents. Rosquete would routinely visit the restaurant, obtain items of gambling paraphernalia including betting slips and U.S. currency, and deliver the proceeds from the restaurant to a residence located in Broward County. The gambling activities conducted on the licensed premises were open, frequent, and included the active participation of the Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking license number 23-4636, series 2-COP, held by Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz, d/b/a Flor-Lidita Restaurant. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4620 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence paragraph 3 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as speculation. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraphs 6-20 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 21, which is rejected as speculation, paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraphs 22-23 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 24 are accepted. The first sentence is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. Paragraphs 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mr. Ogonowski was qualified to and did identify the substance seized as scotch whiskey. Paragraph 5 is accepted but is unnecessary to the determinations reached by this Recommended Order. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial and unsupported by the record in this cause having previously ruled the adjudications inadmissible. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the record in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rene Valdes 1830 N. W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 61D-11.001(8) and (13), 61D-11.002(1), 61D-11.005(2) and (9), and 61D- 11.027(1)(b), (1)(e), (2)(a) and (2)(b), are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner, Calder Race Course, Inc., a Florida Corporation, is a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) pursuant to Chapter 550 and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Dania Jai Alai, a division of The Aragon Group, a Florida Corporation, is a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Division pursuant to Chapter 550, and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. As cardroom operators, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 governs the activities of Petitioners in the operation of their respective cardrooms, pursuant to their cardroom licenses at their pari-mutuel facilities. The challenged rules have the effect of directly regulating the operation of Petitioners' cardrooms. Petitioners are substantially affected by the challenged rules and have standing to bring this rule challenge. A tournament is a series of games. Multi-table tournaments eliminate players until there are only enough remaining players to play at one table before the tournament concludes. Tournaments which consist of nine players at a single table, often referred to as mini-tournaments, are commonly used by Florida Native-American cardrooms as a form of poker tournament play. Pari-mutuel pools, operated by pari-mutuel permitholders and the rules regulating pari-mutuel wagering, currently allow jackpots. Facts based upon the evidence of record History of the Rules The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for administering Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, and regulating the operation of cardrooms in the state. In 1996, the Florida Legislature created Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, authorizing cardrooms to be located at licensed pari-mutuel facilities. § 20, Chap. 96-364, Laws of Florida. In response to this legislation, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 was adopted, governing the operation of cardrooms at pari-mutuel facilities. Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 by Section 4, Chapter 2003-295, Laws of Florida. Of particular significance to this case, the 2003 amendments eliminated a $10.00 limit on winnings and imposed a $2.00 bet limitation, with a maximum of three raises per round of betting. In response to this legislation, the Division began the process of amending Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11. During this rule amendment process, the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) sent two letters to the Division expressing concerns with respect to provisions of the proposed rules regarding the Division's approval of authorized games and lack of criteria for such approval, a requirement for submission of a form, the Division's authority to approve a series of games (tournaments), and the Division's authority to prohibit jackpots. As part of the rule adoption process, the Division responded to these letters and informed JAPC that the Division was filing a Notice of Change regarding certain adjustments to the proposed rules. As part of the rule adoption process, the Division also conducted a rule development workshop on September 16, 2003, and a public hearing on January 7, 2004. The amendments were adopted May 9, 2004. Some of these rules amendments are the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Concerns of the Division Royal Logan is the chief operations officer for the Division. He has held that position for a total of approximately ten years. He was a member of a committee established in the Division as part of the process of amending Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 as a result of the 2003 amendments. According to Mr. Logan, the committee was concerned with several issues including compliance with the legislative intent of strict regulation of gambling, the Division's manpower in regulating cardrooms, and tax reporting concerns relating to auditing. More specifically, the Division was concerned that jackpots and re-buys have the potential of violating the $2.00 bet and raise limitations, the potential opportunity for collusion in single-game tournaments, and pose difficulties for accurate tax reporting. The Division does not have a group of employees specifically devoted to cardrooms. The Division has employees designated as chief inspectors at racetracks. The chief inspector has many duties including monitoring cardrooms to ensure compliance with statutes and rules. Monitoring cardroom compliance comprises no more than 10 to 12 percent of their time, as that person is the primary licensing official at the site. Not all racetracks have chief inspectors. The Game of Poker Poker is a card game using a single deck of 52 cards. Poker consists of a ranking system. The person holding the highest-ranking hand at the end of the game wins the pot. The traditional ranking system consists of the highest-ranking hand to the lowest. Hoyle’s Modern Encyclopedia of Card Games, by Walter B. Gibson, April 1974 Edition, contains an accurate description of the traditional ranking system in poker. Stanley Sludikoff is an expert in the game of poker, the rules of the game, and how poker is played in the United States. Mr. Sludikoff considers Hoyle's not to be the most authoritative book on the game of poker and that it applies primarily to home games as opposed to games played in gamerooms. Hoyle's does not address the subjects of tournaments or jackpots. Because Hoyle's contains an accurate description of the traditional ranking system in poker, the undersigned is not persuaded that the reference to Hoyle's in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.002(1) is inappropriate or arbitrary. In Mr. Sludikoff's opinion, tournaments are appealing because there is a low fixed risk with the potential for higher gain. They allow participants to build up to a higher limit game and potentially win entry into larger tournaments, such as the World Series of Poker. Single table tournaments are common in the United States in both large and small properties. Multi-table tournaments eliminate players until there are only enough remaining players to play at one table before the tournament concludes. Regular (non- tournament) games are played at single tables. According to Mr. Logan, the Division determined that the entry fee for a tournament should be calculated based upon the $2.00, three-raise limitation. The Division determined that "re-buys" are not consistent with the wagering limitations of Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. In Mr. Sludikoff's opinion, when the rules of the tournament allow, a re-buy is available to all players during a specified period of time. The rules are set by the cardroom operators, and each player in a tournament is aware of the ability to re-buy, how much the re-buys cost, and when it may be exercised. Re-buys are not the same thing as re-entering a tournament because participants are not permitted to re-buy unless he or she is a participant in the tournament at the time such re-buy is made available. A participant is not out of a tournament unless he or she is out of chips and there is no re-buy available to such participant. Allowing players to re-buy additional chips is a common practice in poker tournaments. Re-buys are easily recorded as a type of revenue received, thereby not presenting an accounting or auditing problem. Mr. Sludikoff's opinion in this regard persuades the undersigned that the agency's rationale regarding the entry fee and re-buy limitations are not supported by the necessary facts and are arbitrary. Most cardrooms in the United States have jackpots. Florida's statutory limitation of a $2.00 bet and raise limitation is a restrictive form of wagering. Under this limitation, the most that a participant can bet is $8.00 in any round. "Pari-mutuel" is a French term meaning wagering among ourselves, in that the participants are not wagering against the "house." Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, characterizes games authorized pursuant to that section to be "pari-mutuel style" games. Playing a game in a non-banking manner means that the "house", the cardroom operator, does not participate in the game at all and that the game participants are not playing against the house.
The Issue Whether the proposed repeal of Rule 61D-11.027, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the repeal has the effect of creating or implementing a new rule or policy.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Legislature enacted Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, in 1996. The law authorized the establishment of “cardrooms” at licensed pari-mutuel facilities and dictated the parameters by which games may be conducted at such facilities. In essence, the cardrooms conduct games wherein the players compete against one another. The participants do not wager against “the house.” Instead, the house, that is, the pari-mutuel facility, conducts the games in a non-banking manner. This means the house does not have a financial interest in the outcome of the game(s). For purposes of this case, it is determined that the players who win share fractions of the “pot” created by the entry fees paid to participate in the game(s). The Petitioners in this cause are licensed facilities that have operated cardrooms. Each Petitioner holds a pari- mutuel wagering permit and a valid cardroom license. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering Section 849.086, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 by Section 4, Chapter 2003-295, Laws of Florida. The 2003 amendment imposed a $2.00 bet limitation, with a maximum of three raises per round of betting. This change to the statute required the Respondent to revisit the rules governing cardrooms and, more specifically, the concept of poker “tournaments” being conducted at pari-mutuel facilities. To that end, and after extensive rule-making proceedings, the Respondent adopted rules that were incorporated in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11. The Respondent intended for the rules to address concerns regarding the $2.00 bet and raise limitations as well as how “re-buys” might affect or potentially allow a violation of such provisions. A “re-buy” describes when a card player is allowed to purchase more chips from the house during a game(s). Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.027 was adopted on May 9, 2004. It was then challenged by pari-mutuel facilities who alleged the rule encompassed more than the statute authorized. Such challenge (DOAH Case No. 04-2950RX), was granted. The Final Order found that the rule (Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.027(2)(a)) exceeded the Agency’s grant of rulemaking authority, modified the specific law implemented, and was arbitrary. Accordingly, the Final Order (DOAH Case No. 04-2950RX) determined that the rule violated Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Final Order by a Per Curiam decision issued on October 28, 2005. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded with the emergency repeal of the tournament rule in its entirety and issued an advisory letter to all cardroom license holders. The Respondent represented that it cannot reconcile the holding of the court with the explicit language of Section 849.086(8), Florida Statutes (2005). At the hearing, the Respondent represented that additional rulemaking will be necessary. The Respondent does not dispute that tournaments are permissible under the statute. Moreover, the parties agree that prior to the rule, repeal tournaments were conducted using tokens or chips that did not have value. Tournaments were played at licensed cardroom facilities during the period commencing in May 2004 through November 9, 2005. During that time (the period the rule was in effect) counties, cities, and the state received income from the monies remitted by the cardroom facilities. Additionally, the cardrooms employed persons to work the facilities to conduct the various games. After the repeal of the rule, revenues from the cardrooms decreased substantially. Similarly, the cardrooms did not need the number of employees as games were not being conducted. Tournaments at the St. Petersburg Kennel Club have not been conducted since January 17, 2006. From November 2005 through January 17, 2006, the tournaments at the St. Petersburg Kennel Club were conducted using chips or tokens that had “fractional value.” The “fraction” did not correspond to the entry fee charged for the tournament. It is not known whether or not re-buys during the tournaments were allowed. The Respondent issued a Memorandum to Pari-Mutuel General Managers at Cardroom Facilities and Cardroom Managers on January 12, 2006, that provided in part: In light of the recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeals, the Division’s administrative rules regarding tournaments have been repealed on an emergency basis, and are scheduled to be repealed permanently. The Division distributed a memorandum to all cardroom operators regarding Clarification of Cardroom Tournament Rules and Jackpots on November 9, 2005. The Division has also expressed on numerous occasions a serious concern of cardroom operators issuing chips in a fashion that does not represent an even value exchange for money in an attempt to circumvent the $2 bet and three raise limitation outlined in Chapter 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. [Italics in original.] The November 9, 2005, Memorandum referred to in paragraph 14 above provided, in pertinent part: This memorandum is intended to clarify issues regarding the recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeals which affirmed an earlier ruling of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). The DOAH ruling found that various cardroom rules, which were challenged by Dania Jai Alai and Calder Race Course, are invalid. These rules addressed tournaments, jackpots, the Division’s approval of games, and gifts that enable play in an authorized game. As a result of the ruling, today the Division filed emergency rules to ensure that tournaments are played in compliance with the bet limitation of Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. * * * The Final Order that was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals invalidated the Division’s rules regarding entry fees, re-buys and single table tournaments. The judge held that tournament play is authorized by the cardroom statute. Therefore, cardrooms may set their own entry fees and allow re-buys in tournaments and hold single table tournaments. * * * Unauthorized activity, such as conducting wagering on tournaments that does not conform with the wagering restrictions found in Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes, or offering of jackpots or gifts that do not comply with the requirements that cardrooms be operated in strict conformity with the statute as required by Section 849.086(3), Florida Statutes, may result in disciplinary action. The memorandums identified above did not change or modify the Respondent’s position regarding whether tournaments are legal or permitted by the statute. To the contrary, the memorandums merely advised the cardroom facilities that they would be held to the statutory standard regarding wagering and that jackpots and gifts would be prohibited. Prior to the appeal of the rule, the Respondent routinely approved tournaments that were based upon the following scheme: A participant paid a $32 buy-in and paid the house $13 for the fee to conduct the tournament. Then the participant received a number of no-value chips that were used to play a multiple number of games of poker. At the end of the designated time, number of games, or whenever the designated end occurred (on the same day of play), winners were announced based upon the number of chips they held. Participants were “ranked” and awarded cash prizes from the pot of entry fees. The $32 entry fee was a mathematical calculation thought to assure that no participant would violate the statute’s bet and raise limitations. Whether or not the “all in” concept violated the statute was not considered as the chips were deemed to have no value in and of themselves. This “no value” chip was a fiction that the Respondent supported as, in theory, the $32 player buy-in comported with a mathematical calculation that was within the statutory guideline. The payouts were determined based upon the number of participants and were set by percentage with the first place person receiving the largest payout. Additionally, participants under the approved scheme were not allowed re-buys. That assured that all participants started with the same number of chips and had the same “betting” potential. Finally, winners were not paid or could not receive prizes outside the “pot” created by the entry fees. A nominal gift (such as a T-shirt) was not considered a violation. Prizes such as giant television sets or vacations were not acceptable. All winnings were to be paid from the buy-in fees and all buy-in fees were to be returned to the players in winnings.
