|
|
|
|
#1
05-12-07, 10:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Good news for you Florida Boys!
Break out your wallets my friends, things are about to get a whole lot more down south in the land of oranges and alligators.
|
|
#3
05-12-07, 06:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The article explains this:
With a $100 "max" buy in for a NL game (in theory - keep reading), this should allow for at least a $1000 tourney buy in. But think about it, just because you are playing in a $100 NL game doesn't mean you couldn't wager $500 or more if you built your stack up to that. I love that this law was clearly written by people who don't understand poker. Actually, the article takes it one step further, questioning if the $100 "required" buy in is a minimum or a maximum. Hello! |
|
#4
05-12-07, 06:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is the bill if someone (ahem - RD) feels like reading through it:
& |
|
#6
05-15-07, 04:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Highlights...
Florida B&Ms may (as of July 1, 2007): So, while this is very poorly worded, I think it will be interpreted to mean (i) limit games with a max bet of $5, (ii) NL cash tables with a max buy-in of $100 (so they'll probably run those as 1/2 games), and (iii) tournaments with a max buy-in of $100. Of course, since the wording is so confusing it could be that we see different interpretations by the various cardrooms... who knows (like a NL cash game of $5/$10 with a minimum buy-in of $100). It will be interesting to follow.
__________________
GO GREEN!!! GO WHITE!!! |
|
#7
05-15-07, 06:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As I see it, a "required buy-in," is the MINIMUM buy in. They should be able to run a $5/$10 NL game with a REQUIRED buy in of $100 and a max buy in of $1000 if they want, for example.
But even if that is interpreted as it's meant to be ($100 max buy in), and even if we overlook the part where people can build their stack from that $100, I still think they should easily be able to run $1000 (10 * the $100 cash game buy in) tourneys. |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
