Sign Up For Card Player's Newsletter And Free Bi-Monthly Online Magazine

BEST DAILY FANTASY SPORTS BONUSES

Poker Training

Newsletter and Magazine

Sign Up

Find Your Local

Card Room

 

Lawmaker Makes Nebraska's First Push For Poker

Libertarian Politican Wants Carve Out For Poker Because It's Skill

Print-icon
 

Tyson Larson, a 28-year-old Libertarian politician in Nebraska, is making a push this year for card rooms in his state. It’s no small task, as Nebraska is currently one of the most unfriendly states in the country with regards to gambling.

According to Larson, his efforts for poker are the first for Nebraska. Larson admitted he’s got a bit of a disadvantage because he “doesn’t have a Gaming Commission to regulate and look after this,” but he hasn’t been dissuaded. His bill was officially introduced late last month.

“I am taking a new approach with how to regulate it,” he said. “It has been a unique exercise to say the very least. We are taking a lot of feedback.”

On his side, however, is that as time goes forward more and more people do seem to be waking up to the fact that poker is a game based primarily on skill and not on chance. Larson’s bill makes specific reference to the fact that it is possible for people to play poker professionally.

Card Player had the chance to speak to Larson to learn about how the bill could change as it moves through (hopefully) the legislative process and what its chances are for this year.

Brian Pempus: What are you trying to accomplish with this proposal?

Tyson Larson: The Nebraska Constitution outlaws games of chance. [In the bill] I’m saying poker is not a game of chance; it is a game of skill. It is therefore constitutional under the Nebraska State Constitution. It is the mechanism in which we will regulate and tax poker, but also boost economic development in the state of Nebraska and hopefully not let our surrounding states bleed us dry from all the gambling revenue.

BP: People leaving to gamble elsewhere has become big problem in Nebraska?

TL: It’s a terrible problem. I think it’s like 90 percent of Nebraska residents live within 75 miles of a casino, but none of them are in Nebraska. It’s a terrible issue. Opponents of gaming talk about the social ills that come with it, but the thing is we have those social ills but we don’t have the economic benefit to go along with them.

BP: With your bill, are you trying to see poker rooms pop up in the state or are you trying to see existing businesses use poker as an amenity?

TL: Well, I think that as the bill continues to move along in the process…what was introduced was a good beginning to the discussion, but before the committee kicks it out onto the floor for the full legislature debate, I think you are going to see a different poker bill. A more comprehensive one. I think it will allow for tournaments and charity games and a lot those things very easily, but at the same time I think the final product will make it so that for any bar that will host cash games it is going to be a serious investment for them. And therefore, they will take it very seriously. I don’t think you will see a poker hall on every corner, or every bar offering it.

BP: When poker players think of the traditional card room they expect it to be open 24 hours. Is that a long ways away in Nebraska?

TL: I don’t think it is. The state law says they will have to stop serving alcohol at 2 a.m. But other than that, I think if the establishment wanted to stay open later than that it would be perfectly fine.

BP: Can you talk a little bit about the tax structure you proposed and do you think it benefits all the parties involved, including the state?

TL: Yeah, I think the tax structure does. We’re going to leave it at 10 percent for tournaments. When it comes to the cash games, we are taking a very serious look at this and if it does move forward to make sure it is acceptable to all parities—the state, the facility hosting the game, as well as the poker player. Because we don’t exist without each other with something of this nature. I think we will work to change the cash games in terms of…right now, I think we will probably leave it at a 5-percent rake with a $5 maximum, but whatever the rake ends up being will be split up evenly between the house and the state. Whatever the state takes, 50 percent will go to property tax relief, the other 24.5 percent will go to the city where the game was held, another 24.5 percent to the county, and [the rest] to a problem gambler’s fund.

BP: Have there been efforts in past years to make poker admissible in Nebraska?

TL: No, there have been efforts to legalize gaming in Nebraska, but this is the first direct attempt to legalize poker individually.

BP: Can you talk about why this issue is important to you?

TL: Yeah, I am very libertarian in general. I support full on gaming, not just poker. But at the same time I understand that the political climate in Nebraska is not ready for full on gaming. The Nebraska legislature isn’t ready for it. It is easy to demonstrate that poker is a game of skill, not chance. The statistics and the math prove that fact. For that reason, I thought this is something we can move forward and make a rational argument about why it should be legalized and taxed.

BP: I know that when some other states first dabbled into poker they set limits on the buy-in; do you plan on doing anything similar in Nebraska?

TL: We are going to do that too in the end, I think. I think that in whatever comes out of committee we are going to put in a $500 max buy-in per day, per establishment [provision].

BP: You mentioned that people often leave Nebraska to visit casinos elsewhere, but do you think that there’s a strong interest among the public for poker rooms specifically?

TL: Yeah, I definitely do. I think there’s actually an appetite for full on gaming, but the legislature doesn’t have it as well. I am getting a lot of great feedback on this bill, that it is common sense. I hope that it does well this year. I think it has a shot. I am not going to straight out say that I am going to get it passed. It does have a decent shot. Would it take a year or two? That’s a possibility. But I think it has a shot this year. If people speak up and let their legislators know that they support it I think we will get it done this year.