A lively discussion (http://md-discgolf.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2216&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=216) started this morning on the MD boards, and I wanted to bring the core ideas here for some broader input, as I think the ideas deserve some input at the national level.

In brief, some of the MD TDs have been trying different ways of arranging tournament division breaks or fees to see what works and what doesn't work. The Patapsco Punisher last weekend offered only two mens divisions, MPO and MA2. MA2 players could play up to MPO for the MA2 entry free and play trophy only.

The divisions split 39/26 pro/am, with a lot of people playing way above their ratings.

But the discussion that started by looking at that structure, quickly became far more broad and in-depth. In the current disc golf tournament structure, since we are essentially betting our $$$ against one another (we only have limited external sponsorships, and often that goes to perks like food -- which I think it should -- rather than payout), I think it makes sense for people with lower odds to bet lower stakes. It's the way that other betting systems work. You get high relative payout and high risk on the unproven, slow horse at the track -- you get low relative payout, low risk on the proven derby winner.

I think lots more people play up when they can pay down. So I've been thinking about prorating payouts to entice people to play up, based on risk/reward.

Even within divisions, I think costs should be prorated. In the current structure, since I'm rated 966, I'm allowed to play Advanced - and almost certain to cash at or near the top, I think I should have to pay more to play in advanced than to play pro. My odds are probably 90+% of payout in advanced, and probably <20% in pro.

If players between divisions had the option of paying $60 to play in advanced or $40 to play pro, they'd be WAY more likely to play pro. And this is true of all divisions. If players had to pay more for high odds in whatever division they were in, they'd be way more likely to play up.

So even working with the current ratings breaks, maybe we could restructure entry fees somehow... here is a suggested breakdown for an average tournament:

MPO division:
$60 - 990+ rated
$50 - 970-989
$40 - 950-969
$30 - 930-949
$20 - <930

MA1 division:
$60 - 950+
$50 - 935-949
$40 - 920-934
$30 - 900-919
$20 - <900

MA2 division:
$60 - 920-934
$50 - 900-919
$40 - 880-899
$30 - 860-879
$20 - <860

Really, I think with the system above, MPO/MA1 would be sufficient... having the third division is unnecessary except for really large tournaments. If MA2 or MA3 is offered, it should be offered for the experience only. Something like $10-$15/player (or whatever it takes to cover costs), trophy only. Give beginning folks who just want a tourney experience, and cheap costs, a way to compete with very low risk/reward.

Basically, everyone gets about a $20 discount for playing up a division ($40 discount for playing up two divisions). A 925-rated player can pay $60 to play MA2, where they are almost certain to win. $40 to play MA1, where they have a decent chance of cashing, or $20 to play pro where they will get the experience but have virtually zero chance of cashing.

A 955-rated player can play Pro for $40, where they have a slim chance of cashing, or they can play MA1, for $60, where they are almost certain to win a stack of plastic.

I think in working within the current PDGA system, this would be a great incentive to encourage people to play up -- and it would virtually eliminate bagging. It would also mean that money was never a hindrance to people moving up -- they actually save $ by moving up sooner.

The current system, where players go from raking in money (in the form of plastic) for paying less fees is a huge deterrent to moving up a division where they pay more and make nothing. The system discourages people from doing the very thing we want them to do -- move up.

If the system is designed to discourage people from moving up, we should change the entry fee system. And this way, lower rated players have the option of playing wherever they want to -- donating to whatever division they want to -- without paying more money.

Offer two divisions == MPO and MA1, and stagger the entry fees similar to those listed above -- people will self-select based on risk/reward, and I think everyone will win. That would truly create a system where everyone can self-select how much they want to risk and how competitive they want to be. But it allows all players the option to play in a division they know they can win.

The more I think about this idea, the more it makes sense to me to base player costs on chance of reward in each division.

I definitely think that -- as a whole -- the PDGA needs to be looking at ways to address people who are caught in-between all the divisions. Those people who are at the top/bottom of whatever bracket they are in, and who are eventually driven upwards (if they are driven up) by peer pressure instead of moving up out of a desire to play better golf with better golfers.

I can totally understand that for a 940-rated player, they may win a tournament or two in MA1, get called a "bagger" and then be forced up out of peer pressure to a division where they suddenly have to start donating $60/weekend to play, get their butts kicked in round one, and then spend the following rounds trying not to be DFL. It's really disheartening to pay a lot of money to then not have a chance to cash. Or there are some people who really are just 940-rated golfers. Who have pretty much maxed out their game, and don't have lifestyles that allow the time to work on improving (due to family, work, or other obligations).

I know my own improvement has been slow because I generally only get to play -- at most -- once a week. I sometimes go for weeks at a time without picking up a disc. And I know some folks get to play a lot less that that. It's hard to improve much when you don't get to practice.

For people who are never going to get better, I think a tiered buy-in for each division would allow the divisions to be a lot more porous without hard feelings about players who don't "move up" -- If somebody is 955-rated and paying twice as much to play MA1 than someone who's 915, there are going to be a lot less hard feelings when the 955-rated player ends up in the final-9. If the 915-rated player doesn't care about plastic, and wants to play at least one-round with top-tier golfers and test their game, they can play pro for a pittance, contribute to the overall purse, deepen the payout, and they won't be upset when they are on the last card.

I also think that in this economy, every tournament for which it is feasible should have a 1/3-cost "trophy only" option for all players, all divisions, whenever possible. Allow folks to play the sport they love at a competitive level, and keep costs as low as possible in a struggling economy.

I never want money to get in the way of people disc golf. Many of us got into this sport because is was cheap, and got hooked because it was so much fun. I don't see any reason we can't have fun without going broke.

A lively discussion (http://md-discgolf.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2216&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=216) started this morning on the MD boards, and I wanted to bring the core ideas here for some broader input, as I think the ideas deserve some input at the national level.

In brief, some of the MD TDs have been trying different ways of arranging tournament division breaks or fees to see what works and what doesn't work. The Patapsco Punisher last weekend offered only two mens divisions, MPO and MA2. MA2 players could play up to MPO for the MA2 entry free and play trophy only.

The divisions split 39/26 pro/am, with a lot of people playing way above their ratings.

But the discussion that started by looking at that structure, quickly became far more broad and in-depth. In the current disc golf tournament structure, since we are essentially betting our $$$ against one another (we only have limited external sponsorships, and often that goes to perks like food -- which I think it should -- rather than payout), I think it makes sense for people with lower odds to bet lower stakes. It's the way that other betting systems work. You get high relative payout and high risk on the unproven, slow horse at the track -- you get low relative payout, low risk on the proven derby winner.

I think lots more people play up when they can pay down. So I've been thinking about prorating payouts to entice people to play up, based on risk/reward.

Even within divisions, I think costs should be prorated. In the current structure, since I'm rated 966, I'm allowed to play Advanced - and almost certain to cash at or near the top, I think I should have to pay more to play in advanced than to play pro. My odds are probably 90+% of payout in advanced, and probably <20% in pro.

If players between divisions had the option of paying $60 to play in advanced or $40 to play pro, they'd be WAY more likely to play pro. And this is true of all divisions. If players had to pay more for high odds in whatever division they were in, they'd be way more likely to play up.

So even working with the current ratings breaks, maybe we could restructure entry fees somehow... here is a suggested breakdown for an average tournament:

MPO division:
$60 - 990+ rated
$50 - 970-989
$40 - 950-969
$30 - 930-949
$20 - <930

MA1 division:
$60 - 950+
$50 - 935-949
$40 - 920-934
$30 - 900-919
$20 - <900

MA2 division:
$60 - 920-934
$50 - 900-919
$40 - 880-899
$30 - 860-879
$20 - <860

Really, I think with the system above, MPO/MA1 would be sufficient... having the third division is unnecessary except for really large tournaments. If MA2 or MA3 is offered, it should be offered for the experience only. Something like $10-$15/player (or whatever it takes to cover costs), trophy only. Give beginning folks who just want a tourney experience, and cheap costs, a way to compete with very low risk/reward.

Basically, everyone gets about a $20 discount for playing up a division ($40 discount for playing up two divisions). A 925-rated player can pay $60 to play MA2, where they are almost certain to win. $40 to play MA1, where they have a decent chance of cashing, or $20 to play pro where they will get the experience but have virtually zero chance of cashing.

A 955-rated player can play Pro for $40, where they have a slim chance of cashing, or they can play MA1, for $60, where they are almost certain to win a stack of plastic.

I think in working within the current PDGA system, this would be a great incentive to encourage people to play up -- and it would virtually eliminate bagging. It would also mean that money was never a hindrance to people moving up -- they actually save $ by moving up sooner.

The current system, where players go from raking in money (in the form of plastic) for paying less fees is a huge deterrent to moving up a division where they pay more and make nothing. The system discourages people from doing the very thing we want them to do -- move up.

If the system is designed to discourage people from moving up, we should change the entry fee system. And this way, lower rated players have the option of playing wherever they want to -- donating to whatever division they want to -- without paying more money.

Offer two divisions == MPO and MA1, and stagger the entry fees similar to those listed above -- people will self-select based on risk/reward, and I think everyone will win. That would truly create a system where everyone can self-select how much they want to risk and how competitive they want to be. But it allows all players the option to play in a division they know they can win.




Good Stuff! True baggers may stay and pay the price but most will move up for the reduced cost if they think they have a shot. MPO would also double or more in size allowing many cash spots to be claimed by AMs since mmore spots will be payed.

if only the pDGA would follow suit and not charge more membership fees for pros... but that's another discussion.

the trend i've noticed in MD is for players to move up sooner because of larger, deeper paying open fields. 1/3 of the open field at last week's patapsco punisher could have played intermediate but decided to play up for the competition.

great event value, reasonable open entry fees and/or the sliding scale contribute to these players remaining satisfied playing up.

That is an interesting system, and I don't think the PDGA forbids it. All of those price points would be a nightmare to implement unless the whole registration and payout process is being handled on a properly programmed spread sheet.

Bruce, when you did your research on legalities of our current tournament formats, how many states did it appear it was in a grey area (or darker)?

Bruce,

The registration part would be easy - you charge everyone the maximum for their division, then give them back the difference, if there is any, later.

As you said, the division and the PDGA number could be bounced against a ratings database to see what the proper charge would be, in order to calculate the money returned as well as the purse for each division.

------------------------

I, too, wish the the PDGA would charge everyone the same for a renewal. If there are costs that are additional with respect to Pro players, then those costs should be recognized by how the cost is generated. For instance, it has been noted that the costs of the Marshal program come from the additional revenue of the Pro memberships. Instead, the costs should come directly from the tournaments that use the Marshals.

If is costs more for HQ to maintain a Pro membership, or if there are any additional administrative costs association with a pro membership, OK, then charge them more to renew. But, if there are not, then the renewal charges should be the same, and if the additional Pro costs are associated with tournaments, then there should be a pro surcharge at tournaments to cover those additional costs.

If the cost of PDGA support in cash and staff expense towards Pro Worlds was not funded by the difference in Pro versus Am member fees, there would have been less than 100% payout in the past several years. Likewise, the NTs would each have had around $2000 less cash added, No cash prizes for final NT standings and there wouldn't have been a Pro Tour guide printed. Those are some of the items paid with that pro differential in member fees. That's not saying all pros including age protected agree with how that money is spent but it is spent on pro activities.

Chuck,

The WDGC Entry fees should have made up the difference for any payout shortfall for that WDGC. The players who are participating in the WDGC are receiving the benefit of having the added cash and staff expense, so why should they not be the ones paying for it? And the NTs as well? Let the Pro Tour and the NTs generate the revenue necessary for the final NT standings cash prizes and the Pro Tour guide.

I can see some validity to the point that Pro players will benefit more from the promotion of the sport than will Am players, so if the difference between Pro and Am players' renewal fees was going towards activities that were beneficial to the sport as a whole, I could buy into it.

If the added cash to the NTs was going toward publicity, or other _sport_ building activity associated with the NTs, rather than to fattening the purse, I could buy into that too.

But, if the majority of the additional revenue of the pro players' renewal fees are going into increasing the purses at NT and the Pro WDGC, and paying for things like Marshals and Association staff at these events, then I am not on board with that.

You may not be onboard but that's essentially where a large chunk of that differential is going and has been for quite a while.

as long as any schmoe with a pulse can play pro worlds, you guys are fooling yourselves that funding the event directly benefits your average pDGA pro schmoe more than any pampered am.

charging "pros" more for renewal is nothing less than delusional. but hey... it is the pDGA.

let's get back on topic.

Bruce, when you did your research on legalities of our current tournament formats, how many states did it appear it was in a grey area (or darker)?

I never completed a 50 state survey because the PDGA didn't want to know. I looked at maybe 20 states and found a half a dozen that had misdemeanor issues and two that had felony issues. Only one or two were grey. Most were black or white.

If the cost of PDGA support in cash and staff expense towards Pro Worlds was not funded by the difference in Pro versus Am member fees, there would have been less than 100% payout in the past several years. Likewise, the NTs would each have had around $2000 less cash added, No cash prizes for final NT standings and there wouldn't have been a Pro Tour guide printed. Those are some of the items paid with that pro differential in member fees. That's not saying all pros including age protected agree with how that money is spent but it is spent on pro activities.





Sounds like another selling point for having a $1 per entry Worlds donation that would total $125,000.

My post was just for you. Notice that no other posters wanted pros dinged for additional monies going to top pros let alone the amount already gathered for them.

Bruce,
What is the statute of limitations on the annual felonies
I've been committing? Ignorance is no defense, I know.

Paul,
To eliminate the AM-Pro gap, it seems only right for the BoD
to make the membership fee the same, $100 per year,
then the "privilege to play" fee can be raised to $20.

Do you really think it would hurt renewals and attendance?
Wouldn't the increased money make up for the lower numbers?
Grow the budget, not the sport.

Matt,
The $1 per player gong to worlds would require
real accounting and that is just a concept at HQ.

steve timm

Bruce,
What is the statute of limitations on the annual felonies
I've been committing? Ignorance is no defense, I know.


Beats me, but Louisiana is one of the felony states. For something as serious as felonies, you really should talk to a Louisiana lawyer. If you truly want me to brief the Louisina law for you, and are not just mocking me, send me an e-mail. If you are just mocking me, make that clear so I can retaliate. :D

All I remember about Louisiana law is that the misdemeanor of running a payout game is elevated to a felony when a certain number of people are involved in the promotion or execution of the game. Since the PDGA is involved in the promotion of every sanctioned tournament, the PDGA probably exposes itself to felony criminal liability by sanctioning payout tournaments in Louisiana. I have not read Louisiana law on this since whenever it was that I resigned from the PDGA board.

The bottom line is that not every state allows payout games, some states have laws regulating them, and most states have no problem with what we do. Anyone who runs a traditional format disc golf tournament with an entry fee and a payout should familiarize themselves with their state laws regarding payout games.

I usually check the laws in states I travel to for disc golf, mainly out of curiosity, and I know that Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and Kentucky are fine with people paying an entry fee and receiving a payout at a disc golf tournament. But, when I found out that Arizona was a felony state, I forfeited the cost of my round trip airline tickets and resigned from the PDGA.

I don't do felonies. Your lifestyle, values and business opportunities may differ.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/

My next tourney will have no entry fees.

On-line sign-up between 12 noon and 2 pm. Should fill quickly.

My lifestyle and business opportunities are decreasing daily.
Working on keeping the values and freedom intact.

steve

Minnesota law appears to allow disc golf payout structures:

Subd. 3. What are not bets. The following are not bets:
(3) Offers of purses, prizes or premiums to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, endurance, or quality or to the bona fide owners of animals or other property entered in such a contest.

The only question I have Bruce, didn't you say that in some states, the prizes are supposed to be pre-determined and announced in advance to be legal as opposed to calcualting it based on the amounts from entry fees?

i think we're ok in virginia too based on this:
� 18.2-333. Exceptions to article; certain sporting events.

"Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent any contest of speed or skill between men, animals, fowl or vehicles, where participants may receive prizes or different percentages of a purse, stake or premium dependent upon whether they win or lose or dependent upon their position or score at the end of such contest."

My next tourney will have no entry fees.

On-line sign-up between 12 noon and 2 pm. Should fill quickly.

My lifestyle and business opportunities are decreasing daily.
Working on keeping the values and freedom intact.

steve

I can never tell when you are joking. If you follow that link you can get to the gambling laws of your state and see that it becomes a felony when five or more persons are involved, like I said earlier. If you compare your state laws with Illinois or Minnesota, for example, you can see that your state lacks a general exception for competitions of strength, endurance or skill.

You can have an entry fee, have player packs, feed them lunch, give out trophies -- you cross the line in your state when you have a payout. You could run a tournament like the Memorial on the am side. If you have an entry fee, I don't think you can have an ace pool or CTPs, either.

Minnesota law appears to allow disc golf payout structures:

Subd. 3. What are not bets. The following are not bets:
(3) Offers of purses, prizes or premiums to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, endurance, or quality or to the bona fide owners of animals or other property entered in such a contest.

The only question I have Bruce, didn't you say that in some states, the prizes are supposed to be pre-determined and announced in advance to be legal as opposed to calcualting it based on the amounts from entry fees?

Some states have an exception like Minnesota's, but instead of saying, "purses, prizes or premiums" they just refer to a purse. The few decisions I have been able to find defining what a purse is talk about an amount that is declared in advance.

Michigan has an exception like Minnesota's, but then the exception has an exception that makes the exception incomprehensible. Do the players as players "render service directly related to the holding of the contest, race, or game or the bringing about of the event"? I don't know what that means. On top of that "pools" are an exception to the exception in Michigan. Pools have been defined broadly enough to include what we do, especially for the pros. Clearly, what we do for the pros is pooling the entry fees and paying them out based on the outcome of the game.

Bruce, when you did your research on legalities of our current tournament formats, how many states did it appear it was in a grey area (or darker)?

Based on this attorney's survey, http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/ , there are 12 states where a TD definately should make further inquiry. Look at the Dominant Factor Test column. If you don't have a Yes, you should be concerned.

He and I disagree on California, Illinois, Michigan and South Carolina. I would score those Questionable, Yes, Questionable and Questionable, insofar as disc golf is concerned. As to Illinois, his interest is poker, and Illinois is a "No" when it comes to the application of the Dominant Factor Test specifically to poker. I'm fully satisfied it would be a "Yes" as to any game of speed, skill, endurance or strength that is not a traditional gambling game.

This gaming side track was related to the original topic of this thread because of concerns that the more we have an event financial structure that resembles pari-mutuel wagering, where a player pays an entry fee essentially based on their chances to win/cash, the more we may be treading on legal issues more than we may already be doing so in some states. While the concept sounds fine if players are willing to participate, it may be better if the format is just an option available at a local level and not something that would be sanctioned by the org as a blanket option recommended for everyone.

I think the PDGA should be looking into whether it's activities are legal in every state. I for one am going to say i'm just running an event for the pdga and they are the ones taking the rake.

Rich
Not sure your strategy will hold up.
The TD is on the line.

Is payout a felony is some states? Looks like it...

Suggestion: Warning on the TD spreadsheet stating,
"Use of payout tables may be a direct violation of state law."
"Check the laws in your state,"

Note to self:...include legal fees in 2010 budget.

I think the PDGA should be looking into whether it's activities are legal in every state. I for one am going to say I'm just running an event for the pdga and they are the ones taking the rake.

Every state has criminal liability for accomplices or aiders and abettors, as far as I know. It is no defense to murder that you were just killing the guy as a favor to your friend!

If you are a TD, you should check out that list, read your state laws. There are about eight states where what we do is illegal and three where it could be a felony. In most states it is no problem. Not every state allows people to run or play games where people pay an entry fee and winners get money or prizes.

It bothers me that this issue still hasn't been researched and resolved by the PDGA. And by resolved I simply mean that we end up with a list of states and legality statuses.

The legality of our tournament payout structure has been a question mark since at least 1998 when I joined, and it has been an "outed" question with visibility since at least 2004 when Bruce was on the PDGA BoD.

To me, this seems a little more important than DVDs of Worlds, DiscGolfTV, magazines, marshalls, and even ratings.

I'm not a PDGA hater, but let's spend some of that money on this issue that eally matters and put it to bed once and for all. It seems to me it would be better to lose the revenue from the felony states than to have all the assets of the PDGA potentialy seized for aiding such felonies. Not to mention putting good-hearted and well-intentioned disc golf volunteers in those states at risk of legal prosecution.

California is a not a good state for payout games. I would label it questionable.

The penal code, section 337a(6) says that it is a misdemeanor for anyone who, "(6) Lays, makes, offers or accepts any bet or bets, or wager or wagers, upon the result, or purported result, of any trial, or purported trial, or contest, or purported contest, of skill, speed or power of endurance of person or animal, or between persons, animals, or mechanical apparatus."

The penal code does not define bets or wagers, so you have to look to the caselaw. "The noun 'wager' means 'something (as a sum of money) that is risked on an uncertain event.'" Overturf v. California Horse Racing Bd., 86 Cal.App.3d 979, 150 Cal.Rptr. 657 (1978).

If committing misdemeanors may have a bearing on your employment or lifestyle, you should get an opinion from a California lawyer. If you really want to know, just call up your local district attorney's office and see if they will tell you what they think.

It bothers me that this issue still hasn't been researched and resolved by the PDGA. And by resolved I simply mean that we end up with a list of states and legality statuses.

The legality of our tournament payout structure has been a question mark since at least 1998 when I joined, and it has been an "outed" question with visibility since at least 2004 when Bruce was on the PDGA BoD.

To me, this seems a little more important than DVDs of Worlds, DiscGolfTV, magazines, marshalls, and even ratings.

I'm not a PDGA hater, but let's spend some of that money on this issue that eally matters and put it to bed once and for all. It seems to me it would be better to lose the revenue from the felony states than to have all the assets of the PDGA potentialy seized for aiding such felonies. Not to mention putting good-hearted and well-intentioned disc golf volunteers in those states at risk of legal prosecution.



come on rhett- the org is too busy with important issues like policing the message board to deal with a teensy-weensy little problem like promoting a tournament structure that may or may not be against the law- shucks, it's only a potential problem in about 20% of the u.s.

if i were a td in arizona, arkansas, florida, illinois, iowa, louisiana, or maryland i would give serious thought to pulling the plug on my own events. when is that illinois worlds again?? :eek:

...or maryland...



could someone who might have already researched this save me some time and post the legal verbage here? thanks.

It wasn't clear to me when I read through the statute that we have a problem.
I've never considered an entry fee to be a wager. - It's what I pay to participate - most people "betting" on a game are not actually participating/or have influence on the outcome (I am not talking about gaming devices as regards participation)

I've never seen or made book during an event (I assume that means giving odds?)

It could be construed that we are making pools - somehow I can't see anyone actually caring. It's be like sending SWAT teams to break up the local poker games. Aint gonna happen.

Bruce is the resident expert but there is info here (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Maryland/)


i can't necessarily see anyone caring either although parks, etc may frown upon the questionable legality of it- sure seems like making a pool to me. i would imagine it would take someone making a stink about it for it to become an issue but better to know the deal beforehand than have to deal with it at that juncture.

" It's be like sending SWAT teams to break up the local poker games."

that has and does happen. Happened a couple weeks ago. i admit the house was taking a rake, but still, they do take gambling seriously especially in montgomery county. I left brian graham a message and will persue further action by the pdga to at least research the issue and come up with a definitive ruling from each state. I think it would be bad form to wait until a TD has a problem and leave them hanging. In that respect i totally agree with biscoe. I urge everyone to send emails to the pdga asking them to clarify the matter.

I wonder how these people (http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r018/) get away with it

most likely because the payout doesn't come from the entry fees and is set in advance. just guessing though based on very limited reading.

I wonder how these people (http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r018/) get away with it

The PGA payout is strictly the purse donated by the sponsor. All entry fees are donated to the associated charity. That is good enough in almost every state to make it legal. It eliminates any issues with the payout being a pool or the entry fee being a stake, wager or bet. All of the players have a contractual obligation to perform certain services associated with the production of the event, attending specified practice rounds, attending post-round press conferences, etc., which might satisfy the weird Michigan exception. I think the PGA has actually done the work to design a format that is arguably legal everywhere they play, although back when I was looking at what they were doing, I remember having a question about one state.

I'll take a look at Maryland when i get back from lunch.

bruce- do you think a format where all entry fees were donated to a charity and the charity turned around and donated almost all of them back to the purse would fly?

No. The law will always look through sham transactions.

Illinois has a general law that prohibits playing a game for something of value. I'm just reciting from memory here and not reading or paraphrasing the statute. Illinois also has the typical exception for bona fide contests of skill, endurance, strength and speed. So Illinois is not a problem state.

Maryland�s gambling law basically provides that a person shall not

�(1) bet, wager, or gamble;
(2) make or sell a book or pool on the result of a race, contest, or contingency;� Maryland code � 12-102.

The statute does not define betting or wagering or making pools. It also does not invoke an element of chance in its definition of which activities are illegal.

When the statutes don�t define their terms, you have to look to the common law, or judge-made case law, for those definitions. I looked at Maryland common law using a computer research tool, Westlaw, and could not find any common law providing definitions for these terms. A popular encyclopedia on law called Am Jur doesn�t cite any Maryland cases in its section discussing state laws defining bet and wager. It could be that these words never have been defined in Maryland. It could be I did not look effectively.

In some states the statutory or case law definitions of bet or wager are broad enough to cover what we do, putting up something of value with an expectation of a return depending on the outcome of an uncertain event. Other states define betting and wagering more narrowly. Most states� definitions of pools are broad enough to cover what we do for the pros at C-tiers where we just pool their money and give it back to them.

Like I said before, most states are black or white. Maryland is a pale shade of grey with maybe a hint of mauve when the afternoon light hits it just so. I think if I were a Maryland TD I would run am-only tournaments where the value to the players was more in the player packs, CTPs, food and amenities, similar to the Memorial or Am Nationals. I would want it to look less like a gaming pool and more like a golf outing.

As to the pros, well, now that I�ve littered the internet with posts showing what I know about the issue, I couldn�t feign ignorance. Any state that prohibits pools poses a problem for what we do for the pros at most tournaments, unless the state has a definition of pool making that makes a clear exception for what we do.

.. putting up something of value with an expectation of a return depending on the outcome of an uncertain event.



Sorry about changing subject, but some of this reminds me very strongly of the insurance business. Are there sometimes legal similarities between insurance and gambling?

...both certainly seem like they could be run by big vinnie down on the corner...

A lot of states have exceptions in their gambling or gaming statutes for insurance, commodities and stock markets.

A lot of states have exceptions in their gambling or gaming statutes for insurance, commodities and stock markets.



On the bright side, all we need to do is obtain similar exceptions :D

.. putting up something of value with an expectation of a return depending on the outcome of an uncertain event.



Sorry about changing subject, but some of this reminds me very strongly of the insurance business. Are there sometimes legal similarities between insurance and gambling?



In gambling, the financial risk is created by the wager.

In insurance, the risks already exists. The insurance removes the risk.

At least in theory. If you collect on insurance, you're not making a gain. You're replacing lost money or property with money of equal value.

That definition of gambling would apply to every investment, every business owner, paying for college in hopes of better-paying jobs in the future, and many other activities. It's a pretty open definition.

[QUOTE]
.. putting up something of value with an expectation of a return depending on the outcome of an uncertain event.



Sorry about changing subject, but some of this reminds me very strongly of the insurance business. Are there sometimes legal similarities between insurance and gambling?




That definition of gambling would apply to every investment, every business owner, paying for college in hopes of better-paying jobs in the future, and many other activities. It's a pretty open definition.



I'm no lawyer, but maybe you're correct. If you phrase a question, you might obtain an informed legal perspective on your points, though I think the comparisons are stretched rhetorically thin.

I think the question I asked was answered pretty well by the lawyer in the audience who, in fact, confirmed my suspicion and that some states gambling laws (definitions) are written in such a way that they could be applied to the insurance industry (and a couple others). Instead of allowing the laws to be applied to these businesses, special exemptions have been added to protect these businesses from these laws. (see below)


A lot of states have exceptions in their gambling or gaming statutes for insurance, commodities and stock markets.

I wouldn't be surprised, though I suspect such exemptions are clarifications to keep the gambling laws---especially poorly-worded gambling laws---from being applied to activities that the authors did not consider gambling, but feared some court or prosecutor might twist as such.

The idea of the stock market is that people are investing in companies---buying part ownership, not gambling. Though day traders and speculators are pretty much gambling.

The gambling law exemptions that are more applicable to our discussions are things such as church bingo, which is clearly gambling by almost any definition, but which some lawmakers have chosen to allow while prohibiting gambling in general.

Minutes form Spring Summit
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2009-4-30BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

Looks like the payout question was presented.
Some/any direction from HQ is appreciated.
thanks

Have not seen any announcements regarding
candidates for upcoming elections.

steve timm

There will be no progress on this by the PDGA. What kind of progress could there be? An opinion by an attorney? Well, hire another, and get a different one. This is not cut and dried. One attorney will argue one way, another the other way. Most likely, it will never actually be litigated anyway, and if it is, and the PDGA (or a local TD) loses, (many ands) just say "we were not sure and we will stop."

Besides, the threatening letters will come way before before actual enforcement.

The only thing that would prompt the PDGA to deal with this issue would be if a disaffected person were to begin a campaign of reporting illegal tournaments to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Since the PDGA is always nice to everyone, that would never happen. [Yes, my chip is working fine.]

I don't think law enforcement will pursue this issue in the absence of a complaint. But I never thought law enforcement officers would spontaneously enforce Michigan's cursing laws. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/03/us/canoeist-goes-to-court-fighting-for-right-to-curse.html So if you're a TD in California, Arizona, Louisianna, Florida, Michigan and some other states, if you throw the dice, you take your chances.

around my house my wife yeilds the big stick, she was raised as if any swearing is wrong,i was raised with swearing as commonstance. that being said if my words in front of the kids make her unhappy then i;m unhappy. a little self control goes a long way

I finally got a reply from Brian Graham regarding
the legal question of payouts in a D G tourney.

I am not allowed, by the rules of this bored,
to quote Mr. Graham's reply.
Summarizing, the board has decided to not take
any further action in this matter. Hire your own attorney.
Thanks Brian, at least you replied to my
follow up inquiry to my initial question.

I have scoured the minutes of meetings since
the '09 spring summit and see no record of this decision/indecision.

Bruce Brakel, please PM me.

steve timm

Based on this attorney's survey, http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/ , there are 12 states where a TD definately should make further inquiry. Look at the Dominant Factor Test column. If you don't have a Yes, you should be concerned.

He and I disagree on California, Illinois, Michigan and South Carolina. I would score those Questionable, Yes, Questionable and Questionable, insofar as disc golf is concerned. As to Illinois, his interest is poker, and Illinois is a "No" when it comes to the application of the Dominant Factor Test specifically to poker. I'm fully satisfied it would be a "Yes" as to any game of speed, skill, endurance or strength that is not a traditional gambling game.


Iowa doesn't have a dominate factor test listed, but it's law states:


It is lawful for a person to conduct any of the contests specified in subsection 2, and to offer and pay awards to persons winning in those contests whether or not entry fees, participation fees, or other charges are assessed against or collected from the participants, but only if all of the following are complied with:

a. The contest is not held at an amusement concession.

b. No gambling device is used in conjunction with, or incident to the contest.

c. The contest is not conducted in whole or in part on or in any property subject to chapter 297 , relating to schoolhouses and schoolhouse sites, unless the contest and the person conducting the contest has the express written approval of the governing body of that school district.

d. The contest is conducted in a fair and honest manner. A contest shall not be designed or adapted to permit the operator of the contest to prevent a participant from winning or to predetermine who the winner will be, and the object of the contest must be attainable and possible to perform under the rules stated.

2. A contest is not lawful unless it is one of the following contests:

a. Athletic or sporting contests, leagues or tournaments, rodeos, horse shows, golf, bowling, trap or skeet shoots, fly casting, tractor pulling, rifle, pistol, musket, muzzle-loader, pool, darts, archery, and horseshoe contests, leagues, or tournaments.

So no tournaments at schools unless the school board gives you written permission. Otherwise it appears that we're good