Why don't california card rooms allow house banked games?

[arrando]

Anybody know of any logical reason for this? Washington changed to house banked; why can't california? Is it just because the state does not want to regulate the games closely or what?

[irobinson]

I am gussing the NA casinos may have something to do with this.

[WRX]

"The life of the law has been not logic, but experience."--Oliver Wendell Holmes.

The current, extremely complex gambling law regime in California isn't a product of any rational decision-making process. It just grew. For decades, we had small, sleepy card rooms, offering only poker and panguingue, mostly in smaller towns as allowed by local option. Like most states, California banned Nevada-style gambling, i.e. house-banked games. Then some of the card rooms started pushing the envelope on what kinds of games were allowed under the law. Casinos offering most (but not all) of the games found in Nevada came about solely through Indian gaming, initially against the wishes of established law enforcement and political powers.

Don't look for all of this to be sorted out in a rational way during your lifetime.

[Craps Master]

Originally Posted by arrando

Anybody know of any logical reason for this? Washington changed to house banked; why can't california? Is it just because the state does not want to regulate the games closely or what?

It's particularly absurd when you consider there are now agreements in place between card rooms whereby one banks the other's games, and vice versa.