California bans pooled pk-6 bets from Oregon

[the written word]

Nice little unregulated hub in Oregon allows the mice to play while the cat's away. The mice managed to pool $61,000 in internet bets to take down a massive pick six score at Hollywood Park and other scores on BC Day. Cal officials finally say enough's enough.


http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1121854171105650.xml&coll=7

[BIG RED]

Sorry, couldn't do it. Help us serve you better. Like to read it though.

[Hosshead]

Sorry, couldn't do it. Help us serve you better. Like to read it though.
Ditto

[Macdiarmadillo]

First off, California banned all pooled P6 bets since the state attorney general said it was illegal just last month. What came before was not illegal.

The hub is run by AmericaTab, the group is their Player's Pool. AmericaTab is not unregulated; if you take the California signal you are required to abide by California law and there are also Oregon laws to deal with. Oregon has not decided anything about the Players Pool yet. All 3 hubs that were once in California have gone to Oregon.

The $61.5K in bets was on Nov. 28 only. Massive P6 score? Check through the old posts and see the "massive" amounts the individual bettors got.

[Turfday]

Maybe hitting a couple of Pick Sixes with advertised pooled money simply brought the legal attention to the scheme?

I wonder if this would have been an issue if they didn't "take down" a couple of those Pick Sixes and just lost their money?

[Macdiarmadillo]

That's probably a factor. Not to forget the winning small syndicates that the DRF has written up -- no complaint about them. So whose bet is this anyway, the little guy's, the small group's, the large amateur pool's, the pro group's?

It also remains to be seen what difference it makes to handle, P6 or overall.

[rrbauer]

FWIW:

Back in the 80's I got a letter-ruling from Hollywood Park and the CHRB auditors that a formally-formed partnership making pooled P6-bets and making the payout distribution via 1065 K-1 form to the partners was legit and that a designated agent for the partnership could "sign" for the payoff where that was required.

I believe that the problem with the "players pool" is the ad-hoc nature of the partnerships and the lack of any documented payout distribution that reconciles the amounts paid to the people receiving the payments and their SSN's.

It's also my sense that there is some political agenda working here that has gotten the Atty Gen Office to state an opinion for the record.