An unlikely trade dispute between the U.S. and Antigua over online gaming has turned into a David-and-Goliath battle, proving small nations can wield large digital sticks.

Antigua is better known for sandy beaches than international trade disputes. But next month this tiny Caribbean resort destination could compel the United States to legalize an industry that the Bush administration has been trying to eradicate since the beginning of the president’s first term. Antigua—with a population of just 70,000 and a GDP of under $1 billion—could force the United States to embrace online gambling.

The ruling, which the WTO is expected to begin enforcing next month, could oblige America to overhaul its prohibitive stance on online casinos, not just in relation to Antigua but to a host of others—including the EU, Japan and Australia. That would double the size of the $15 billion-a-year online gaming industry almost overnight, says the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, a pro-gaming consultancy. And since the WTO might allow nations that have been hurt by U.S. gaming laws to flout American intellectual-property law in response, the dispute is already spreading to Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond.

The story dates back to 2003, when Antigua sued the United States at the WTO over America’s prohibition of online casinos, which is the island’s second largest industry, after tourism. The United States allows a number of domestic betting companies, like the horse-racing Web site YouBet.com, to offer online gambling to Americans (these are thrown into the odd basket of legal gaming operations that include Native American-run casinos and riverboat gambling). But foreign firms are prohibited from offering exactly the same type of service to U.S. citizens.

The American government requires foreign sites to block U.S. users by checking the Internet protocol addresses of their computers, a requirement that has been honored mainly in the breach, given that Americans represent some 60 percent of world online-gaming revenue. Last October, President George W. Bush upped the ante by signing a new bill preventing banks and credit-card companies from processing payments by American users of overseas sites. The result: top companies like Gibraltar-based PartyGaming (once worth $8.4 billion) saw the value of their stock sliced in half, and their revenues plunge by 70 percent. The U.S. government has arrested a number of foreign online-gaming execs, charging them with gambling-related offenses. In March, the London-based Web site Sportingbet.com was forced to pay the state of Louisiana $400,000 to settle charges levied against its chairman, Peter Dicks.

But that same month, the WTO decided that the U.S. approach was an illegal form of trade protectionism. The ruling may be enforced as early as next month. “I was laughed at when I first brought the case,” says Mark Mendel, the long-haired, 51-year-old Texas lawyer who represented Antigua. “They totally underestimated me.”

More important, the United States underestimated the remarkable power that even tiny countries wield in today’s digitized global economy. Usually, when trade laws are broken, the WTO allows export sanctions to be imposed on the violating nation. But since Antigua hardly has the muscle to bring any meaningful sanctions against the United States, trade experts expect that the WTO will likely take another approach and allow Antigua to flout intellectual-property law.

If America doesn’t fold on gaming, next year Antiguans could well be selling billions of dollars of legally pirated copies of everything from Microsoft software to Disney movies without paying the copyright owners a penny. “Intellectual property is the perfect sanction item,” says Nao Matsukata, a former senior trade official for the United States. “It gives small countries like Antigua absolute leverage.” The WTO has allowed the use of IP as a stick once before, in the famous EU-Ecuador banana squabble (the threat of it was enough to make the EU cut a deal). But experts expect it will become common policy in the future, and see online gaming as a test case for its effectiveness.

It’s no surprise that lobbyists from Silicon Valley and Hollywood are now storming Capitol Hill, pushing for a deal. Last month the Motion Picture Association of America urged the U.S. trade representative to negotiate with Antigua in order to prevent bootlegging. But the Bush administration is staunchly refusing to bend on virtual gaming. The (surprisingly weak) legal line is that America never intended to include gambling under its WTO obligations, which were signed in the mid-1990s. “It is ludicrous [to assert that] our negotiators would have intentionally turned 40 years of criminal law against this type of gambling on its head,” says U.S. Deputy Trade Representative John Veroneau.

No dice, says the WTO. “The United States has a legal commitment; they can’t just say ‘oops’ and be done with it. What kind of precedent would that set?” asks one WTO insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be quoted discussing an ongoing case.

Ultimately, this leaves the United States with a very weak hand to play. It could continue to deny that the WTO has legislation over its internal gambling laws. But that would undermine the overall credibility of the organization by showing it to be unable to enforce its rulings—and America needs a strong WTO to mediate prickly conflicts with, say, China, over things like Internet censorship and the mass manufacturing of fake designer goods.

Eight other WTO members, including the European Union, Australia and Japan, are now lining up to claim compensation from the United States over online gaming. “The EU is almost licking its chops,” says Antigua’s lawyer Mendel. “In total, this could come to $100 billion in sanctions. ” Giant American bricks-and-mortar casinos like Harrah’s and MGM are making plans to move into the online sector as soon as the U.S. trade stance becomes clear.

They could get a sign as early as this week. Sept. 22 is the first WTO deadline for America to cut a deal with Antigua and the other nations. But one WTO insider predicts that the only announcement on that day will be that the deadline has been extended. “This won’t happen fast; America is going to dig its heels in,” says Sallie James, trade-policy analyst at Washington’s Cato Institute. “But if I had to bet, I would say that by this time next year America will have changed its laws.” And in this case, that means all bets will be on.

Charitable gambling planned for Milford

Texas hold ‘em poker continues to gain popularity across the nation
through televised championship games and on the Internet, and now the
games might be coming to Milford and Brookline.

The
plan for New Hampshire Charitable Gambling (NHCG) to covert 12 out of
the 20 thousand square feet of the former Violette’s IGA grocery store
at Granite Town Plaza in Milford will go before the Milford Planning
Board on Tuesday, Sept. 18.

The proposed River Card Room would
have 25 poker tables and employ 82 people, and Jim Rafferty, president
of New Hampshire Charitable Gambling, says he can raise nearly $350,000
for charities in the first year alone.

And last week, the
Brookline Planning Board allowed Paul Andres, owner of Brookline’s Big
Bear Lodge, to expand operating hours from 11 a.m.-1 a.m., a change
that would allow Andres to lease the top floor to NHCG for the poker
games, according to a site plan application.

Charitable gambling
has been legal in New Hampshire for nearly a decade and in 2006, laws
changed so that charities can hire a professional firm to run the
games, with the New Hampshire Pari-Mutuel Commission overseeing the
process.

State law mandates that gambling organizations place a
$20,000 bond in case they are unable to meet the fundraising
requirements.

Gambling has been a hot topic in Milford since
last winter when Douglas Bianchi, a former Milford selectman and VFW
quartermaster, and VFW steward Arthur Gagnon were arrested for
allegedly operating five video poker machines at the Milford VFW that
illegally paid out winnings.

Bianchi says he doesn’t mind a
company offering gambling, but is troubled that the state allows it and
not video poker machines that pay out winnings.

“It just shows more hypocrisy,” he said.

The
Legislature is hypocritical, he said, because it says gambling will
hurt New Hampshire’s quality of life, but allows the sale of $30
scratch tickets.

Bianchi said the money from his video poker
games went to the town’s Labor Day parade and other causes, and he
doesn’t think that much money from the poker games at the IGA will
actually go to charity.

Rafferty said that is not the case.

“The
pari-mutuel (commission) is the agency responsible for overseeing the
operation to make sure it’s done right. It’s a shame what happened
earlier this year but we plan on working with local charities because
they need funding,” he said.

In June, neighbors of St.
Stanislaus Hall in Nashua quashed his plan to establish gaming in the
residential neighborhood, but Rafferty is confident that it will be
accepted in Milford.

“It’s going to be really good for Milford,” he said.

The old IGA building is owned by Herb and Cheryl Hardman of Milford.

According
to Sarah Marchant, Milford town planner, the Planning Board requires a
change of use because it will need to examine traffic and parking
issues, but she does not think this will be a problem at Granite Town
Plaza.

In contrast to poker games like stud or draw where each
player holds a separate individual hand, hold ‘em is a community card
game where each player may use any combination of the five community
cards and their own two hole cards to make a poker hand.

During
the 2007 World Series of Poker aired on ESPN a man won nearly $8
million, but don’t expect to win millions in Milford. The maximum bet
that can be placed during tournaments would be $250, according to an
NHCG preliminary presentation sent to Marchant.

Rafferty said a very skilled player could win up to $800 over several hours.

Cabinet reporter Daymond Steer contributed to this article.

Alaska’s strict gaming laws put him on a fine line.

Texas Hold ‘em poker may be the parlor game of the decade, but will viewers tune in to watch local players go head to head on the flop, the turn and the river?

Lazy Mountain Television producer Bob Elyard thinks so. Elyard plans to air the first “Alaska Poker Showcase” show on local access Channel 303 at the end of the month.

He said he envisions a weekly 10-table setup in which the winners from each table face off in a televised battle for a chance to win a ticket to the big time: a trip to the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas.

“This is something I’ve been wanting to do all my life in broadcasting,” Elyard said. “To set out and do something beyond the norm is exciting.”

There’s no doubt the show would liven up Lazy Mountain TV’s current lineup of round-the-clock weather updates and televised meetings of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly. But could it be a hit?

Alaska has hosted game show auditions, been a backdrop for a few game show segments and is home to numerous game show contestants. But the state has limited experience with its own game shows.

Back in the days of RATNET, the Rural Alaska Television Network that beamed television shows into 248 Bush villages before shutting down in 1995, there was a local game show called “Ask an Alaskan.” Taped in Bethel, the Alaska fact show aired in the early 1990s. It was described as a cross between “Jeopardy” and “Wheel of Fortune,” and included a Yupik version.

Elyard’s concept is more along the lines of “World Poker Tour” than “Jeopardy.”

Like other televised poker games, Elyard said, the show would have commentary on why which player did what, breakdowns of odds for different moves and that kind of thing. He’s working with some local Texas Hold ‘em experts who will do the commentary, he said.

Elyard said the games won’t be televised live. They’ll be filmed, commentary will be cut in and then they’ll be broadcast on LMTV a few times a week.

Strategically located cameras will show viewers the cards each player is holding, he said. He and his producer, whose name he said he isn’t yet ready to announce, are buying cameras and are in the process of choosing a Valley venue, he said.

Elyard said he might make the show available to other stations. But for now he plans to air it only on Channel 303 on Matanuska Telephone Association’s digital TV lineup. Non-MTA subscribers can catch it online later this year, when Elyard gets the Internet simulcast up and running, he said.

Alaska Poker Association president Wayne McGregor said he hasn’t heard of Elyard’s plan and isn’t involved with the television show. But he’s for anything that’s good for poker, he said.

McGregor’s group began five years ago with fewer than 100 members. Now his membership is close to 800 and shows little sign of slowing down, he said. He’s working to make poker an official charity fundraising event in Alaska, like pull-tabs currently are, he said.

“We have politicians who see the word ‘poker’ related to gambling and see it as political suicide,” McGregor said. “I’ve spent the last five years trying to get away from the stigma of it being a ’smoky, backroom hustler’ type of thing. Look at the demographics. I have everything from college students to 80-year-old grandmothers playing with me. It’s universally popular.”

But Alaska gaming laws are strict and Elyard, like the Alaska Poker Association, may have to walk a fine line to not run afoul of state gambling laws.

The Poker Association has members and $25 yearly dues but anyone can participate in its games, McGregor said. Records of points won and lost are only kept for members, he said. The members with the highest points in each region come to Anchorage for an end-of-season tournament. The key, he said, is that the games are free.

“Anyone can play in our free venues,” McGregor said. “If it’s not free to play, it’s illegal.”

“Free means free,” said Alaska Alcohol Beverage Control Board director Doug Griffin. That means no cover charge, no drink minimum, no food purchase required, he said.

Griffin said three key elements make up illegal gambling. There’s consideration, which could be money paid upfront to play or a bet wagered. Then there’s the payoff, or the prizes players try to get. Finally, there’s the element of chance, which Griffin said is present in any kind of card game. A game can contain two of those things, but not all three.

Pool tournaments and dart games are legal because they’re considered a game of skill, not a game of chance, Griffin said. But with cards, particularly Texas Hold ‘em, part of the allure is the idea that a good player can get a bad hand or a rookie can be dealt good cards and beat a veteran.

“It is the great equalizer,” McGregor said. “At any time, anyone can beat anyone at Texas Hold ‘em. There’s no other sport that does that.”

Griffin’s agency watches closely for gambling where alcohol is served. Griffin said he likes elements of the poker trend, particularly that it encourages people in bars to be social and that it provides entertainment “besides seeing how much alcohol they can consume.” But the game has to be aboveboard or it’ll get shut down. It’s a fairness issue, he said.

Elyard said he thinks he’s got the legal details in hand. Contestants won’t play for money, but for prizes distributed based on points, he said. He’s basing the game off what he’s seen happening around the state.

“I know there have been poker games at various hotels around the state,” he said. “My idea was, well, if they’re having these games, why can’t we just get together and videotape one of them?”

Internet Gambling Deserves a New Chance

The U.S. should heed the wrath of the World Trade Organization by making betting games legal on the Web. Pro or con?

Click here to join the debate!

Pro: It’s Prohibition All Over Again
by Martin Owens, Gaming-Issues Attorney

The passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in October has led Antigua, which had previously sued America in 2003 before the World Trade Organization over the issue of Internet gambling, to seek relief before the world body once more. Chief among Antigua’s claims was that U.S. laws against Internet gambling constituted a trade barrier in violation of trade obligations.

American intransigence on the issue prompted the WTO to clear Antigua to collect $7 billion, and the fallout from this dispute could ultimately cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars, as claims from major trading partners pour in, most notably from the European Union, Japan, India, and Canada. The U.S.’s actions are blatantly unfair, considering that the U.S. ranks as the single biggest instigator of WTO claims against unfair trading practices.

The U.S. stands virtually alone in its uncompromising stance against Internet gambling, a position that is writ large by UIGEA and its actions at the WTO. The attempts to ban Internet gambling are misguided and unproductive, and will do nothing to protect responsible adults.

Far from being deterred by the Internet gambling ban, U.S. consumers are easily doing an end run around it, because their enthusiasm for online gambling has not waned. Regulation, not prohibition, is in the best interest of consumers. A ban does little except steer individuals to unscrupulous online gambling outfits that operate in the shadows of the industry and may well take advantage of the most vulnerable players.

The U.S. Justice Dept. has gone out of its way to undermine legitimate and licensed Internet gaming operators worldwide. Officers and board members of Internet gambling companies vetted and approved for trading on London markets—and underwritten by some of the globe’s most respected financial institutions—have been taken into custody while on U.S. soil. And U.S. authorities have arrested online-payment company executives on specious charges of money laundering.

It remains too early to tell how much this untenable war against Internet gaming will cost the U.S. in trade flows, innovation, and moral authority. But it is perfectly clear that it is time for America to stop pretending that the rule of law is a one-way street.

Con: This Vice Deserves No Encouragement
by Guy C. Clark, National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

The U.S. government’s obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO.

Gambling addiction rises predictably with proximity of games and speed of play. Nothing is more proximate than a personal computer, and nothing works faster. Plus, the Internet adds the deadly element of anonymity. The neighbors won’t spot you at the virtual casino. Solid citizens with no previous criminal record commit outrageous crimes when addicted to gambling.

The rate of divorce, spousal and child abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, bankruptcy, and suicide rises disproportionately high with gambling addiction. The WTO ruling claims foreign interests should have access to all American homes, because some states allow people to bet on horse races via the Internet. That makes as much sense as allowing foreign heroin and cocaine producers to offer drugs over the Internet simply because some pharmacies sell codeine cough syrup. Considering the implications for the U.S., this is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff.

This is not a “conservative moral issue.” Disdain for Internet gambling crosses all party lines and interests. Opposition comes from everywhere from the NFL to the Mormon Church. From Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Americans oppose gambling because it functions as a drain on the economy and the society.

Offshore opportunists claim that the U.S. can’t control Internet gambling, so it should regulate and tax it. If it can’t be controlled, then how could it be responsibly regulated or taxed? States already have a difficult enough time regulating gambling at casinos and racetracks. Internet gambling would prove much more difficult to monitor than brick-and-mortar casinos. Gaming proponents claim legalization will decrease illegal gambling, though no jurisdiction has ever proved that. To the contrary, the mob loves legalized gambling. It trains customers.

And Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) can quit comparing this to Prohibition. Even with the UIEGA, he can still fleece his fellow Congressmen face to face. We just don’t want him and his offshore card sharks trolling for suckers in our living rooms.

Click here to add your voice to the debate!

Association legal team demonstrates our case for standing and potential harm to our members through bad law

Today, in accordance with the deadline set by Judge Mary L. Cooper, iMEGA’s legal team filed its brief with the US District Court in New Jersey (Trenton division), in response to a US Dept. of Justice motion to dismiss our complaint against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

The defendants (US DoJ, Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve) contend that iMEGA does not have requisite standing to bring a complaint versus UIGEA, and, given that the rules and regulations for the new law have not yet been created, that the law is “unripe” for this kind of challenge.

In the response brief, iMEGA’s attorneys provided ample precedent for both our standing as a trade association acting on the behalf of our members, and for the potential jeopardy of prosecution the new law puts some of our members in. They contend that it is not necessary to wait for one of our members to be prosecuted before the law may be scrutinized by the courts.

The brief also highlights the heretofore unexamined jeopardy that affiliate marketers who live and operate in the US may be in due to UIGEA.

Next up: the defendants have until Sept. 21 to respond to iMEGA’s request of the Court for a temporary restraining order, preventing UIGEA from being enforced before our complaint can be properly heard by Judge Cooper.

iMEGA (09/11/07)

Congressman says support growing, measure may live

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on Tuesday acknowledged his bill to overturn an Internet gambling ban has stalled, but he said pressure from foreign countries could revive the legislation.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, conducted a hearing on the bill in June but no further action is planned this year.

“It’s not dead. It’s not very active,” Frank said. “It depends on whether or not there’s support. I don’t think there’s support for it yet. It’s growing.”

Frank said it is up to gamblers to push efforts to overturn the ban, but then quickly corrected himself.

“I take it back. If the EU (European Union) gets into this WTO (World Trade Organization) thing, that’s a lot more pressure,” he said.

Frank was referring to a ruling in March by a WTO judicial panel that the United States is violating international trade law by prohibiting Americans from gambling on Web sites based in the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda.

The U.S. Trade Representative responded in May by exempting U.S. gambling from international trade regulations.

“There an interesting hypocrisy here about the WTO obligations. They are sacred for a lot of things, but apparently not for gambling,” Frank said.

So far, Frank’s bill — which would require the U.S. Department of Treasury to regulate online gambling Web sites — has 36 co-sponsors.

There are 64 co-sponsors for a bill by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., which calls for a one-year study of the Internet gambling industry by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

But Berkley’s bill has not been scheduled for a hearing, and she said she does not expect one this year.

Berkley said she is waiting on Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to introduce his own version of a bill to study Internet gambling.

In 2002, Conyers introduced the first Internet gambling study bill and tried again the next year, but neither measure advanced.

“He can replace mine with his,” Berkley said.

Although Congress is running out of time this year, Berkley said she is confident there will be action on Internet gambling legislation in 2008.

tIf the House passes an Internet gambling study bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would be open to moving the legislation through the Senate, Berkley said.

“I know Senator Reid is favorably inclined to let the study bill pass the Senate even though he is not as enthusiastic about Internet gaming as I am,” Berkley said.

In addition to the bills by Frank and Berkley on Internet gambling, there are two other pending measures.

• Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., has proposed exempting poker and other “skill games” from an Internet gambling ban. Wexler’s bill has 13 co-sponsors.

• Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has proposed taxing Internet gambling companies if they are licensed and regulated in the United States. McDermott’s bill has one co-sponsor.

Mark Mendel, the attorney who is representing Antigua and Barbuda in its dispute with the United States, said there should be a ruling in November on the amount of damages the United States must pay.

“I feel confident that what we will get will be a massive number — one of the two or three largest WTO rewards ever,” said Mendel in a phone interview from Ireland.

The amount could range from more than $1 billion to $3.4 billion, Mendel said.

“One of the frustrating things about our case is that everyone seemed to pretend the United States doesn’t have to comply (with WTO guidelines),” Mendel said.

Instead of damages, Mendel has said Antigua and Barbuda would prefer an agreement with the United States which would allow Americans to use the island’s gambling Web sites.

Mendel said he would welcome legislation calling for a study of the $13 billion Internet gambling industry. He said Antigua and Barbuda could serve as a pilot project for the study.

“If a true test is given, we feel strongly that we could prove Internet gambling in Antigua and Barbuda is a safe and respectable business,” Mendel said.

The Division of Criminal Investigation arrested a former employee of the Isle of Capri-Bettendorf for Gaming and Betting, Keeping a Gambling House and Possession of Controlled Substance. Nine additional people were charged with Gaming and Betting and one person was charged with Interference With Official Acts Monday, September 10, 2007, in an undercover police sting that was conducted by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation.

The nine month sting operation ended Monday when the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation with the assistance of Bettendorf Police Department Officers seized $6,212.47 in cash, a poker table and various amounts of poker chips and decks of playing cards.

Former Isle of Capri-Bettendorf poker room dealer Tammy Louann Proulx [Proo], 38, was having illegal poker games at her residence in Bettendorf, Iowa. Proulx was issued police citations for Gaming and Betting, a Class D Felony, Keeping a Gambling House, a Serious Misdemeanor and one charge of Possession of Controlled Substance, a Serious Misdemeanor. The nine people that were issued police citations for Gaming and Betting, an Aggravated Misdemeanor and the one person that was issued a police citation for Interference With Official Acts, a Serious Misdemeanor, were cited and released.

The investigation is pending and additional people may be charged.

A poker champion cited on a misdemeanor gambling charge in a weekend raid on a clandestine casino said Tuesday that the police could have been more useful battling serious crime elsewhere.

Maciek “Michael” Gracz, 26, a World Series of Poker winner from Raleigh, said it was a waste of tax dollars for more than a dozen officers to spend about eight hours at the scene Saturday night and early Sunday.

“They could go catch sexual predators or something that has a real impact on society,” he said. “If they had gotten two guys to come there, they could have asked us to leave the premises and we would have left.

“It is illegal in North Carolina, I understand that. In every state, whether it’s legal or not, people are playing poker.”

Gracz said it’s silly that he can’t play poker in North Carolina when he can travel just a few hours and play legally elsewhere. Gracz won $1.5 million during a cruise at the PartyPoker.com Million Tournament in 2005. He also writes poker tips on CBS (nyse: CBS – news – people ) Sportsline.com and his own Web site.

Officials said the operation was sophisticated. The plain, one-story building off N.C. Highway 242 near Benson was surrounded by a fence, had pro-style gaming tables and a kitchen and food staff. Agents seized about $70,000 in cash.

“This wasn’t a basement card game,” said Pat Forbis, a supervisory agent of the state Division of Alcohol Law Enforcement, describing it as “a small version of a Las Vegas or Atlantic City casino. It was all top-of-the-line stuff.”

Forbis said 60 people were charged with engaging in a game of chance, or gambling, and 11 were charged with operating a game of chance.

“The point is it is illegal,” he said. “The analogy is if you catch someone smoking marijuana they say why aren’t you trying to get a coke or heroin dealer. The law is the law and it’s not up to ALE to systematically chose the laws we enforce.”

Gracz said he believes poker isn’t a game of chance but “is a game of skill over a long period of time.”

He cited the case of William E. “Billy” Baxter, whose appeal against the IRS resulted in the 1986 Nevada federal court ruling that his earnings should be taxed as earned income instead of higher-bracket unearned income.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Bruce Thompson of Reno, Nev., said Baxter used “extraordinary poker skills” to earn $1.25 million from 1978 to 1981.

It’s different in North Carolina, where the state Court of Appeals ruled in May that poker is a game of chance. The ruling came in the case of a man who wanted to open a poker club in Durham.

“Although skills such as knowledge of human psychology, bluffing, and the ability to calculate and analyze odds make it more likely for skilled players to defeat novices, novices may yet prevail with a simple run of luck,” the appeals opinion said. “No amount of skill can change a deuce into an ace.”

If a card-room expansion bill making its way through the Legislature is successful, the owners of American Canyon’s Napa Valley Casino say they want to be dealt in.

Senate Bill 152, which cleared the Assembly this week and heads to the Senate for a final vote, would make it easier to add tables at small card rooms.

The proposed law would allow smaller businesses now limited to 12 tables by local ordinances to expand by 45 percent if the local government approves.

Brian Altizer, one of three owners of the Napa Valley Casino, said Friday they would seek an expansion from the current 12-table maximum to 17 tables if the bill passes.

Their plan also would call for the construction of an 8,000- to 10,000-square-foot addition to provide space for a restaurant, small bar and new employees. The current work force is 50 people.

The move would help the card room withstand the pressure from rapidly expanding Indian casinos like Cache Creek, Altizer said.

“It would allow us to not completely compete with them, but it would help keep the Indian casinos from just crushing the smaller card rooms,” Altizer said.

“We would request that the city look at it and see how it could help the business be more competitive, help the community and create more jobs in American Canyon.”

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, said he introduced SB 152 to accommodate the growing popularity of Texas Hold’em poker.

The card game is featured on many televised poker tournaments and has motivated a growing number of gamblers to try their hand at local card rooms.

Anti-gambling groups have condemned the proposed law, saying more tables create a greater temptation for gambling addicts. Florez countered that the legislation is a reasonable way to provide room for larger poker crowds without creating a major expansion of gambling venues.

A 1995 state law prohibits new card rooms and limits expansion at existing ones. The moratorium has been extended several times and is now set to expire in 2015.

Smaller card room owners have chafed at the restriction, saying their costs keep spiraling upward but ways to create more revenue are limited.

Altizer and his partners Von Huang and Keith Miller bought the Napa Valley Casino in 2006.

Altizer said the popularity of Texas Hold’em and an extra five tables would enable the casino to host larger tournaments of 100 to 150 players at once.

“It becomes much more of an event,” Altizer said. “It helps not only bring people into the casino, it also gives us more legitimacy.”

American Canyon City Council members have differing views on the possibility of expanded gambling at Napa Valley Casino.

Although the casino moved to a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week operating schedule when the new owners took over, Councilwoman Cindy Coffey said the new management has been exemplary.

She noted that the business is well-lit, the customers are happy, many amenities are provided and there is always a security guard in the parking lot.

Coffey added that the Napa Valley Casino’s owners have been strongly “engaged with the community.” The business donates to all the youth sports activities in American Canyon and actively raises money for a number of worthy organizations and causes.

“There hasn’t been any crime associated with that place at all,” Coffey said. “They run a great business and I wouldn’t have a problem with bringing forward any kind of expansion opportunity.”

Councilman Don Callison said he’s not opposed to more tables, but would be against a physical expansion of the casino, which sits along bustling Broadway/Highway 29.

“I have no problem with card rooms, but as you try to build a commercial corridor, I’m not sure a card room is the best representation of the city to be right there on the highway,” Callison said. “If we could find them a better location, I would probably be more in favor of it.”

Councilman Ed West said he would have to study the legislation more closely before forming an opinion.

“My initial response is to be cautious on it,” West said. “I wouldn’t say no but would have to look at the surrounding area and decide if it is appropriate and can handle the additional traffic.

“So, it’s a definite maybe.”