The ol Justice of the peace Lee who kept challenging the AG to "get him" has been "gotten", lets see if this creates any type of a precedent.  Curious to see what the actual charge turns out to be or if they plead out to something else... that will again leave the legality of the rooms up in the air.
Again


From AZcentral
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Former-justice-of-peace-2-others-indicted-for-Surprise-gaming-operation-101574638.html

Ex-justice of peace, 2 others indicted for running illegal gambling operation in Surprise

SURPRISE, Ariz. -- Luck's run out for three men accused of running an illegal gambling operation in the Valley.

Indictments were handed down in connection with what was going on at Ace High Card Room and Social Club at 127th Avenue and Bell Road in Surprise.

The operators are accused of taking bets as well as running card games.

The Arizona Department of Gaming says shops such as these can generate hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars.

Harold Smith Lee Jr., of Tempe, Michael Orlando, of Sun City West, and an unnamed defendant have been indicted on charges of one count of conspiracy, one count of conduct of operating an illegal enterprise, two counts of promotion of gambling, one count of benefiting from gambling, and one count of betting and wagering.

The Tombstone-based International Card and Game Players Association operated by Lee was also indicted.

Lee, who is an ex-justice of the peace in northeast Phoenix, is alleged to have provided advice regarding the setup and operation of Ace High, which was run by Orlando and the unnamed defendant.

In exchange for this assistance, Lee and ICGPA allegedly received a portion of Ace High's revenue.

"Arizona statutes are clear as to when and where gambling should be allowed in our state," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard. "I will enforce the will of the people and prosecute illegal gambling wherever it occurs."

The defendants are scheduled to be arraigned in Maricopa County Superior Court on Sept. 7.

The thing I don't like about them is the middle image or writing is so large and white that the denomination of the chips are harder to tell the difference between to someone walking by.  I haven't played in a tourney with them yet, but this is what I noticed when I looked at them from afar.

Meant to post this last week...CAZ was using a new set of tournament chips that they got in.
they are identical to the "live action" chips in terms of material/size/weight, they fell exactly the same.

One side has the "House of Cards" with the large spade image and the other has the denomination in large numbers.

Very nice chips overall !

green ($25) chips can be better described as "key lime" and don't resemble live chips at all, the blacks( $100) and purple ($500) and the yellow($1000..same as $3 in live) are identical in color to the live action chips except of the edge markings which are a single white mark on the tourney chips.

ill try to remember to get a photo of them if i can.

I would interpret what was posted to answer yes, that once action i s complete for the round and UTG checks  "in the dark" that is considered "in turn"even if the card isnt out yet ( hence "in the dark") because in fact UTG is the next player to indicate an action.
If the second to act said "check in the dark" prior to the card coming out, that action wouldnt be in tuen because the UTG hadnt acted yet ( in the dark or otherwise).

I have seen this...only three players remain after flop action which is now complete..
dealer start s to rap table right before burning....
UTG  "I check dark"
second to act, "well then i check dark to !"
third to act "i check dark also !"

the dealer burns and brings the turn card...
dealer announces "three players" "check, check, check"
burns and turns the river card

all binding actions in my opinion because they all acted in turn...

Now that I think about it, checking dark usually slows down the game.

Player A bet flop and Player B calls.  Player B announced 'check dark'.

Turn is dealt.  Player B stares and Player A and Player A in his headphones stares at Player B.  

After 5-10 seconds the dealer will confirm a dark check and pass the action onto Player A.

Player A will then take off his headphones and ask "what happened"

Another 5-10 seconds pass before Player A realizes it is his action and then does whatever he was going to do.


It seems that almost all checks are with a visible hand motion EXCEPT for dark checks, which is what adds a lot to the confusion.

There was mention on another forum that he wasn't followed home from the casino or anything like that.  I know nothing other than he was a very nice guy.

Is it in turn when action is complete but the new card is not out yet and first to act declares "check in the dark"?  Meaning the dealer can just say check for the first to act player once the new card is out rather than ask?

There are some players (a large number actually) who check if out of position to the aggressor 100% of their hands.  Also there are players who check 100% of their holdings when first to act if there was no aggressor on the prior street just because they are out of position.  I always chuckle a little when these 100% check players announce "check dark".  Thank you master of the obvious. 

Players who dark check to gain relative position are just fooling themselves.  You usually already have good relative position if you are first to act no dark check required.  Also these guys usually fall in the 100% check "Master of the Obvious" category anyway so enjoy your dark check Mr. Clever Guy.  No one saw that coming.

The only time a dark check is interesting is when its done by the aggressor of the prior round or done by someone who leads into an aggressor (or just leads out in general) from time to time.  To me that just limits their play.  They lose that play right out of their playbook.  If you are the type of player to make a leading bet with certain holdings you are (as Pope said) handcuffing yourself to just checking when you the check dark.  Now if you had the lead out play in your playbook why abandon it?  Did you suddenly have an epiphany reevaluate your whole game in an instant and turn into a 100% check guy?  Hell no.  You just handcuffed yourself.

Unfortunately I cannot read well a player's hand who sometimes leads but now dark checks.  I can't narrow down whether they have the types of hands they would lead with or check with.  It gets even worse if I don't hear them say "check dark" and the dealer doesn't announce it.  Now I'm not aware the player is in the dark so I limit his holdings to the types of hands he will check-fold, check-call or check-raise with.  This isn't too terribly bad.  Usually there is no card in the deck that will come that will give them the type of hand they will lead with that's why they chose to check dark.  But sometimes I can get surprised at showdown when I'm not aware of the dark check and they do have a lead out type hand. 

I feel the dealer helps me out more if he were to announce a dark check of another player just in case I didn't hear that player say it originally.  That way if the dark player isn't  one of those 100% check guys I can be aware that he may be holding any lead out, check-call, check-fold, or check-raise type hands and not just the check type hands.

It's good to know that dealers don't or shouldn't announce "check dark".  In the future I will pay more attention to players that are first to act.

There has been a lot of talk around the room of the death( suspected murder) of one of the high limit players named Assos. 
Heard he was found dead in his home a day or so ago.  there was talk that he was stabbed multiple times
Anyone know any details?

I can see 'em now.  "Oh $#!+... that's what that knob does!"