Live poker in California may soon look very different.
On February 9, the California Bureau of Gambling Control (BGC) issued new regulations governing licensed cardrooms across the state. If implemented on April 1 as planned, the rules would:
-
Prohibit blackjack — or any game closely resembling it
-
Require strict, continuous rotation of the player “bank” in certain table games
While these changes may sound technical, industry leaders warn they could dramatically reshape California’s gaming landscape.
A Regulatory Shockwave
According to Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association and owner of Club One Casino in Fresno, the new regulations could impact more than 70% of the games and revenue generated by California cardrooms.
At his own property, blackjack alone accounts for roughly 27% of total revenue. Non-poker table games overall generate between 60% and 70% of business income.
“Without changes, this will be devastating to the California cardroom industry,” Kirkland said.
One of his central objections is procedural: he argues that the BGC does not have the authority to impose such regulations, asserting that responsibility lies with the California Gambling Control Commission.
During the public comment period, more than 1,700 submissions were filed by cardrooms, employees, municipalities, and labor groups. According to Kirkland, none of those concerns were incorporated before the regulations were forwarded to the Office of Administrative Law.
The Financial Fallout
California’s cardroom industry generates approximately $2 billion annually, supports around 20,000 jobs, and contributes roughly $500 million in local taxes.
Some cities depend heavily on that revenue. Hawaiian Gardens, home to The Gardens Casino, reportedly derives 70–80% of its municipal funding from cardroom taxes. Commerce, Bell Gardens, Gardena, Inglewood, Compton, and Emeryville also rely significantly on casino income.
If table game revenue declines sharply, some municipalities could face revenue losses of 60% or more.
At Club One, roughly half of the 51 gaming tables are non-poker offerings. Some properties across the state operate primarily — or exclusively — with table games. For those venues, the impact could be existential.
Reduced revenue typically means reduced staffing, shortened hours, scaled-back amenities, and fewer jobs.
The Political Undercurrent
Kirkland did not hesitate to address what he sees as the driving force behind the regulatory shift.
He claims the changes are politically motivated and tied to tribal gaming interests, alleging significant campaign contributions to California Attorney General Rob Bonta from tribal entities.
“There’s no showing of public harm, no change in law, no new court ruling,” Kirkland said. “This is catering to one particular donor group.”
The suggestion is that tribal casinos — which operate under separate compacts — may benefit competitively if cardrooms lose access to certain table games.
Why Poker Players Should Pay Attention
It may be tempting for poker players to dismiss the issue as a “blackjack problem.” But the ecosystem is interconnected.
If a cardroom loses a substantial portion of its revenue:
-
Staffing levels may shrink
-
Restaurants and amenities could be scaled back
-
Promotions and marketing budgets may tighten
-
Poker room resources could be reduced
Even if poker remains legally unaffected, its environment may not.
There’s also the human element. Thousands of employees — dealers, servers, floor staff, security, cage workers — depend on these businesses for their livelihoods.
What Happens Next?
The California Gaming Association has begun pursuing legal remedies aimed at halting or overturning the regulations.
Even if the new rules take effect, live poker will not disappear from California. The state has weathered major storms before, including the aftermath of the 2006 UIGEA and the 2011 “Black Friday” crackdown on online poker.
But survival and stability are not the same thing.
Should these measures stand, the California poker landscape in 2027 may feel noticeably different from the one players enjoyed entering 2026 — leaner, tighter, and potentially less vibrant.
The coming months will determine whether this is a temporary regulatory battle or the beginning of a fundamental shift in the state’s live gaming ecosystem.
