State Gambling Law Summary

Summary Chart

by Chuck Humphrey

Last Updated Sept. 30, 2007

Introduction

The conclusions in the chart below are primarily based on the texts of the state criminal anti-gambling laws and thus are only educated guesses in many cases. There is relatively little decided case law on gambling infractions including the conduct of Texas Holdem poke r. I suppose this is because of the seemingly prevalent legislative (and law enforcement?) view that such crimes are pretty small potatoes. I encourage readers of this website to Contact me with corrections, objections and observations. Before you take any action in reliance on this chart you should get up to date and to the point advice from a local attorney. You can also explore my article Where is Gambling Legal in the US?

The five c-topics covered on a state-by-state basis in the chart are:

Dominant Factor Test Applied: "Chance" is one of the elements generally required to be present in order for a game to violate a state anti-gambling statute. Most states have concluded that where the elements of skill, whatever they may be, predominate over the elements of chance, whatever they may be, in determining outcome, then the "chance" element is lacking and the game involved does not violate that state's anti-gambling law. This question considers whether the state applies this "dominant factor," or predominance, test.
Social Gambling Allowed: The question here is whether playing for money in a purely social context is allowed,. A "social context" usually means that no player or other person, like a bookie or the host of the game, makes or earns anything other than as, and on an equal footing with, a mere player in the contest or game.
Misdemeanor vs. Felony: What constitutes a "misdemeanor" versus a "felony" is not consistent in all states. Some states distinguish on the basis of the place of possible incarceration. That is, possible sentencing to a city or county jail versus sentencing to a state penitentiary defines the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony in some jurisdictions. Most states, however, draw the distinction based on the term of the possible sentence, with a punishment of one year or less being a misdemeanor and a longer possible sentence defining a felony. The latter approach in the used in compiling the chart.
Simple vs. Aggravated: The distinction between "simple" and "aggravated" gambling is also one that varies from state to state. That terminology may not be used in a state's criminal law at all. It may be phrased as mere "gambling" versus "professional gambling." It may come into play only based on second or third violations of a given criminal prohibition. The approach used in compiling the chart is generally based on the presence of professional gambling, which involves those who make money on the contest or game other than as, and on an equal footing with, a mere player.
Express Internet Prohibition: The response to this question goes to whether a state has adopted a specific law criminalizing the offering of U.S.online casinos and/or playing of gambling games offered over the Internet. The fact that a state has not passed a specific law does not make participation in or offering of gambling over the Internet legal under the laws of that state. The question is a complex one and is addressed in several of the articles included on this site.

Click on the State Name to Jump to its Gambling Statutes
State	Dominant Factor Test Applied	Social Gambling Allowed	Penalty for Simple Gambling	Penalty for Aggravated Gambling	Express Internet Prohibition
Alabama	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Alaska	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Arizona	No	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Arkansas	No	No	Petty	Misdemeanor	No
California	Effectively, Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Colorado	Questionable	Yes	Petty	Misdemeanor	No
Connecticut	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Delaware	Questionable	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Dist. of Columbia	Yes	Probably	Felony	Felony	No
Florida	No	$10 Limit (1)	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Georgia	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Hawaii	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Idaho	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Illinois	No	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	Yes
Indiana	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	Yes
Iowa	No	No(2)	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Kansas	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Kentucky	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Louisiana	No	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	Yes
Maine	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
State	Dominant Factor Test Applied	Social Gambling Allowed	Penalty for Simple Gambling	Penalty for Aggravated Gambling	Express Internet Prohibition
Maryland	No	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Massachusetts	Yes	Unclear	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Michigan	Yes	No (3)	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No (4)
Minnesota	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Mississippi	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Missouri	Yes	No	Misdemeanor (5)	Felony	No
Montana	Questionable	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	Yes
Nebraska	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Nevada	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	Yes
New Hampshire	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
New Jersey	Questionable	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No (6)
New Mexico	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
New York	Questionsble	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
North Carolina	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
North Dakota	Yes	Yes (7)	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Ohio	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Oklahoma	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Oregon	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	Yes
Pennsylvania	Yes	Unclear	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Rhode Island	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
South Carolina	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
South Dakota	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	Yes (8)
Tennessee	Questionable	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
State	Dominant Factor Test Applied	Social Gambling Allowed	Penalty for Simple Gambling	Penalty for Aggravated Gambling	Express Internet Prohibition
Texas	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Utah	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Vermont	Questionable	Fine Only	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Virginia	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Washington	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	Yes (9)
West Virginia	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Misdemeanor	No
Wisconsin	Yes	No	Misdemeanor	Felony	Yes
Wyoming	Yes	Yes	Misdemeanor	Felony	No
Footnotes:
(1) Florida authorized licensed card rooms to offer poker limits of $2 per bet, with a limit of 3 raises per betting round, effective July 1, 2003.
(2) Iowa permits social gambling, but only to the the extent that a player may win or lose no more than $50 or other consideration equivalent thereto in all games and activities at any one time during any period of twenty-four consecutive hours or over that entire period. See Iowa Code 99B.12(1)(g)
(3) Michigan has exceptions for Senior citizens homes and state fairs.
(4) In 1999 Michigan adopted SB 562 which added Section 750.145d to the Michigan Compiled laws. That section made it specifically unlawful to use the Internet to violate certain provisions of Michigan's anti-gambling laws (Mich. Complied Statutes 750.301 through 750.306 and 750.311.) In 2000 Michigan adopted Public Act 185 which repealed the references in Section 750.145d to those anti-gambling sections. Thus, Michigan is not a state that has in effect a specific prohibition against using the Internet to make, offer or accept bets over the Internet.
(5) Missouri's felony penalty applies only to a "professional gambler" as defined.
(6) New Jersey Senate Bill 1013 seeks to clarify definition of illegal gambling to address Internet gambling; void credit card debt incurred through illegal gambling; authorize only the State to recover illegal gambling losses and to outlaw online gambling. Also introduced in previous legislative session as S2376. As of July 4, 2005, S1013 has not been reported out of the New Jersey Senate Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee.
(7) North Dakota has a limitation of $25 per individual hand, game or event. Betting over $25 is an infraction and it becomes a misdemeanor when the amount exceeds $500.
(8) South Dakota's prohibition applies to those in the "gambling business."
(9) Prohibition becomes effective June 7, 2006.