How Does Native American (Tribal) Gaming Work?

June 4th, 2021
Back How Does Native American (Tribal) Gaming Work?

Why do some U.S. States have Native American (Tribal) Casinos while others don’t?

Why do some Native American casinos have Table Games and others don’t?

Are there differences in the slot machines between some tribes and others, as well as differences between Native American and Commercial Casino slots?

Do states oversee the Tribal Casinos?

For this editorial, we are going to answer these questions, and more, as we look at the basics of Tribal Gaming in the United States!

This question has recently come up on Wizard of Vegas, but I was also asked this in person the other day as a friend of mine wondered why some states (he was referring to North Carolina) have Tribal Casinos and others don’t.

Let’s get started and take this down one question at a time!

Why do some U.S. States have Native American (Tribal) Casinos while others don’t?

why_do_some_u_s_states_have_native_american_(tribal)_casinos_while_others_don’tThere are a few answers to this, but the first way to eliminate a few states is by taking out those states that do not have Federally-recognized tribes, which are Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire' New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

That’s not to say that there were never any Native Americans in those states (except Hawaii as Hawaii was its own country prior to becoming a state), but these Tribes do not have any Federally-recognized reservations in those states.

One thing that you’ll also notice is that about half of these states have legalized and regulated Commercial Casino gambvling whereas about half do not. 

That leaves 34 of the 50 states with Federally-recognized tribes, of which, 31 either have, or will have, Native American casinos in one capacity or the other, which are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Virginia will be the newest state to get Native American casinos because there was a public vote in November of 2020 in which four Virginia cities voted to authorize legalized and regulated Commercial Casinos. 

As we will discuss later, if casinos (or even specific casino games) are legalized within a state, then the Native American Tribes must also be permitted to have them. In states that do not have Commercial Casinos, certain games are permitted to be conducted by Tribes (with or without a compact with the state) and some state compacts regulate what tribes may or may not offer.

In the case of Virginia, there were no Native American casinos, but when a state legalizes casino gambling, then it has no choice but to allow the Tribes to have casinos on their lands, with or without a compact.

Despite its size, Texas only has one real Tribal Casino that offers anything besides physical Bingo, and even though the Federal Government has consistently ruled against states trying to stamp out Class II Gaming, Texas is fighting tooth and nail to try to shut the tribe down.

The majority of the states above have Native American casinos such that the offerings are substantially similar to those of Commercial Casinos. The tribes must be permitted to do this in those states that have regulated Commercial Casinos, which include California (sort of, California has card rooms), Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota (Kind of, the horse tracks are allowed to have poker and table games, but not slots), Mississippi, Montana, Oregon (kind of, they have card rooms) and soon to be Virginia. 

Beyond Class II Electronic Bingo, physical Bingo and Pull Tabs, the other tribes must operate by way of compact with the individual states to offer additional games and/or, “Vegas-style,” Class III slot machines. Perhaps some of the more well-known Native American casinos are located in states such as Connecticut (Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun), Florida (Seminole Hard Rock) and Oklahoma (WinStar). Tribal casinos in Michigan are pretty sizeable, but the Native American casinos operating by compact in other states tend to be fairly modest affairs similar in size to a locals/regional Commercial Casino and sometimes smaller. 

States with Federally-recognized Tribes, and yet, no Native American casinos include Rhode Island, South Carolina and Utah. 

Rhode Island might just be too small to justify a Naitve American casino to compete with the two Twin Rivers Commercial Casino properties. Even if the tribe(s) did open one, it would face not only competition within the state, but also stiff regional competition as many of the states surrounding the smallest state (by land area) in the country have Commercial Casinos.

South Carolina and Utah are two states that do not regulate or make legal any form of Commercial gambling on their lands. There are riverboat casinos that depart from South Carolina, but they have to sail so far out as to not be within any state’s jurisdiction.

Other than the fact that it has a state lottery, South Carolina is perhaps one of the most consistent states to be staunchly against the expansion of gambling. Personally, I was quite surprised when they were one of the first states to embrace Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) as they will certainly be one of the last states do get Commercial Casinos, assuming they ever do. 

Utah is just Utah, one of only two states (the other is Hawaii) with no legal form of gambling whatsoever. While they couldn’t stop the tribes from having certain forms of Class I and Class II gambling, the state would do everything in their power to make it difficult for them. 

Another thing that would be a strike against limited Native American casinos in Utah is that it is landlocked by several bordering states---all of which have either Commercial Casinos or Tribal Casinos that could be assumed to offer more than the State of Utah would ever allow, by compact. While they might find themselves going to Heaven, the State of Utah is Hell if you’re a lover of all things gambling. 

So, why do some Native American casinos have more offerings than others? Why do some operate alongside Commercial Casinos and others don’t? Let’s dive into this:

Why do some Native American casinos have Table Games (and other games) and others don’t?

why_do_some_native_american_casinos_have_table_games_(and_other_games)_and_others_don’tThe first thing that we need to establish is that Native American Tribal Casinos are allowed to have anything that a state Commercial Casino does IF there is a Commercial Casino in the state in question. Therefore, if you go to our list above, that will tell you which states have both Commercial Casinos co-existing with Tribal Casinos.

Secondly, if the state has legalized a particular form of gambling, then the Tribal Casinos are authorized to have it whether or not that state actually has any casinos. In other words, if a given state declares that Craps is a legal game, then Tribal Casinos must be permitted to offer Craps.

Even if a state hasn’t legalized it for its own Commercial Casinos, that doesn’t mean that a Tribe can’t offer it if there is an Amendment to the compact, as reported by our own Maja Djordjevic.

Some Tribal Casinos even have sports betting now, and Santa Ana Star was the first!

As far back as 2012, there was some question as to whether or not the State of Connecticut would negotiate with the Mohegan Tribe to allow for online gambling, as reported by Feelin’ Froggy here.

While it didn’t happen, recent years have seen other states expand their gambling offerings to include commercialized and regulated online gambling and Connecticut has finally decided to allow Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun join the fray as of May of it’s just a matter of time while the details get hammered out.

The far limits of this were tested by the Northern Arapaho Tribe, so if you’re interested in the case, I would recommend using Google and searching, “Northern Arapaho Tribe v. State of Wyoming.”

This case is actually kind of hilarious in that the Northern Arapaho Tribe was able to offer whatever the hell it wanted to in its casinos, basically on a technicality!

Basically, the Northern Arapaho wanted to get every game of every possible kind (effectively) as a part of its compact, but Wyoming said no on the grounds that the state only offers certain games on a Commercial or Charitable basis. The Northern Arapaho tribe argued that, while that may be true, other forms of gambling are legal, (as social gambling in the state is virtually without restriction) and therefore, Wyoming must negotiate a compact that allows all forms of gambling. Here is a quote from the case:

The Tribe disagreed, claiming that Wyoming was required to negotiate regarding all games listed in the Tribe's proposed compact because state law permitted a nearly unlimited variety of gaming, including “any game, wager or transaction,” albeit only for social or non-profit purposes.  Wyo. Stat. § 6-7-101(a)(iii)(E).   Over one hundred eighty days passed without a gaming compact, prompting the Tribe to file suit seeking a declaration that Wyoming had failed to negotiate in good faith in violation of the IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(i).   In addition, the Tribe requested the court to order the state to enter into a tribal-state compact within sixty days.  Id. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii).   In the alternative, the Tribe sought an injunction to prevent the state from interfering with the Tribe's alleged right to conduct or regulate class III gaming on Indian lands within Wyoming.

The question then became whether or not the provision that would allow tribes to have anything the state has applies only to Commercial Gambling offerings, or does it apply to all gambling offerings that are legal within the state, regardless of whether or not they are commercial?

Initially, the State of Wyoming won:

The district court partially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Tribe, holding that the state's refusal to bargain on calcutta or parimutuel wagering, other than in strict conformity with state law restrictions that do not apply to tribes under the IGRA, constituted a failure to negotiate in good faith.   The court further held, however, that the state was not required to negotiate regarding “casino-style” games or “gaming machines,” notwithstanding Wyoming's permissiveness in allowing casino-style gambling for social purposes.   The court ordered the parties to enter into a compact within sixty days with regard to calcutta and parimutuel betting.

Basically, the court decided that the state had to negotiate with the Northern Arapaho to the extent of calcutta and pari-mutuel wagering. Bingo and Class II machines (electronic bingo) would be presumptively permitted, anyway...much to Texas’ chagrin.

Where Wyoming won was that the district court (the first to hear the case) concluded that Wyoming was not required to negotiate with the Tribe to the extent of casino-style gaming, or machines, due to the fact that these were not offered commercially. The Northern Arapaho would go on to appeal this decision to the Tenth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, which is where the quotes above are from.

Relevantly, the United States Tenth Circuit noted that other states have followed what is known as a game-specific approach, as you can find in this quote:

The “Florida” analysis or “game-specific” approach requires courts to review whether state law permits the specific game at issue.   See, e.g., Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 842 F.Supp. 1268, 1278 (D.Idaho 1994) (citing Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 1993 WL 475999 (S.D.Fla. Sept.22, 1993)).   If the state allows a particular game for any purpose, it must negotiate with the tribe over that specific game.  Id. at 1279-80.   Similarly, if the state entirely prohibits a particular game, the state is not required to negotiate with the Tribe as to that game, even if the state permits other games in the same category.  Id. Under this approach, the state's permissive treatment as to one type of Class III game does not mean that the state must negotiate with tribes as to all Class III games.   At least two circuits follow the “game-specific” approach.   See Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir.1994);  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 3 F.3d 273, 278-79 (8th Cir.1993).

In other words, in the event that a specific game is illegal within the state, (or a category of games that would include a specific game) then the state is under no obligation to negotiate with the Tribes to permit that game(s) within the compact. The crux of this issue, for the State of Wyoming, is that the state doesn’t actually make any specific game illegal. Provided it is for social or non-profit purposes, no game is illegal within the state!

The decision of the lower court would be partially reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings on the grounds that the State of Wyoming made no attempt whatsoever to negotiate the question of casino-style gambling with the Northern Arapaho, much less did they negotiate in, “Good Faith,” as quoted here:

The Tribe alleged and the state conceded that Wyoming only negotiated regarding “raffles, bingo, pull tabs, calcuttas, and parimutuel wagering” and only to the extent state law permits such activities.   When a state refuses to negotiate beyond state law limitations concerning a game that it permits, the state cannot be said to have negotiated in good faith under the IGRA given the plain language of the statute.   Moreover, “when a state wholly fails to negotiate,” as Wyoming did here concerning casino-style gambling, “it obviously cannot meet its burden of proof to show that it negotiated in good faith.”  Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 913 F.2d at 1032.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.   Appellee's motion to file a supplemental appendix is granted.

This case would first go back to the lower court, then get appealed to the Federal District Court AGAIN and the Northern Arapaho would go on to prevail, once and for all, in 2005.

Unfortunately, that is going to be the most unique case that we will see as the majority of other states (that do not have legalized Commercial Gambling) prohibit most casino-style games, to one extent or the other, so we don’t have any other situations where prolonged court cases were had that involved the fact that social casino-style gambling is legal within the state.

What Usually Decides Tribal Compacts?

what_usually_decides_tribal_compactsThe very act that enabled Native American casinos to operate universally (provided there is a Federally-recognized tribe that owns land) is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which can be found here.

We are going to be citing from this document a good bit!

The first relevant passage comes from Section 2701 “Findings” Item #5, which states:

Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity.

Simply put, that passage simply means that, if it’s a legal form of gambling in the State, then the tribes must be permitted to offer it. Typically, this would apply to states with Commercial Casinos, which is why we see so many states with both Native American and state legalized and regulated Commercial Casinos.

Wyoming was a rare exception (as we detailed above) in which this had to be interpreted through the lens of no forms of social gambling being illegal because Wyoming did not have any Commercial Casinos and had no desire to allow the Northern Arapaho to have full-scale casinos. As we pointed out, Wyoming ultimately would lose that fight in court.

With that, the time has come to differentiate between the different, “Classes,” of gambling. The Regulatory Act states as follows:

(a) Jurisdiction over class I and class II gaming activity

(1) Class I gaming on Indian lands is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes and shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.

(2) Any class II gaming on Indian lands shall continue to be within the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes, but shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter.

To be clear, Class I gambling is essentially NEVER relevant to casino-goers. Class I gambling simply refers to traditional forms of gambling that are held entirely within the tribes themselves and are usually for prizes of minimal value. It essentially doesn’t even really apply to Tribal Casinos.

Class II gambling refers to Bingo and what is sometimes known as, “Electronic Bingo.” Electronic Bingo Class II games essentially look and operate like slots/video poker/video keno machines, but they are not operated by EPROM chips on internal random-number generators.

The way that Class II, “Slot,” machines generally work is that there is a pool of prizes that has been pre-determined by a central computer. Certain Tribal Compacts get into this pretty specifically, such as one between the Sauk Suiattle Tribe and the State of Washington, which can be found here.

The State of Washington refers to what some other states call, “Electronic Bingo,” (Class II slot machines) as, “Tribal Lottery,” so just know that means Class II machines when you see that.

Let’s start with the first two parts in the appropriate Appendix (Page 88 of the pdf) that dictate how the machines are supposed to work:

3.I. I The Tribal Lottery System game known as the Electronic Scratch Tickete

Game consists ofa finite number of Electronic Scratch Tickets, a certain number of which, if

drawn. entitle a player to prize awards at various levels. The scratch tickets are designed from a

template in confonnity with this Appendix and are created in Game Sets on a Manufacturing

Computer from which Scratch Tickets are randomly selected and placed into Scratch Ticket

Subsets. Each Game Set has a predetermined number of winners and values and is designed so as to assure players ofan at least 75% payback of the amounts paid in the aggregate for all tickets in . - the Set. As a Game Set's tickets are placed into Subsets, the pool of tickets available from that Game Set for placement into Subsets diminishes, until each ticket in the Game Set has been placed into a Subset.

3.1.2 Scratch Ticket Subsets are transmitted to the Central Computer, where they are stored until dispensed electronically on demand to Player Terminals. Scratch Tickets are electronically dispensed from the Central Computer in the order within each Subset in which the tickets were received. Players compete against each other to draw winning tickets. As Subsets are used they are replaced by additional Subsets which have been created. and delivered to the Central Computer in the same manner, until the Game Set has been depleted, ending that particular game. Different games based on different Gatne Sets may be offered simultaneously through the Central Computer. 

(There are misspellings, even though this is an official document!)

It starts with a, “Manufacturing Computer,” which generates what this calls, “Game Sets,” from which it creates, “Sub Sets,” and the overall game set is guaranteed to return a minimum of 75% in terms of return-to-player. That might sound extremely low, but actually, the State of Nevada only has a mandatory minimum return of 75% on electronic device games, so this is in keeping with what the state best known for gambling demands. As a practical matter, the majority of (if not all) games will return more than 75%.

In other words, the slots are kind of predetermined, but at the same time, not. The Game Sets and subsets are transmitted to the Player Terminals (read: the machines themselves) and the results are released in the same order that they appeared in the subset. It’s true that the results have ceased to be random, at that point, but the central computer randomly generated the result sets, and as a practical matter, the player does not know what is going to happen in advance.

When it says, “Different games based on different game sets may be offered,” that is just a complicated way of saying that the machines are permitted to have multiple games (such as video keno and video poker on the same machine) and different machines are permitted to have different bet amounts available which, by necessity, would pull from different sets of results.

How does a player get results?

3.1.6 After the player purchases an Electronic Scratch Ticket it is dispensed to

the Player Terminal. The outcome associated with that ticket is shown on the Player Terminal

only after the player touches the screen or performs some other physical interaction with the

terminal to cause the outcome to be revealed. . Any prizes won are displayed on the Player

Terminal and may be in the form of Game Play Credits, the right to receive merchandise, or other valuable property.

Simply put, the screen (at least, ideally) will display the result that would equate to the amount that the player actually won. For instance, if three sevens on a single-line machine would be a $100 win, and the player’s, ‘Electronic Ticket,’ was a $100 winner, then the machine should show three sevens on the payline. This is the same thing regardless of whether or not it is a single-line game, or something more complicated, such as a game with Free Games.

Here are the rules in the compact that govern the way that subsets are distributed:

3.2.4 Subset Requirements. Each Electronic Scratch Ticket Game Subset shall meet the following minimum requirements: a. Within a given Game Set, each Subset shall be the same size and comprised of no less than 5,000, and no more than 10,000 Electronic Scratch Tickets, provided that in order to complete the distribution of all tickets in a Game Set, the final Subset derived from the Set may have less than the number of tickets in any other Subset and be less than 5,000; b. Each Subset shall be individually and uniquely identified by the Game Set serial number and a unique serial number for each Subset assigned in the order in which the Subsets are created; c. Scratch Tickets shall be dispensed from two or more Subsets of a . given Game Set which have been securely stored in the Central Computer and which Subsets are rotated on a fixed and sequential, and not random basis; d. Scratch Tickets shall be dispensed from a Subset in the order in that Subset in which they were held in the Central Computer; and e. Once an Electronic Scratch Ticket has been dispensed to a ?layer Terminal from a Subset, it cannot be dispensed again.

Okay, this is actually much simpler than it sounds. Every subset in a game (if more than one) must contain somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 results and the total number of results reflects the game set. Of course, one subset is permitted to have fewer than 5,000 results, but only one and only if it is needed to complete a game set. The results must be released in the order that they appeared in the subset which, of course, is to try to prevent rigging the machines.

3.2.5 ·completion of Game. A Scratch Ticket Game is deemed to be completed only when all of the Electronic Scratch Tickets in a Game Set have been dispensed or the Game Set has been taken out of play. If any game set is withdrawn from play before completion ofthegame, the Tribe shall ensure that at least 75% ofthe revenues received from sales of Electronic Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe - State of Washington Page8 Appendix X Scratch Tickets in that game have been, or in future Electronic Scratch Ticket Games will be, awarded to players. 

In the event that a game is not popular, the tribe can get rid of it provided that, of the spins taken, at least 75% has been paid back to players. If that has failed to happen, then the difference must be given back to the players elsewhere as added prizes.

This is all pretty simple and one easy way to do it would be to have the Central Computer have access to the actual game’s EPROM and just play a certain number of spins of that game. For instance, if the game is Quick Hits Platinum, just have the Central Computer play 50,000 (or whatever number) spins of Quick Hits Platinum and, as long as the return of those games ended up being more than 75%, create your Game Set and Subsets from that.

Again, these machines are NOT random in the sense that the next spin for a particular game and at a particular bet level has already been determined, but from the player’s perspective, the games might as well be random. Two glaring exceptions to this notion are Video Poker and Video Keno, because those are games that could normally  have a calculated return based on natural card and drawing probabilities. Unfortunately, with Class II Video Poker and Video Keno, that all goes out the window because the only requirement is that the Game Set returns at least 75%.

In other words, what looks like it would be a Video Poker game that returns 99.54% (9/6 Jacks or Better, assumes optimal strategy) might actually only return 80% for that game set.

If you’re playing slots, though, you might not even notice the difference.

How Is Class II v. Class III Decided?

Are there differences in the slot machines between some tribes and others, as well as differences between Native American and Commercial Casino slots?

The first thing that we want to remember is that, if a particular state authorizes a specific gambling game (Commercial or otherwise, we can assume), then the Tribes are automatically permitted to offer it.

Beyond that, it’s simply a matter of the compact between the state and the Tribe. While states are NOT permitted to have a, ‘Fee,’ (you can’t call it a tax on revenues, even though it basically is) on Class II Gaming revenues, the states are allowed to negotiate a compact by which the Tribes either pay some sort of fixed fee for Class III games (which sometimes also gives the Tribes exclusivity in the state) or to pay a few based on percentage of revenues.

For that reason, you’ll sometimes have states for which the Tribal Casinos contain a mix of Class II and Class III, “Vegas-style,” electronic games. One example of a state of this nature is Oklahoma, home to WinStar Casino which, believe it or not, has the largest gambling floor in the entire world in terms of square footage. Anyway, most casinos (some of which are just glorified slot parlors) in this state have a mix of Class II and Class III games. The split is somewhat close to 50/50, but the state has slightly more Class III games.

Of course, there has recently been some controversy as the Governor of Oklahoma (Stitt) tried to shut down Class III Gaming. It’s not that he actually wants it gone, but the problem is that the state’s share of Class III revenues is anywhere from a low of 4% to a high of 10%, depending on the specific compact the state has with a given Tribal entity. Anyway, Stitt has decided that is too low since it ALSO gives the tribes exclusivity, so he has decided that some of the tribes are now operating without compacts.

The tribes argue that the compacts are self-renewing, which judging from the language of a few of them that I have read, would also be my conclusion. Basically, the state’s just salty because they see the kinds of dollars that the casinos are bringing in within Oklahoma as well as the major Government revenues being created by Commercial Casinos in other states.

Certain states (of which there are only four, Alabama being one example) will only authorize Class II gambling and do not allow Class III gambling (table games and Vegas-style machines) of any kind whatsoever. It’s pretty astounding that they wouldn’t want the tribes to have the opportunity to compete with the gambling offerings of other states, but I guess you’ll have that.

Hopefully, those four states will eventually authorize their own Class III Commercial Casinos, then they will have no choice but to let the tribes offer it. Of course, it’s doubtful---Alabama doesn’t even have a state lottery.

Just because a state has Class III Tribal Gambling doesn’t necessarily mean that the machines are Class III, so you would want to research individual states to know. Some of the states authorize Class III as far as Table Games are concerned, but will only negotiate the compacts to allow for Class II machines.

Therefore, to the second question, it just depends on whether or not that particular machine is a Class III machine.

Do states oversee the Tribal Casinos?

Quite simply, this depends on the specific compact between a state and a casino, but most states at least put guidelines and procedures in place for the Tribal Casinos to follow. (as we saw in the Washington compact we used as an example) The state having at least minimum oversight over the operation becomes even more likely to be true when it’s a state that authorizes the Tribal Casinos to have Class III Gaming, but does not have any Commercial legalized and regulated Casinos of their own.

One state where tribes have had a serious problem is Texas because, for some reason, those tribes have been found not to be protected by the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act. As a result, they have been offering Class II Gaming (in their very few, and very small, casinos) and the State of Texas has been taking them to court and winning. In addition to hundreds of full-time jobs at stake, it’s pretty clear that the visitors enjoy the electronic bingo games.

In short, The Government of Texas is made of a bunch of assholes. It’s just a few electronic bingo machines, the tribes aren’t hurting anything. Of course, the State of Texas, lovers of freedom and independence that they claim to be---seems generally pretty opposed to any form of gambling, aside from their lottery, of course.

But, in the case of all other states, the Native American tribes and the states themselves have reached compacts, agreements or allowances of one kind or another. It’s definitely great to see that, you’d think we (meaning, the United States and its Government) had done enough to the Native Americans by now.


Hopefully, this will give everyone reading an understanding of how Tribal Gambling works in the United States and why the offerings at different Tribal Casinos can vary so greatly depending on what state you happen to be in. I didn’t want to get too far in the weeds on citing (and quoting from) more than one state-tribal compact, but I find them pretty interesting, and they are easy to find just by Googling, “(State name) Tribal Gaming Compact.”

There’s really no need to read multiple ones for the same state as they tend to be pretty similar, but it might be fun for you to search a few different states so you can see some of the more extreme differences.

Do you trust Tribal Casinos? Would you be willing to visit them? I would. In my opinion, if you’re going to play slots, there’s no meaningful difference between Class II and Class III that would actually have an impact on you. I would definitely avoid the Class II Video Poker and Video Keno machines, though. There’s no way to know what return percentage you’re getting, which is usually the nice thing about those games.

“Hopefully, this will give everyone reading an understanding of how Tribal Gambling works in the United States ”

Back to articles
Play now at trusted Bovada Casino


Search Results

Select language

English English

Don't show this again

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter