May 29,2013 

John B. Meskill, Director 

Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission 

One Mohegan Sun Boulevard 

Uncasville, CT 06382 

Fax: (860) 862-7392 

Re: Request for Game Classification Decision - Non-banked Poker 

Dear Mr. Meskill: 

This is in response to your June 8,201 1 request for a game classification decision 

regarding whether non-banked poker games played in Connecticut are Class I1 card games 

under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).' According to your letter, the Mohegan 

Tribe of Connecticut (Tribe) offers a variety of different poker games, including non-banked 

pokerz in its poker room and banked3 versions of the game elsewhere throughout the facility. 

The Tribe's compact with Connecticut includes "Poker" in the "Authorized Class III Gaming" 

section, but does not define or limit the meaning of "~oker.'* Regardless, I must look to IGRA 

- specifically its definition of Class I1 gaming - in reaching a decision here. As your letter asks 

for a decision only as to non-banked poker, this decision is so limited. After careful 

consideration of IGRA, NIGC regulations, and Connecticut state law, I conclude that nonbanked poker is a Class I1 card game in Connecticut. 

IGRA divides Indian gaming into three classes. Class I gaming, which is not at issue 

here, encompasses "social games" played "solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional 

forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal 

ceremonies or celebration^."^ 

' 25 U.S.C. $5 2701, etseg. 

Z The letter of June 8,201 1, represented that the following non-banked poker games are played in the Mohegan 

Sun's poker room: Seven Card Stud; Seven Card; Hi-Low Split Eight or Better; Seven Card Low (Razz); Five 

Card Draw; Texas Hold 'Em; Omaha; Omaha High-Low Split Eight or Better; Pineapple Hold 'EmiCrazy 

Pineapple Hold 'Em; Pot Limit Hold 'Em; No limit Hold 'Em; Five Card Draw; Five Card Draw-Jacks 

or Better; Five Card Draw-Guts to Open; Badngi; California Lowhall; Kansas City Lowhall; and, Jacks Back 

Draw. 

The letter of June 8,201 1, represented that the following banked poker games are played in locations within the 

Mohegan Sun gaming facility other than the poker room: Pai Gow Poker; Caribbean Stud Poker; Three Card 

Poker; Four Card Poker; and, Texas Hold 'Em Bonus Poker. 

Mohegan Tribe - State of Connecticut Gaming Compact $ 3(a)(i)(B) ' 25 U.S.C. $ 2703(6). NATIONAL HEADQUARTER 1441 L St. NW. Suite 91W. Washingfan. DC 20935 Tel: 202.632.7m3 Fax: 202.632.7066 www.NIGc.Gov 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland. OR; Sacramento. CA: Phoenix. AZ: St. Paul. MN:Tulsa, OK 
Class LI gaming includes card games, such as poker, if such card games: 

(I) are explicitly authorized by the laws of the State, or 

(11) are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and are played 

at any location in the State 

but only if such card games are played in conformity with those laws and 

regulations (if any) of the State regarding hours or periods of operation of 

such card games or limitations on wages or pot sizes in such card games.6 

Class II gaming also expressly excludes any banking card game.7 Banking card games, 

as commonly understood and as defined in NIGC regulations, are games in which the banker 

(usually the house) competes against all players, collecting from losers and paying winner^.^ 

Conversely, non-banking card games are games where players play against each other, rather 

than the house or a single player acting as the bank.' Poker, played in its traditional formplayers play against one another without a bank -, is the typical example of a non-banked card 

game. 

Finally, Class I11 is a catchall category and includes "all forms of gaming that are not 

Class I gaming or Class TI gaming."10 

Whether a particular card game is Class I1 or Class I11 under IGRA requires an analysis 

of both the game itself - namely, how it is played - and the laws of the state in which it will be 

played.1' As your request does not pertain to any specific game, but rather to the more generic 

category of "non-banked poker games," the first aspect of that analysis is easily resolved and I 

can immediately rule out the game falling into the Class 111 category as a "banking card game." 

The classification of non-banked poker as Class I1 or Class ILI thus depends on Connecticut 

laws and regulations. 

25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(A)(ii). ' 25 U.S.C. $ 2703(7)(B)(i); 25 C.F.R. $ 502.4(a)(l). 

25 C.F.R. 5 502.11. ' 25 C.F.R. $ 502.3(c). 

lo 25 U.S.C. $ 2703(8); 25 C.F.R. $502.4. I I See 25 U.S.C. 5 2710(b)(l)(A) ("An Indian tribe may engage in, license and regulate, class I1 gaming on Lndian 

lands within such tribe's jurisdiction if- (A) such gaming is located in a State the permits gaming for any purpose 

by any person, organization or entity (and such gaming is not otherwise specifically prohibited by Federal law) 

.. ."); Gaming Corp. v. Dorsey & Whihey, 88 F.3d 536, 544 (8" Cir. 1996)( Indian tribes have the "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 whlch does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming 

activity." "States can influence class I1 gaming within their borders only if they prohibit those games for everyone 

under all circumstances."); US. v. Sisseton- Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, 897 F.2d 358,365 (8" Cir. 1990) ("the 

legislative history [of IGRA] reveals that Congress intended to permit aparticular gaming activity, even if 

conducted in a manner inconsistent with state law, if the state law merely regulated, as opposed to completely 

barred, that particular gaming activity."); Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Wyoming, 389 F.3d 1308, 1312 (10" Cir. 

2004) (same); see, e.g. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Conn., 913 F.2d 1024, 1029 (2d Cir. 1990) (indicating that 

the district court correctly decided that because Connecticut law permitted "Las Vegas nights," such gaming was 

permissible Class I11 gaming activity by the Tribe.). 

2 
The first consideration when examining at state law as it pertains to Class 11 gaming is 

whether the state at issue either explicitly authorizes or prohibits the game in question.'2 If the 

game is specifically prohibited, that is the end of the analysis and the game is Class III. If, on 

the other hand, the game is explicitly authorized or the state law is silent as to the game, the 

analysis continues to the next step. 

The Connecticut criminal code generally prohibits gambling with certain exception^.'^ 

"Gambling" is defined as "risking any money, credit, deposit or other thing of value for gain 

contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance or the operation of a gambling device, including 

the playing of a casino gambling game such as blackjack,poker, craps, roulette or a slot 

machine.. .."I4 Under Connecticut law, "[alny person who engages in gambling, or solicits or 

induces another to engage in gambling, or is present when another erson or persons are P engaged in gambling, shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.. .." Connecticut makes an 

exception to its prohibition, however, for social games. Section (a) of the gambling prohibition 

goes on to say that "natural persons shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment under 

this subsection for any game, wager or transaction which is incidental to a bona fide social 

relationship, is participated in by natural persons only and in which no person is participating, 

directly or indirectly, in professional gambling."'6 

Thus, the determining question is whether Connecticut law prohibits the play of poker. 

The social exception to the prohibition indicates that poker, in all of its forms, is not explicitly 

prohibited by Connecticut law. It is not a criminal violation if played socially." 

Because poker is neither explicitly authorized nor prohibited by Connecticut, the next 

step of the analysis is to determine whether non-banked poker is actually played at any location 

in the state.I8 Aside from the poker being conducted by both the Mohegan and Mashantucket 

Pequot Tribes pursuant to their compacts, social poker games are advertised as regularly 

occurring throughout the state. For example, a search of the web-site hornepoker.com 

advertised several "social" poker games.'9 Some of these games are played in private homes, 

while others are played at clubs that charge a membership fee. The games include both straight 

poker, where each player takes his winnings at the end of the game, and tournaments, in which 

the top three players win a pre-determined prize. Based on the brief and varying descriptions on 

the web-site, the social poker games are variations on the traditional game of non-banked 

poker, with set buy-in amounts and players playing against one another rather than the house or 

a single player. The advertisements and descriptions of the games are clear evidence that nonbanked poker is played in Connecticut. 

l2 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(A)(ii). 

l3 "Gambling" does not include, among other things any lottery conducted by a State. Conn. Gen. Stat. 5 53- 

278a(2). 

I4 Conn. Gen. Stat. $ 53-278a(2) (emphasis added). 

l5 Conn. Gen. Stat. 5 53-278b(a). 

l6 Id. 

" Letter fromPenny Coleman, NIGC Acting General Counsel, to Philip Shea, Shea & Wilks, March 23, 1998; 

Letter from Penny Coleman, NIGC Deputy General Counsel, to Dave Maloney, Harrah's Phoenix, Sept. 9, 1999 

'95 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(A)(ii). 19 http:liwww.homepokergarnes.com/connecticut.php 

3 
The final element of this analysis requires review of any Connecticut laws or rules that 

may regulate certain aspects of how non-banked poker is played. Class I1 card games must be 

"played in conformity with the laws and regulations, if any, of the state regarding hours or 

periods of operation of such card games or limitations on wagers or pot sizes in such card 

games."20 As discussed above, Connecticut law, with a few key exceptions, generally prohibits 

gambling, including poker. Presumably due to this general prohibition, there is no Connecticut 

law or regulation regarding hours of operation or wager and pot ~izes.~' As such, there is no 

law or regulation for the Tribe to follow for those purposes. 

Further, that poker is a Class I1 game in Connecticut is not changed by the fact that the 

Tribe's compact with Connecticut includes poker in its "Authorized Class 111 Gaming" section. 

Class I1 gaming is defined by federal legislation22 and cannot be changed by a tribal-state 

agreement.23 Therefore, regardless of the dictates of the compact, so long as poker meets the 

definition of Class IIgarning found in IGRA, it is a Class I1 game. 

In sum, non-banked poker in Connecticut is a Class I1 game. It is not explicitly 

prohibited by Connecticut law, played at locations throughout the State, and there is no law or 

regulation relating to hours of operation or limits on pot and wager sizes for the Tribe to follow. 

The game therefore meets IGRA's definition of Class I1 gaming. 

I trust this decision fulfills your request for review of non-banked poker in Connecticut. 

If you should have any further questions, though, please contact NIGC Senior Attorney 

Michael Hoenig at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely, 

Tracie L. Stevens 

Chairwoman 

20 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(A)(ii)(II). 21 Connecticut permitted charitable gaming until January of 2003, at which time all of its charitable gaming 

statutes were repealed. Conn. Gen. Stat. $5 7-186a - 7-186q. Although the statutes themselves were repealed, the 

regulations implementing those acts were not. One of those orphaned regulation established limits on wagers in 

Connecticut. Regs., Conn. State Agencies 5 7-186k-11. However, "[a]n adminisnative regulation can have no 

authority beyond the statute it purports to implement." Ward v. Goldberg, 1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 636, *6 

(Conn. Super. Ct. 1997). Because the statute permitting charitable gaming was repealed, the regulation 

implementing that statute and its limit on wager or pot sizes bas no effect. 

22 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7). 23 The amendment of federal legislation by the States is inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause of the 

Constitution. See Cipollene v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504,516 (1992); Gade v. National Solid Wastes 

Management Assh, 505 U.S. 88,107-108 (1992). 

4