Multi-state online poker is a hot topic in the US legal online poker world. Offering multi-state player pools allows online poker sites to put more players together than if they were restricted to operating on a state-by-state basis, which leads to more games, more full seats, and more fun overall. Currently, the US has a long-standing traffic-sharing compact known as the Multi-state Internet Gaming Agreement (MSIGA). New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware have long been a part of this agreement. Michigan joined them in April 2022, and West Virginia in Nov. 2023.
On this page, we’ll cover all you need to know about Multi-state online poker, and we recommend all online poker players read through to get the latest information.
- Play 1 Hand, Get $150 in Bonus Play
- NJ & MI Shared Player Pools
- Over $1 Million Won Every Day
- To Claim: Click Play Now
- Play 1 Hand, Get $150 in Bonus Play
- NJ & MI Shared Player Pools
- Over $1 Million Won Every Day
- To Claim: Click Play Now
- $100 in Bonus Play on 1st Deposit
- 100% up to $1,000 on Deposit
- Use Bonus Code: 25BONUS
- $100 in Bonus Play on 1st Deposit
- 100% up to $1,000 on Deposit
- Use Bonus Code: 25BONUS
- $85 in Tournament Tickets On Deposit
- 100% Up To $1,000 On Deposit
- 21+. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
- Use Bonus Code: PLAYCHIP
- $85 in Tournament Tickets On Deposit
- 100% Up To $1,000 On Deposit
- 21+. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
- Use Bonus Code: PLAYCHIP
Operators Who Offer Multi-State Online Poker
Within the aforementioned states, there are only a few operators who offer multi-state online poker. Those operators are the following:
- PokerStars
- WSOP
- BetMGM Poker
- BetRivers Poker will also offer multi-state online poker when it launches in DE, MI, and NJ in the near future.
US States Part of MSIGA
The current member states of the MSIGA are Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Michigan, and West Virginia.
Delaware and Nevada initially established the agreement for cross-state player pooling in 2014. New Jersey joined later on in 2017, followed by Michigan in 2022 and West Virginia in 2023.
States Expected to Join MSIGA Soon
Pennsylvania opted for multistate online poker in Oct. 2024 and will be the next state to join the MSIGA. The decision to join the Multistate Internet Gaming Agreement came directly from Gov. Josh Shapiro, and sites could be networked by next year.
Until then, Pennsylvania poker players will still only be able to take part in poker games with other in-state players.
What’s The Big Deal About MSIGA?
The MSIGA created a uniform set of rules to establish multi-state online poker and a system to govern them. It has open membership, and each member state is given one seat on the group’s board. The bottom line is that MSIGA allows cross-state player pooling, and there’s no online gambling vertical more impacted by market size than online poker. Without enough players at the tables, games dry up, so operators in smaller markets have a hard time offering a wide variety of formats and stake levels. Tournament guarantees also get larger the bigger the market is.
In short, traffic is itself a selling point for poker rooms. That’s a problem for the nascent US online poker market, where gambling legislation happens state-by-state. For smaller states in particular, it can make online poker an impossibility; even if they legalize it, they may not have the population necessary to make it worthwhile for a site to launch.
One solution is to share traffic between states and allow poker sites to operate interstate, but that’s easier said than done. It requires the states in question to agree on terms for how that will work and to do so in compliance with federal law. The MSIGA sets forth a list of requirements to address this issue, which we’ve laid out below.
- Online gaming operations must be conducted fairly, honestly, and competitively in a well-regulated, secure, and publically accountable system designed to create a positive Patron experience.
- Online gaming must be conducted only in states where such activity is legal, pursuant to a system that limits access to minors, those with gambling problems, and others who should not be gaming.
- Licensees shall be of good character, honesty, and integrity and shall not be persons or organizations whose prior activity or criminal records, reputation, habits, memberships, or associations pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation and control of Internet gaming.
- Licensees shall be adequately capitalized, with competence and experience, to conduct online gaming activities.
- Licensees shall not create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, or activities in the conduct of online gaming or the business arrangements relating thereto.
- Must be able to verify the physical location, identity, and age of the patron and exclude any patron not meeting requirements or who is identified as having a gambling problem or as someone who should not be gaming.
- Require patrons to agree to the terms, conditions, and rules applicable to such Internet gaming and allow patrons to log out, including procedures for automatically logging off persons from online games after a specified period of inactivity.
- Maintain procedures for patrons to deposit and withdraw funds in a secure Internet gaming account, suspend account activity for security reasons, terminate patron accounts, and dispose of proceeds in such accounts.
- Allow patrons to establish self-limitations on their wagering activity (deposit, wagering, time, and loss limits).
- Demonstrate controls for the recovery and backup of information and secured electronic storage of patron accounts and gaming information.
- Prohibit self-excluded or involuntarily excluded persons from registering for an online account or participating in online gaming.
- Prohibit the creation of accounts by prospective players whose identity and/or location cannot be reasonably verified or who attempt to establish accounts in the name of any other entity.
- Prohibit accounts from being assigned or otherwise transferred.
- Prohibit third parties from transferring funds into any patron’s account and establish other anti-money laundering measures.
- Prohibit patrons from accessing Internet gaming except as permitted under the laws of the applicable member state.
Despite this lengthy list of requirements, the concept is slowly catching on in the US. Five states are now party to such a mutual agreement, the MSIGA, and more operators are taking advantage of it. The hope is that in the near future, more states and operators will begin such interstate networking.
History of Multi-State Poker & MSIGA
Delaware was the first state to legalize online poker in 2012, and during the legislative process, it positioned itself as a hub for interstate gaming. Partnering with other states was always going to be a necessity for a state of less than a million residents, so as part of an agreement with Nevada (which legalized online poker shortly after Delaware), the Multi-State Internet Gaming Association was established within Delaware.
New Jersey wasn’t far behind on legalization, legalizing all forms of online gambling in 2013. In October 2017, Gov. Chris Christie added his signature to the MSIGA, creating a three-state pact.
In 2019, West Virginia and Michigan became states number five and six, respectively, to legalize online poker. West Virginia did so in late March, and Michigan in December. Michigan signaled its intent to join MSIGA early on, passing a law in December 2020 that amended its ban on interstate gambling compacts to create a carve-out for poker. The Wolverine State was slated to join multi-state online poker in 2021, but delays pushed the agreement back into 2022. It then took until January 1, 2023, for PokerStars to launch its multi-state network, which was the first to include Michigan.
No online poker rooms have yet gone live in West Virginia. The Mountain State already has some active online sportsbooks and casinos. Still, with fewer than 2 million residents, it is definitely a state that needs shared liquidity to sustain a poker room. That’s why it followed Michigan in joining MSIGA in 2023, but so far, that move hasn’t attracted any poker rooms.
The Wire Act Threatened Online Poker
In March 2021, it appeared that the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) memo would stand. The court disagreed with a Trump-era memo that opined that interstate gambling, including poker, fell under the purview of the 1961 Wire Act. Before that memo, the law only applied to sports betting.
It’s possible, though not likely, that the case could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
With that memo, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel reversed its standing interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act, reverting to an older stance that covers online gambling more broadly. If the revised interpretation is enforced to the fullest extent, interstate liquidity sharing would be prohibited. This would seriously harm the viability of online poker in less populous states like Delaware and West Virginia.
The good news is that before the compliance deadline arrived, the New Hampshire Lottery Commission (NHLC) filed suit against the DOJ. It feared that the new opinion would make lotteries with interstate jackpots illegal. The outcome of the case was that US District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro sided with the lottery, and the opinion was vacated.
The DOJ took the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. It fought Judge Barbadoro’s decision on two fronts. It challenged the correctness of the opinion, but also whether the issue should have been brought to court in the first place. The DOJ claimed that it never instructed the NHLC to cease interstate iLottery activities, and thus, the court was ruling on a nonexistent threat.
That case hit one final wrinkle in late 2020 when one of the three judges presiding over it died. Fortunately, the remaining two were in agreement and were thus able to arrive at a verdict without him. They ruled against the DOJ, upholding Judge Barbadoro’s decision.
In principle, the DOJ could have appealed the case again and brought it to the Supreme Court. However, President Biden had indicated that he would discourage that course of action, and indeed, the DOJ allowed the time window for an appeal to expire with no action. 26 state Attorneys General have petitioned the DOJ to go one step further and formally retract its opinion, but it has not done so.
Even so, it looks like the threat from the Wire Act is at an end, making it all the more likely that more states will join the MSIGA in the near future.
About the Author
