CHEYENNE - Poker tournaments at bars across the state appear to violate state law, according to Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank, because places that host the contests indirectly profit from them when participants buy food and drinks.

Crank said he and his staff have discussed the issue with Cheyenne officials, who recently decided to shut down various poker tournaments at local bars.

But in Casper, the only regular tournament that Natrona County District Attorney Mike Blonigen is aware of runs under different rules than the events in Cheyenne, and thus it does not appear that the Texas Hold 'em event at Sidelines Sports Bar violates the law.

Blonigen also called on state lawmakers to clarify Wyoming's anti-gambling laws, because there are too many ways for different people to interpret what the laws do and do not prohibit.

Crackdowns on public poker tournaments started last week in Laramie when police shut down an event Wednesday night but reversed course the next day and allowed a local bar to host a poker tournament on Thursday.

Last weekend, Cheyenne police asked bars to voluntarily shut down their poker tournaments by the end of the month, after police consulted with state, county and local attorneys to determine that the games are banned under state law.

State law prohibits "gambling," but there are several exceptions to what constitutes gambling.

For example, the definition of "gambling" does not include "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."

Professional gambling, which is banned in all instances, includes making a profit from aiding or inducing someone to gamble, or participating in gambling when the odds are stacked in one's favor.

Crank said Monday his office has not been asked for a formal opinion on the matter but has had talks with city and county officials in Cheyenne.

The games in Cheyenne are illegal, Crank said, if the bar hosting them gets some "pecuniary gain," or financial benefit, from hosting a game of chance such as a poker tournament.

"Why do bars have Texas Hold 'em nights? I think to increase their attendance and ultimately to increase their profit, so they are benefitting from holding a gambling activity on the premises," he said.

As state attorney general, Crank does not have authority to act on his own to stop bars from hosting poker nights. Any prosecutions for doing so would have to be initiated by local county or city prosecutors, generally after police issue citations against suspected offenders.

Blonigen, however, said the situation as he understands it in Casper is different than the one in Cheyenne.

First of all, rather than winning a share of one's entry fee for a poker tournament, people in the contest at Sidelines only win a chance to move on to the next round. The tournament champion will win a trip to Reno, Nev., instead of money, and other tournament proceeds go to charity.

"I think it's certainly problematic, but it also depends on how that thing's being run and what folks are getting out of it," Blonigen said. "These things are very fact-specific."

He said the state gambling statutes are vague and have confusing definitions. For example, he referred to the definition of "profit," which is defined in part as a "benefit other than a gain."

"This statute needs to be reworked," he said. "We need clear definitions. We need clear guidelines. We probably need a board to oversee this stuff."

Crank said there are plenty of gray areas in the statute, and each set of circumstances is unique.

If friends in a bar decide to play dice with one another for money, that might be "incidental to a bona fide social relationship" and thus not illegal, he said. But that is different than a poker tournament open to all members of the public.

On the other hand, he said, any form of gambling in which the "house," or hosting establishment, takes a "cut," or share of the money wagered, seems to clearly violate the law.

Blonigen said that when two people can read the law and come up with very different ideas of what it means, the law should be clarified, and it also makes it hard to charge someone with violating that law.

"The problem is too, how do you prove an indirect profit?" he asked. "You can say they might have more people, but how do you prove an indirect profit beyond a reasonable doubt?"

He said it is "tiresome" that people appear to be "pushing the envelope" at every turn to run activities that come closer and closer to violating the law.

Capital bureau reporter Bill Luckett can be reached at (307) 632-1244 or at bill.luckett@casperstartribune.net.