Which Montana counties have the most  and least  video gambling machines per person? 3%

By Jacob Olness2%

7/31/2026, 6:18:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Representativeness Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 8.3% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 365 faulty-reasoning hits from 928 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 10.5% and a BS Rank of 3% (24,566 of 25,181 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.60% of the article peer group.

There was slightly more than one licensed video gambling machine for every 69 Montana residents during fiscal year 2026, which ended June 30, according to a Montana Free Press analysis of newly reported state Department of Justice licensing data and U.S. 
Census Bureau population estimates. 
Per capita concentrations of gambling varied substantially between counties. 
Video gambling machines are computerized terminals that offer games including poker, keno, bingo and line games resembling slot machines. 
They are distinct from Montana Lottery games, horse racing and sports betting, which are not regulated by the Justice Department’s Gambling Control Division . 
The state report lists approximately 16,500 machines across Montana. 
Mineral County, in far western Montana, had the greatest number of machines relative to population, with 212 gaming terminals and approximately 5,200 residents  or one machine for every 24 people. 
Wibaux County, on the eastern border of the state, had one machine for every 25 residents, followed by Sheridan County, in the state’s northeastern corner, with one for every 28. 
Mineral County, which contains St. 
Regis, sits along the Idaho border. 
Idaho prohibits slot machines and other commercial casino games, including machines in bars and at alcohol-licensed establishments, though the state does permit some other forms of gambling, including a lottery and tribal gaming. 
The Montana data do not indicate where machine users live or whether cross-border traffic contributes to Mineral County’s comparatively high population of video gambling machines. 
At the other end of the spectrum, Lake County, north of Missoula, had by far the lowest concentration, with one state-licensed machine for every 1,151 residents. 
But that figure does not include machines licensed by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on the Flathead Indian Reservation, which encompasses most of the county. 
The Lake County rate shown here reflects the number of machines covered by state licensing data, not all electronic gambling available in the county. 
The state does not allocate a set number of machines to counties or establishments. 
Businesses generally must hold an eligible license to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, obtain a gambling operator license and have the premises approved by the state Department of Justice . 
An operator may purchase approved machines from a licensed distributor or lease them from a licensed route operator. 
Each machine requires an annual state permit, and a single location may make no more than 20 machines available for play. 
Montana caps individual video gambling wagers at $2 and awards at $800 per game . 
The state licenses and regulates the businesses and people that manufacture, distribute, lease and operate the machines. 
Licensed machine owners pay a tax equal to 15% of their aggregate gross income  which the state defines as the money put into the machines minus cash payments to players  and the revenue goes into the state’s General Fund. 
Each machine permit carries an annual $240 fee . 
Of that amount, $140 goes to a state special revenue fund used to administer gambling laws, and the remaining $100 goes to the local government where the machine is located. 
Montana collected a record $83.5 million in tax revenue from video gambling machines in fiscal year 2025, which accounts for about 2.4% of the $3.45 billion in General Fund revenue in the fiscal year, which ended June 30 of last year. 
As of late July, numbers are not yet available for the last quarter of fiscal year 2026, but revenue earned through the year’s first three quarters was 2.6% higher than during the same period a year earlier. 
The concentration of machines relative to population differed substantially among Montana’s six most populous counties. 
Cascade County had the highest concentration of the six, with one machine for every 48 residents. 
Yellowstone County had 2,646 machines, the largest total, and a rate slightly higher than the statewide average at one machine for every 65 residents. 
Lewis and Clark County was close to the statewide figure, with one machine for every 71 residents. 
Flathead County had one machine for every 83, and Missoula had one for every 93. 
Gallatin County had the lowest concentration among the state’s six largest counties. 
Its 972 machines amounted to one for every 132 residents, less than half the per capita concentration of Cascade County. 
Direct comparisons with other states are difficult because states classify and report gambling machines differently. 
As a rough benchmark, Nevada reported 149,367 licensed slot machines in mid-2025. 
Compared with its estimated population, that amounted to about one machine for every 22 residents, roughly three times Montana’s per capita concentration. 
Among Montana’s neighboring states, South Dakota’s fiscal year 2025 report lists 11,120 active machines, which works out to just over 84 residents per gaming machine. 
The Montana Gambling Control Division site does not currently list a recent statewide estimate of problem gambling. 
An archived version of a problem-gambling page cited a 2013 report from the National Council on Problem Gambling that estimated 2.2% of Montana adults, about 17,200 people, were “believed to manifest a gambling disorder.” 
That figure was calculated by applying a national average prevalence rate to Montana’s adult population, rather than by conducting a Montana-specific survey. 
The National Council on Problem Gambling currently estimates that about 1% of U.S. adults experience a severe gambling problem in a given year, while another 2% to 3% experience mild or moderate problems. 
The estimates use different definitions and cannot show whether Montana’s rate has risen or fallen. 
No comparable recent survey shows how many Montanans might be affected today. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Jacob Olness: 3.0%Montana Free Press: 1.3%Anchoring Bias8.3%This article: 1.3%Jacob Olness: 1.0%Montana Free Press: 1.1%Availability Heuristic1.3%This article: 7.2%Jacob Olness: 1.8%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 3.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Jacob Olness: 1.0%Montana Free Press: 1.7%Negativity Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Jacob Olness: 1.9%Montana Free Press: 0.7%Recency Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Jacob Olness: 0.9%Montana Free Press: 1.0%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Jacob Olness: 1.8%Montana Free Press: 1.3%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Olness: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

928 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.