Take blackjack—a hot player, call him Lawrence, has a hot streak going. Won 10 hands in a row at a $50 table. The floor person changes dealers and lowers the limit to $10 a hand. Lucky Larry just saw his advantage drop.
In a sense, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) wants to see if the sportsbook operators follow similar procedures with sports bettors.
The question vexing the commission: are winners limited and losers rewarded? The agency met towards the end of March to discuss the situation. Some of the testimony acknowledged that limits are in force for certain competition to “help with risk management and to protect the integrity of these events.”
Commissioners also got an earful about player limits, such as a patron seeking to place a $1,000 wager only to be told they cannot go higher than $100.
Up to now, regulators adopted a hands-off attitude towards the approach sportsbook operators took on limits. Moving forward, however, the commission expects to dig a bit more into the subject.
“We did get some outreach, just so the public knows, through emails,” interim MGC chair Jordan Maynard told Covers. “And there were several folks who said, ‘Hey, I’m betting pennies when I’m putting in the bet.’ And so, what’s the notification?”
Massachusetts launched legal sports betting at brick-and-mortar casinos in January 2023, which was followed by the debut of online sportsbooks in March of last year. Hundreds of millions of dollars are now being wagered in the Bay State every month, including approximately $542.5 million with its sportsbooks in February.
The limits placed on winning bettors doesn’t stop with Massachusetts but seems to be a factor throughout the U.S. and Canada. Is any of this legal? Massachusetts commissioners hope to answer that with regards to the commonwealth.
According to Andrew Steffen, the MGC’s sports wagering operations manager, regulations permit the operators to control minimum and maximum bets…unless the commission takes a different stand. That could change if the upcoming hearings indicate otherwise.
The regulators mulled over whether the winners knew why they faced ostracism and why losers got what amounts to a pat on the back.
“I understand that there are probably legitimate business decisions that are made by our sports wagering operators here,” commissioner Nakisha Skinner said, per Covers. “I don’t discount any of those. But I do think there should be a way for patrons to really understand what might get them limited.”
In the end, just how big of an issue is the limiting of winners. Is it enough to come up with a regulation?
While there may be business reasons for that, such as keeping the books balanced, “there’s a deeper issue here in terms of individual patrons,” commissioner Eileen O’Brien said.
“What I’m curious to know as a commissioner is: what’s the basis for that?” O’Brien said, per Covers. “How and why are they making these determinations, because I think that’s critical to whether we need to amend this [regulation].”
Maynard said the commission could discuss scheduling for hearings in mid-April.
“I think the public needs to understand that we are going to take this very seriously,” commissioner Bradford Hill said. “I feel strongly we need to get our operators in here and ask some very hard questions. And if we have to go into an executive session, so be it.”
