On May 21, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) held a well-publicized public roundtable on sportsbooks’ practice of limiting bettors, and the star attractions elected not to participate.
“I’ve been made aware that 10 active operators in the commonwealth, after initially signaling that they would attend and actively participate, decided not to,” said Jordan Maynard, interim chair of the MGC, per the Athletic.
It’s no secret what’s happening, but operators still want to pretend it’s a secret.
Professional bettor Jack Andrews attended the roundtable and shared his experience in New Jersey. Andrews found his bets limited after just three weeks with DraftKings. He was down $600 at the time, not up. Later, a DraftKings trader told Andrews he was “taking second-inning lines in baseball and we knew that anyone betting second-inning lines must know what they are doing, and we didn’t want your action anymore.”
Sportsbooks sought a private discussion, on the basis that proprietary information would be made available for view by the public and by competitors.
“We do not believe that we can have a meaningful discussion in a public forum about our wager limits and risk management processes. Risk management, similar to trading (i.e., setting prices) is a core part of our business and our value proposition as a sportsbook, and it is critical for FanDuel to maintain confidentiality over our proprietary systems,” a
Of the state’s licensed operators, only Bally Bet, which doesn’t go live until June, attended.
“This was not a good use of our time today, given that we didn’t have our primary stakeholders as part of the discussion,” Commissioner Nakisha Skinner said, per the Athletic. “I hope we can work to change that going forward.”
Commissioner Brad Hill was ticked off. “Although the conversation “started today, it didn’t give us the starting point that I had hoped we would get,” he said, per iGaming Business.
Massachusetts law permits sportsbooks to establish limits on customers. However, the commission doesn’t have a good handle on the parameters of the practice beyond the fact that some players win too many times.
“The MGC was made aware of reports from consumers and media coverage that some operators limit bettors who routinely win,” Maynard said, per the Athletic. “Some claim they were not in violation of house rules, state laws or regulations, or other authorized acts when they were limited.”
Inquiring minds on the commission want to know:
- How does someone get limited?
- Why?
- What would happen if the commission banned or limited limits?
- Why doesn’t it bother regulators in other states?
Andrews and other players complain that they are often kept in the dark as to the limits or how long the limitation will be in effect.
“The house has the edge, this is gambling, but a lot of users feel that things don’t cut both ways,” Andrews said. “Limiting is just an example of that.”
Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a problem gambling consultant, said sportsbooks will sometimes hide behind a responsible gaming shield to explain limits.
Massachusetts is the first state in which the issue of regulating betting limits has been discussed.
Consultant Dustin Gouker praised the commission for its stand. “This is the first time people who are being limited feel like they’re being heard,” he said, per the Athletic.
The commission did receive some recommendations:
- Lower the barriers for new licenses.
- Allow smaller, less restrictive operators. Smaller operators—those who cannot afford the current high cost of entry and taxation—can present fewer betting markets, higher limits, even peer-to-peer betting exchanges.
- Establish a second level of licenses for these kinds of operators.
