The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) scheduled a roundtable discussion to address the issue of limiting winning bettors. The meeting was set to take place on Tuesday, with all ten licensed sportsbooks in the state invited to participate. The goal was to understand why sportsbooks limit bets for winning players while allowing losing bettors to continue without restrictions.
Sportsbooks Decline to Attend
Despite the importance of the topic, all ten sportsbooks declined to attend the roundtable. The sportsbooks began notifying the MGC on Friday, with emails continuing through Monday, confirming their absence. This no-show has raised concerns about the transparency and accountability of these operators.
Concerns Over Public Discussions
Acting MGC Chairman Jordan Maynard mentioned that some operators were willing to meet privately but not publicly. The operators cited concerns about making comments in public due to open meeting laws in Massachusetts, which require transparency. This reluctance to discuss the issue openly has left many questioning the integrity of the industry.
Importance of Transparency
Maynard emphasized the importance of transparency for industry integrity. He acknowledged that public discussions might cause discomfort but stressed that they are necessary for maintaining trust. The MGC had distributed materials, including letters from bettors who experienced account limitations after winning, to highlight the issue.
Bettors’ Complaints
The MGC received letters from 59 bettors objecting to selective bet limitations. One bettor, Alec McCarren, highlighted how sportsbooks limit smart bettors but promote predatory VIP programs and targeted ads to consistent losers. This practice, he argued, fuels addiction for profit. The complaints underscore the need for a transparent discussion on the matter.
Sportsbooks’ Written Responses
Some sportsbooks sent written responses ahead of the meeting. They expressed that meaningful discussions about wager limits and risk management processes couldn’t be held publicly. FanDuel VP Cory Fox stressed the need for confidentiality over proprietary systems and requested private meetings instead.
Commissioners’ Reactions
Commissioner Nakisha Skinner expressed disappointment over the no-show, while Commissioner Brad Hill voiced anger about missing valuable information. The absence of the sportsbooks has left the MGC without the necessary input to address the issue effectively.
Potential Outcomes
The MGC has not decided on any specific actions yet. However, the no-show could lead to a showdown between the sportsbooks and the MGC. The commission might add regulations without full operator input, which could impact the industry significantly.
Public Comments and Specific Cases
Many complaints have been raised about the lack of communication from operators. Bettors have expressed concerns over operators limiting bets for winning players while allowing large bets from losing players. One specific case involved a bettor who won $13,500 on a $375 wager and had his account limited to $50 bets post-win across multiple platforms like FanDuel and ESPN BET.
Bally’s Participation
Bally’s was the only operator present at the meeting. Their representative, Justin Black, stated that bettors are not limited based on winnings but other proprietary factors. These underlying factors vary between operators and remain undisclosed due to industry secrecy.
Operator Justifications
Operators cited company privacy concerns as reasons for not attending. DraftKings declined participation due to the confidentiality of risk management practices but expressed willingness to work with the MGC privately. PENN Entertainment also provided written responses but emphasized their right to limit patrons for various reasons.
Regulatory Landscape
Currently, no rules prohibit customer limits for any reason. New regulations could reduce betting opportunities and revenues if implemented. The MGC will need a new strategy to engage operators, and any rule changes would require a public hearing and final vote by the four-member commission.
Future Expectations
Changes are likely regarding operators’ ability to limit bettors without warning or explanation. The basic issue of why winners are limited but not losers will be challenging for operators to address. The MGC plans to make betting limits a recurring topic at future meetings.
Responsible Gambling Concerns
Consultant Brianne Doura-Schawohl mentioned instances where players were limited under the guise of responsible gambling but were actually due to their winning ways. She suggested more genuine responsible gambling-based limiting might be necessary but warned against using it as an excuse.
Conclusion
The no-show by all Massachusetts sportsbooks at the roundtable on limiting winning bettors has raised significant concerns. The MGC is left to navigate this issue without the input of the operators, potentially leading to new regulations. Transparency and accountability remain critical as the commission seeks to address the complaints of bettors and ensure a fair and responsible sports betting environment.
