The population of sports bettors restricted in what they can wager is small, or at least that’s what legal bookmakers are telling the regulator in Massachusetts as it continues its quest for answers about limiting and considers possible rule changes.
Members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) met Thursday and again broached the subject of bettor limiting. The regulator held a roundtable on the topic in May, but no active operators participated, citing the secret nature of risk management, prompting frustration and even anger from commissioners who want more information on the practice.
Operators have given some high-level responses to the MGC regarding limiting. A memo to the MGC for its Thursday meeting included “generalized points and common themes” bookmakers have communicated in individual meetings with commission staff, such as that limiting online sports bettors “correlates” with table limits and limiting card counters at brick-and-mortar casinos.
Risky business
Limiting “is both a risk-management practice and a fair play business practice,” another point states, and operators claimed that many limited players “are not your common customer.”
The operators have also communicated that “[a]cross the board, a very low percentage of players are limited,” the memo states. There is an asterisk at the end of this point, which is connected to a statement DraftKings gave recently to the Wall Street Journal.
“DraftKings Sportsbook offers tens of thousands of wagers on any given day, all with market-specific betting limits,” the operator told the newspaper. “In order to provide the best possible customer experience for our players, we restrict less than 1% of players below the market limit based largely on betting behaviors.”
Commissioner Skinner also notes that DraftKings has claimed it has limited less than 1% of its players but still wants answers as to why those bettors got restricted and what they are told. pic.twitter.com/CcBZ8NAz2K
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) August 1, 2024
Yet claims like this — as well as another that operators could find no law or regulation prohibiting limits in another jurisdiction — may not be enough to satisfy the MGC or other regulators.
The MGC wants data but they want reasons as well, such as why players are limited and what they are told when they find themselves restricted. The regulator is also required to do most of its business in public.
“Ultimately, there could be some regulations that come out of this,” said Jordan Maynard, the MGC’s interim chair, during Thursday’s meeting. “And what I would pose to the operators today in public is, do you want to be a part of the conversations that help develop those? Or do you want to be reactive to whatever comes out? And I would hope that they would want to be part of it.”
Meanwhile, American Bettors’ Voice, an upstart non-profit backed by famous gambler Billy Walters, has voiced its concerns now in front of several regulatory get-togethers, getting the issue on the radar of a wide array of watchdogs.
Some points made by the operators to the MGC seem sure to ruffle feathers, such as that “[s]ome of the leaders of the sharp bettor community have been convicted of gaming-related criminal felonies,” and that sharps are already finding ways to get around limits.
“Placing restrictions or regulations on the ability for Operators to limit bettors will harm the industry’s risk-management practices and result in a detrimental impact in the Commonwealth,” the operators warned. “In some cases, a patron has claimed to be limited, but the account is actually closed due to [know-your-customer] issues, [anti-money-laundering] risk, or other suspicious/criminal activity.”
This isn't over
Whatever the justification claimed by operators, the MGC isn’t letting the subject go and aims to hold another meeting in the future wherein they can question operators in full view of the public.
“They make some valid points about some of the voices that are on the bettor side,” Commissioner Eileen O’Brien said on Thursday. “But that does not mean necessarily that what's being said is not valid in the conversation.”
O’Brien noted that the MGC could take an entirely different approach, such as by starting by proposing a regulation regarding limiting. However, Thursday’s discussion mostly centered around what a future meeting will look like. What bookmakers told the MGC they’re looking for is an “operator-only” setting.
“Each of the Operators has expressed significant reservations in engaging in a conversation which would include additional participants,” a memo to the commission stated. “While they understand that the Commission would be interested in hearing multiple viewpoints, the Operators are requesting that there be an initial session dedicated to conversation with Operators only.”
Commissioners still want bettors to be part of the conversation, though. One format floated on Thursday was a meeting in which one side could speak first, such as the operators, and then the other after.
The MGC did not set a date for the next roundtable but will likely do so at its next agenda-setting meeting. Massachusetts sports betting operators are also on notice that they’ll need to provide something more than silence for the sequel.
“I'm not interested in having another roundtable just to have the operators come before us to say they can't talk,” Commissioner Nakisha Skinner said on Thursday.
