After several months, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission got the state’s sportsbook operators at the table to discuss their policies on limiting players’ wagers and what triggers them to take action.
The Sit-Down
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) has been seething since the state’s sportsbook operators collectively stood them up at a meeting in May designed to discuss their protocols for limiting certain players as to how much they can bet on a certain event. Enough of the state’s sports bettors voiced their displeasure with their respective sportsbooks that it caught the attention of the MGC, which ultimately prompted the roundtable discussion that never occurred four months ago.
Much to the commission’s credit, they did not let the topic go and rescheduled for September 11th. This meeting was robustly attended by the state’s top-rated sportsbooks, having received the message loud and clear that the administrative body governing them was not at all happy with their absence from the previous meeting. But it wasn’t simply sportsbooks in attendance at the open forum, as player advocates, responsible gaming experts, and many others were there to represent their constituency.
It was made clear that the MGC would mull perspectives from both the operators’ side and player advocacy groups, each with diametrically opposing views and agendas. The commission was clear it would make no kneejerk reactions but rather contemplate the arguments from all sides and make recommendations when the time came.
“I know that patrons and those who follow the commission’s work are eager for quick determinations, but we are a deliberative body and we will not sacrifice getting an issue right just for expediency’s sake,” MGC interim chair Jordan Maynard said on Wednesday.
Operators Respond
The state’s sportsbook representatives were fairly consistent in their explanations as to why players get their betting limits reduced, insisting it had more to do with betting patterns and behavior rather than flatly banning winning bettors. The operators also stated the reduced limits happen infrequently and to very few of their customers.
Sarah Brennan, senior director of compliance for BetMGM, stated, “The decision to impose a wager limit is based on multiple factors that align with BetMGM’s overall risk management framework. Specific wagering patterns, irregular behavior, bonus abuse, and more are used to determine what stake factor to designate a patron. There is no one-size-fits-all decision in this process.”
“This group of limited patrons, many of whom self-identify as professional bettors, are loud in insisting that limiting patrons is a pervasive practice by operators,” Brennan added. “However, this is not accurate. It is actually the opposite.”
Commissioner Nakisha Skinner said, “It sounds like that the average or casual bettor could, in fact, be deemed an advantage player depending on their betting activity.”
Cory Fox, vice president of product for FanDuel, explained his company accepts wagers on approximately 2,700 unique events and more than 37,000 different markets on an average day.
“In limited cases, over all of those markets, some users may have more information than we do,” Fox told the commission. “Some users may have a better model than we do. We’re comfortable taking wagers for them, but we have to do it in a responsible manner that protects our company.”
Ken Fuchs, chief operating officer and head of sports betting for Caesars, noted, “We’re not banning customers for beating us. We’re banning customers for other reasons that we should be banning them for, and often, I think, that obviously doesn’t come out because it is something that is not public and something you would not disclose based on the specific situation.”
But the biggest fear the MGC has is that the sportsbooks will habitually limit players, both historical winners and losers, which will drive the public away from the licensed sportsbooks and into the arms of the offshore sportsbooks that don’t pay taxes to Massachusetts.
This is just the first of what will likely be many more meetings before the MGC considers any policy changes in the state’s sports betting industry.
