The much-anticipated meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission where the group discussed the practice of limiting bettors was certainly more informative than the first effort.
For starters, every retail and online operator actually showed up, as opposed to a May meeting where they rescinded their participation after they learned they would not be able to discuss what they believed were proprietary secrets about how their trading rooms work.
This time around, the trading team was not particularly well represented, but compliance and counsel for operators appeared to discuss the issue. While they did not go into explicit detail, the group did offer the commissioners several explanations of situations where limiting takes place.
Operators also offered some insight into just how many people were being told they could not bet as much as they wanted.
Operators allege limiting impacts an extremely small population
BetMGM representatives said roughly 1% of Massachusetts patrons had been limited in some capacity. FanDuel Vice President of Product and New Market Compliance Cory Fox said 0.043% of bets at FanDuel in Massachusetts were placed at the maximum amount available to the user.
BetMGM Deputy General Counsel Jeremy Kolman mentioned four behaviors that tended to lead to the operator putting parameters on an account. Bettors that continually pounce on inaccurate lines, those that wager a lot on low liquidity/high volatility markets, those that wager inconsistent amounts and syndicate betting were all mentioned.
In-game betting comes under fire from one commissioner
Other operators said Kolman covered the major issues they encountered and also cited court-siding as a problem. Court-siding is the practice of betting in-game on a sporting event someone is attending in person, making numerous wagers in advance of the official odds feed.
Commissioner Eileen O’Brien was especially concerned about the limitation of court-siders and questioned if operators should be offering in-game markets if they cannot address the latency issue.
Fox noted latency is always a challenge, particularly given the television delay to accommodate those watching at home. Caesars Digital COO Ken Fuchs also observed that many states require operators to utilize official league data, which limits the sportsbooks’s ability to address the issue.
“As a regulator, one of the concerns I have from a consumer experience and protection point is that I would rather you fix it on your technical end rather than cut off a customer experience,” O’Brien noted.
“I’ll be blunt. What I hear as a regulator is that maybe you shouldn’t be offering the product if the technology is like that and fluctuating so much,” she added, suggesting a commission discussion around latency in the future might be warranted.
Operators stressed several times that the number of customers impacted by these risk management decisions is negligible and the commissioners’s fears that a casual consumer might be caught in the crossfire were unfounded.
Sportsbooks warn they will shut down many markets if regs change
The other sentiment from the operators is that if they are not allowed to limit patrons, a likely result would be significant reduction in the number of markets offered, which would be a particular blow to SGP bettors.
“One of my thoughts while the presentation was going on was, ‘are they just offering too many markets to price things accurately? I won’t weigh in whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but I hear your argument,” noted Interim Chair Jordan Maynard.
RG experts, betting media weigh in
The commissioner also heard from other industry representatives besides the operators in a second panel that included responsible gambling experts, media members and Prime Sportsbook Executive Chair Joe Brennan Jr. While Prime does not operate in Massachusetts, Brennan was included to discuss what the MGC termed “alternative models” to run a sportsbook.
During the latter discussion, some participants pushed back at the operators’s assertions that it was less about wins and losses and more about patterns of behavior. Writer David Hill noted that he interviewed a consultant who said that he could tell within 20 wagers whether or not a bettor was sharp and a potential risk, so yes, the assessment is based on behavior, but the concern is that these bettors will siphon money out of the books.
It was a sharp contrast to the assertion by Fanatics
Hill also noted that a very small amount of players are responsible for a large chunk of handle. These players are treated as VIPs, according to Hill, but the same offers and bonuses are not extended to sharper players.
The commissioners asked multiple responsible gambling-related questions, but Brennan and others were careful about merging the two conversations, noting that some books are said to limit winning bettors under the guise of responsible gambling.
CEO of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health Marlene Warner and independent consultant Brianne Doura-Schawohl did question if operators are doing enough with the data they use to limit bettors for risk reasons to limit bettors with a potential problem gambling issue.
Transparency and notifications major discussion topics
Transparency seemed to be a place where there was potentially some common ground across the groups. Operators admitted they normally don’t notify players when their account betting limits are changed and several commissioners expressed concern about the lack of information.
Operators argued that most of these customers know why they are being limited, but the other industry panel noted a host of incidents where bettors felt they had no clarity of why their status had changed. Warner also pointed to research that bettors wager more responsibly when they are given more information up front. Some operators also pointed out that these limits are not permanent and are often limited to specific types of bets or locations where people are betting.
Both sides of the debate also mentioned the concern of the offshore sportsbooks. Hill said his research with offshore books indicated they believe post-PASPA business is picking back up because people are being limited. Meanwhile, operators worried that having to limit markets would potentially drive bettors offshore.
What’s next for the limiting debate?
There was unsurprisingly no immediate action by the MGC. If there was one potential new regulation that appeared to gain more traction that others, it would be some sort of mechanism requiring sportsbooks to notify customers that their account had betting restrictions on it.
In order for that to move forward, the MGC staff would need to draft a new regulation, which would be vetted by commissioners and receive input from licensees before it comes up for a vote.
There were no other direct actions from the meeting, but commissioners did express desire to have more conversations about industry practices including in-game wagering and VIP programs.
