Player limits will soon become a reality in the Bay State after the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) enacted new regulations which requires sportsbooks to give “timely notice” on any limitations to activity.
Taking effect from June 1, the new regulation is the first of its kind in the U.S. It will require sportsbooks to give notice to players explaining that they have been limited, why they have been limited, and an explanation of which markets they are limited from.
The regulation was approved in a 5-0 vote. It comes after a mandatory public comment period and an initial vote and reading in December.
“We are the first jurisdiction to take up this issue,” said Chair Jordan Maynard at the time of the initial reading back in December. “This was not an easy topic to take on, but it’s a good thing for the citizens and patrons of the Commonwealth.”
An ongoing discussion
The imposition of player limits has been a long time coming in Massachusetts. In fact, this discussion has been simmering away for over 18 months now.
Previously, players across the state had expressed their concerns over their accounts being limited, many noting that they were not provided with reasons as to why they could not wager.
However, the new regulation hopes to change that. Throughout the consultation period, the MGC has been weighing up players’ concerns over player protection – many players reported that they had seen their wagers curbed. In most cases, this has been after a win.
“What we’ve been hearing from members of the public is that if you show a tendency to win, you will be limited. And if you show a tendency to lose, you will have that limit raised,” said MGC Sports Wagering Division Chief Carrie Torrisi.
One of the biggest concerns flagged during the meeting, however, has been the growing prevalence of both offshore operators and prediction markets. The latter should come as no surprise, given that prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket have dominated industry headlines over the past few months.
While the platforms are not subject to state gambling regulations, Maynard highlighted that “pseudo-regulated” prediction markets often bank on no player limits being a competitive advantage.
However, the MGC hopes that the new transparency rules on player limits will encourage legal sportsbooks – Fanatics, FanDuel, and DraftKings all offer prediction markets – to be more competitive and transparent with players.
“I rarely talk to the operators and say that I am. Those who advocate for those pseudo-regulated, so-called prediction market products use the fact that they are not limited as a positive for their product,” Maynard said.
“I think that as far as the operators can possibly push their business model to be transparent on this piece is a net positive, ultimately. You may see it as a net negative now, but for consumers, I think it’s a net positive.”
Defending the limitations
A study carried out by the MGC revealed that approximately 13,400 accounts have been limited across the Bay State, accounting to Circa. 0.64% of active online accounts in Massachusetts.
In defense of the limitations, sportsbooks have argued that they only limit a “small minority” of accounts, quite often not providing a reason for the limitation.
“To effectively manage risk, we limit a small minority of patrons that we consider to be advantaged players who attempt to take advantage or find ways around our risk management framework. This group of limited patrons, many of whom self-identify as professional bettors, is loud in insisting that limiting patrons is a pervasive practice by operators. However, this is not accurate; it is actually the opposite,” BetMGM Senior Director of Compliance Sarah Brennan told the MGC.
Is further reform on the cards?
While the current rule focuses on notifying players on the reasons why they’ve been limited, there are some advocates and commissioners that are pushing for even stricter controls.
American Bettors’ Voice (ABV), which has been working alongside the MGC during the consultation process, showed its support for the adoption of minimum posted limits on all bets. It argued that this should be set as a percentage of the player’s maximum stake.
The advocacy group also called for further clarification between “sharp” and “error” betting. The ABV stated that it’s important for the regulator to ensure that skilled, lawful betting is protected under the new regulations, while still allowing sportsbooks to correct obvious pricing errors.
