gaming regulators are hoping for answers on a practice that few outside of the sports betting industry know much about.
Members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) today discussed the best options for an upcoming discussion (or public meeting if one commissioner gets her way) on the practice of sports betting operators placing betting limits on users. Seven of the eight licensed Massachusetts operators the MGC s initial meeting on the practice this past May, but have since agreed to participate.
The MGC did hint today that there may be new regulations on this practice after the discussion takes place.
Avoiding a Waste of Time
The MGC today discussed potential parameters and goals for the upcoming meeting. The meeting is expected to include a conversation between the commission, industry experts, and licensed Massachusetts sportsbook operators as to the “how, when, and why” of limiting sportsbook patrons in the commonwealth.
A date for the discussion will be scheduled at the next MGC agenda setting meeting.
Interim Chair Jordan Maynard did say that regulations on the practice may be forthcoming. He said it s up to the operators to determine if they want to be part of the conversation or not.
We re having a larger policy conversation, and it s hard for me to believe that operators don t have an opinion on this policy decision that we may or may not make. Ultimately, there could be some regulations that come out of this. What I would pose to operators in public is, do you want to be part of the conversation that helps develop those, or do you want to reactive to whatever comes out? I would hope they would want to be part of it, he said.
It was evident from today s discussion that several of the commissioners are still irritated at the decision from BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, Fanatics Betting and Gaming, ESPN BET, DraftKings, and FanDuel to not attend the May meeting.
Bally Bet was the only licensed operator to attend the discussion, but had yet to launch in the commonwealth.
I am not interested in having another roundtable where the operators come before us and say they can’t talk, Commissioner Nakisha Skinner said.
A roundtable where operators show up to save face after no-showing the first discussion would not be acceptable. Operators need to be willing to answer questions about how and why uses are limited, what goes into a decision to limit a user, and what communication, if any, is provided to a user upon being limited, she said.
Any discussion needs to be about transparency and fairness regarding the controversial practice, she said, and operators should be willing to provide data points for commissioners when faced with their questions.
The need for a roundtable may have passed with the operators decision to no-show the May meeting, Commissioner Eileen O Brien said. The commissioner urged her colleagues to pass on the roundtable and instead schedule a public meeting with an official agenda for the topic.
I don’t really love a roundtable at this point. We tried it, they chose not to come. I want to hear from then, but I think a public meeting that has this listed on an agenda is the right way to do this, she said.
She also urged the commissioners to not present a list of questions to the operators prior to the discussion. O Brien said she doesn t want an operator to claim they re unprepared to answer a question that may have not been presented beforehand.
Commissioner Brad Hill supported her opinion, and suggested the meeting could be split into two sections. The first half would include the licensed operators answering questions from the MGC, while the second half would include professional sports bettors and industry experts. The industry experts invited to the first meeting included included Jack Andrews, a professional gambler and founder of Unabated Sports; Brianne Doura Schawohl, founder of a consulting group that specializes in problem and responsible gaming issues; and Dustin Gouker, a gambling/content consultant and former Vice President of Catena Media.
Just a Small Number of Limited Users?
DraftKings issued a to the MGC on the practice, noting that less than just 1% of its entire user base was limited.
DraftKings Sportsbook offers tens of thousands of wagers on any given day, all with market-specific betting limits. 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, the company wrote.
Maynard asked for similar data points from other licensed operators. He also suggested that each operator may have to included limiting data, such as the number of users who are limited and why they were limited, in quarterly reports moving forward.
Additionally, Sports Wagering Business Manager Crystal Beauchemin comprised several topics the MGC had previously mentioned as possibilities for the meeting. The following was presented to the MGC as potential questions:
How are Casino limits and SW betting limits similar or dissimilar?
How do such limits benefit customers? How would restricting such limits benefit/impact customers?
How does an individual know when they have been/are limited in their wagering?
Are patron limits related to violations of a provision of the Terms of Service they have agreed to, a Massachusetts regulation, or statute?
What could the consumer, financial/revenue, and business impacts be in Massachusetts, if regulations were set to restrict limits or require all limits to be the same?
Are there any general examples of advantage play, proxy wagering or other practices Operators may be able to provide to give some context?
How is integrity ensured amongst these practices?
