Massachusetts sportsbook operators participated in a Sept. 11 Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting after all but one backed out of a roundtable discussion in May. The meeting marked the first time U.S. operators have publicly discussed the practice of limiting how much certain players can wager after being deemed to have violated terms and conditions.
But the second half of the meeting was equally enlightening, with a collection of panelists eager to challenge many of the points the operators made in the first half.
Journalists, industry veterans and responsible gaming specialists discussed their beliefs that sportsbooks sometimes limit compliant players just for winning. Those participants also discussed limits being set erroneously over responsible gaming concerns, how Massachusetts sportsbooks could be more transparent and what regulators can do to get to the bottom of the issue.
Massachusetts sports betting experts weigh in on bet limiting
The lineup for the second half of the bet-limiting meeting, which lasted nearly 70 minutes, featured:
- David Hill, gambling industry journalist
- Joe Brennan, industry veteran and executive chairman of the Prime Sports sportsbook
- Richard Scheutz, industry veteran and CEO of player advocacy group American Bettors Voice
- Brianne Doura-Schawohl, responsible gaming consultant
- Marlene Warner, CEO of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health
- Jeff Edelstein, industry journalist
Massachusetts sportsbook operators don’t want ‘smart’ players?
Most of the panelists seemed to disagree with several points sportsbook operator representatives made earlier in the meeting. One particular disagreement came from sportsbook claims that no players are limited simply for winning.
Edelstein, who has written about the industry for outlets like SportsHandle and Newsweek, said he would qualify as a casual, low-money bettor. He said that while certain reasons for limiting were understandable, in general it seems like sportsbooks are setting bet limits on players who are good at sports wagering.
Edelstein said:
“They are saying specifically that if you’re smart, we don’t want you. They say if you’re part of a syndicate, if you’re (just capitalizing on) betting errors, courtsiding — that I can understand. But just because I’m a little bit smarter? Just because I’m looking for a little bit of an edge, that’s what they’re saying can get you limited. That to me seems patently unfair.”
Joe Brennan’s Prime sportsbook attracts sharp bettors turned off by most legal sportsbooks’ bet-limiting practices. Prime never limits bettors beyond the posted max wager and win limits. Brennan says Prime allows large bets from professional bettors because the sportsbooks learn from those bettors. Prime relies on them to adjust betting lines, which, he says, the other commercial sportsbooks then adopt.
The Massachusetts sports wagering operators said they will often limit “advantage players,” which Brennan says is a euphemism:
“Translation for that is ‘a good player.’ A good bettor. A smart player. They are saying that (they) don’t want smart players, they don’t want good players, because they see them as a threat, rather than seeing them as a resource.”
Sports betting experts say bet limits drive players to unregulated markets
A leading argument states have used to legalize sports betting is that it helps keep people from going to the illegal market. Brennan said bet limiting is a major mark against responsible gambling, as it could cause someone to pursue betting at illegal sportsbooks.
Brennan said:
“If these operators in your state are limiting and shutting down winning players, not taking their action, what are those players supposed to do? What is their alternative?”
Hill, who has written about the industry for the likes of The New York Times and Rolling Stone, said he recently interviewed offshore operators in Costa Rica. He said those operators told him that, despite losing business when regulated sports betting began spreading across the country, much of that business has slowly been coming back. Those operators attributed their growing customer base to players being limited in the legal market.
Hill said:
“They’re seeing the way to capture business is to market themselves as a place that will not limit and will take your bets. … To whatever degree this is all about stemming the unregulated grey and black markets in sports betting, this, at least anecdotally, is not helping.”
Bet-limiting data may be key to addressing issue
In previous discussions, commissioner Nakisha Skinner suggested the MGC may need to obtain hard data on bet-limiting practices from the operators to better understand the issues.
Scheutz concurred with that sentiment during the Sept. 11 MGC meeting, saying that without that data, it’s impossible to get to the heart of the matter. He suggested regulators use their authority to require the data be reported. Then the MGC could hire a data analyst to examine the information.
Scheutz said:
“You people are regulators, you have the ability to request information in clear, succinct steps and have them provide it to you, and have the ability to audit that . . . The talking needs to slow down and the data acquisition needs to start. Get the facts.”
