Massachusetts sportsbooks discussed the practice of placing betting limits on customers during a long-awaited meeting on Wednesday.
The meeting was originally planned as a roundtable discussion with Massachusetts sports betting operators and others back in May. But, after initially expressing a willingness to participate, all but one of the sportsbooks pulled out of that meeting, to the commissioners’ dismay.
This time, representatives from every sportsbook were present. The Sept. 11 Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting was split into two parts. The operators were featured first in an 80-minute discussion. The second half of the meeting included journalists, gambling and industry veterans, and a responsible gambling expert.
Massachusetts sports betting finally discuss bet-limiting practices
The MGC decided to begin investigating bet-limiting practices after hearing from customers who said they had the amounts they were allowed to bet restricted after winning too much or too often.
Sportsbooks have generally insisted they only limit betting amounts if they determine a player is violating their terms and conditions and never simply for winning.
Massachusetts operators largely echoed that stance at Wednesday’s MGC meeting. The meeting featured representatives from all seven online sportsbooks operating in the Commonwealth: FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Caesars, Fanatics, BallyBet and ESPN Bet. There were also representatives from the three Massachusetts casinos, which each feature retail sportsbooks.
Massachusetts sportsbooks share reasons bettors are limited
The operator representatives were first asked for details on how and why customers may be limited on their respective platforms.
Sarah Brennan, BetMGM’s senior director of compliance, told commissioners that bet limiting is a part of risk and liability management. Brennan said that it’s crucial for the sustainability of the sports betting industry. She said that things like specific wagering patterns, bonus abuse, and irregular behavior can trigger bet limiting.
Brennan added:
“To effectively manage risk, we limit a small minority of patrons that we consider to be ‘advantage players’ who attempt to take advantage or find ways around our risk management framework.”
Some specific examples given by the other operators of what sorts of behavior might lead to a player being limited include inconsistent wagering amounts, automated bots, syndicate betting (where groups of bettors collude to exploit errors) and “courtsiding,” where a player is physically present at a sporting event and can exploit the latency of the feeds the sportsbooks rely on to offer live, in-game bets.
Operators say very few Massachusetts bettors are limited
Multiple operators made a point of reiterating that very few of their customers are ever limited.
Brennan said that BetMGM currently has put bet limits on around 1% of Massachusetts customers. Alex Smith, the VP of regulatory affairs for Fanatics, said 90% of its winning customers are not limited at all. Smith said that those numbers show that the notion that many people are banned just for winning “is statistically incorrect.”
Banning bet limiting would hurt sportsbook revenue & user experience
Most of the operators seemed to agree that any regulations restricting a sportsbook’s ability to limit an individual’s wager amount would hurt their overall business and lead to a lessened product, with fewer markets and less favorable odds.
BetMGM’s Brennan said:
“It is our ability to limit that small minority of advantage players that allows us to continue to offer competitive lines, competitive odds and a wide variety of markets for the 99% of non-advantage players that play with us.”
FanDuel’s Fox concurred with that sentiment, saying that restricting bet limiting would lead to less revenue. This is true not just for the sportsbook, but also for the state:
“If that ability (to limit bettors) was taken away from us, we’d have to greatly shrink the markets that we’re able to offer on the platform and reduce the limits for the vast majority of customers, which I don’t think would be a positive thing for the legal, regulated market. I think it would drive down revenue and ultimately drive down taxable revenue for the Commonwealth.”
Operators say limited bettors usually know why
The commissioners had previously discussed whether sports wagering operators could be more transparent. For instance, they could send players a message about why and how they were being limited. The commission received feedback from several users who said they were surprised by the limitation and weren’t aware of what they did wrong.
A few of the operator representatives suggested that the majority of people on social media and those who provided feedback to the MGC about being limited are being dishonest. They believe that, in most cases, notifications in that situation are unnecessary because those limited bettors already know why they’ve been restricted.
Fox said that is evidenced by the fact that very few users contact FanDuel’s customer service seeking information about the reasons for their wager limits. He said:
“To my mind we are solving a problem that doesn’t exist, because we don’t have users showing up and complaining about this issue.”
Caesars Sportsbook’s COO Kenneth Fuchs also said they’ve received very little feedback from users who were surprised after being limited. Fuchs added:
“Where we do see it is simply on social media and we know there are some bad actors that are louder in that forum and often have situations attached to them that are different than just a straight limiting situation.”
MGC to continue examining bet limits & responsible gambling concerns
There should be ample opportunity to discuss bet limiting in Massachusetts further, as the commissioners signaled that this latest meeting was just the beginning of the conversation. Many factors must be considered, including concerns regarding Massachusetts responsible gambling.
At the end of the Sept. 11 MGC meeting, interim chair Jordan Maynard said they would take their time before deciding whether or not any regulations might be necessary. Maynard concluded:
“I know that patrons and those who follow the commission’s work are eager for quick determinations. We are a deliberative body and we will not sacrifice getting an issue right just for expediency sake.”
