The Massachusetts Gaming Commission will again attempt to discuss the practice of bet limiting with sports betting operators at a forthcoming meeting. On Aug. 1, commissioners plotted out some of the meeting’s structure after sportsbook operators failed to attend a previous roundtable discussion on the matter in May.
The upcoming meeting’s date is set to be scheduled at the MGC’s Aug. 7 agenda-setting meeting.
The MGC is the first state gaming commission to address sportsbooks limiting the amount a customer can wager. Operators say such bet-limiting is being done due to responsible gaming or manipulation concerns. Some bettors, however, claim they’ve been limited due to winning too much.
If the commission were to adopt regulations related to bet limiting — which was hinted at during the Aug. 1 meeting — Massachusetts sports betting would be the first to do so.
Massachusetts sportsbooks & regulators compromise on bet-limiting discussion
The MGC held its original roundtable discussion about wager limiting at the commission’s May 21 meeting. Initially, the sports betting operators active in the state at the time expressed a willingness to attend. But all failed to appear except for Bally Bet, which launched in Massachusetts in early July. Commissioners expressed frustration with the no-shows, as they sought to better understand the practice before considering whether regulations were necessary.
The operators expressed concern over holding the meeting in public, not wanting to share certain behind-the-scenes information in such a forum. However, the MGC’s legal team determined that the roundtable would have to be public due to Massachusetts’ open-meeting laws.
Since then, the commission has been in communication with the operators, who suggested they’d participate in a public bet-limiting discussion if it were only open to operators. The May 21 roundtable featured gamblers and gambling experts.
The commissioners weren’t keen on allowing only the sportsbooks to participate in the discussion. As a solution, the MGC suggested having a two-part meeting. The first half would be limited to operators. The second half would feature the viewpoints of players, responsible gaming experts, and other non-operator voices.
Some of the commissioners also expressed a desire to take more of a formal meeting approach, rather than a roundtable, which they felt was perhaps too casual.
Meeting to revisit previous sportsbook bet-limiting questions & more
The commissioners decided that they would revisit some of the basic questions they prepared before the May bet-limiting roundtable that were sent to operators ahead of time.
But the commissioners said those questions should merely serve as a jumping-off point. Ultimately, they wanted the flexibility to ask additional questions. Commissioner Nakisha Skinner said she hopes the operators will be prepared to answer those additional questions without stonewalling.
Skinner said:
“It is in the operators’ best interest to come and talk to us and to tell us what we need to know as we consider the matter. But under no circumstance am I interested in just convening a meeting for the operators to save face and show up this time and then say, ‘Gee, we can’t say anything. We can’t answer your questions.’”
Sportsbook regulators want operator input before considering new rules
MGC interim chair Jordan Maynard said that the end result of the bet-limiting discussion may be new rules related to the practice. Maynard said he’d like operator input to help determine what potential regulations might look like, or if they are even necessary. Maynard said:
“Ultimately there could be some regulations that come out of this. And what I pose to the operators today in public is, do you want to be a part of the conversations that help develop those, or do you want to be reactive to whatever comes out? I would hope they would want to be part of it.”
Commissioner Eileen O’Brien suggested that if the upcoming meeting doesn’t yield adequate information from operators, perhaps the MGC should begin soliciting feedback by crafting sample regulations:
“The other way to move forward with the conversation is we say to legal, ‘Give me a draft (regulation).’ And that’s the jumping off point, right?,” O’Brien said. “I would like to give this one more shot in a conversation with both sides before any pen is put to paper on a reg.”
Massachusetts could require regular bet-limiting data reporting
The commission has been hoping to receive concrete data related to sportsbooks’ bet limiting to better understand the issue.
Commissioner Skinner said getting stats on the number of limited customers and the reasons why is crucial:
“I’d like to understand what data is available that the operators would be willing to share. We can compel (data), if need be, relative to how many individuals are limited and why. Publicly, DraftKings indicated that less than 1% of their bettors are limited. I want to see case studies, if possible, around what those circumstances are. How did an individual come to be limited? Just really talk to us about what it is you’re seeing. Because we don’t know what’s out there. We know what has been reported to us in public comments.”
The Aug. 1 MGC meeting saw Maynard suggest that operators could perhaps integrate such bet-limiting data into quarterly reports. O’Brien agreed, saying that requiring reports could be the commission’s first rule related to bet limiting:
“Is step one really requiring reporting (bet limiting) stats? And there’s also the function of, if we start to get stats that aren’t making sense, or that we want to take a deeper dive, there’s always audit functions that this agency has to do deeper dives once we have data. If it’s not making sense or we’re getting information from other parties that that’s not what they’re seeing or feeling, there’s always that audit feature.”
