Massachusetts Gaming Commission Holds Roundtable to Address Transparency in Sportsbook Betting Limits
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) recently convened a public roundtable to discuss the issue of transparency in sportsbook betting limits. However, 10 active operators declined to attend and requested a private executive session, citing concerns about sensitive information. Despite this setback, the MGC is required by law to conduct meetings in an open forum.
Sportsbook operators such as BetMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars, Fanatics, and PENN Entertainment (ESPN BET) informed the commission of their decision to withdraw just 72 hours before the meeting. The only operator present was Bally Bet, which is not yet live in Massachusetts.
During the roundtable, frustration grew among the commissioners due to the absence of the sportsbook operators. Commissioner Nakisha Skinner expressed disappointment and hoped for better participation in future discussions. Commissioner Brad Hill even voiced his anger over the lack of information provided by the absent operators.
The Athletic reached out to BetMGM, FanDuel, and DraftKings for comment. BetMGM directed them to their public statements, while DraftKings has yet to respond.
The main topic of discussion was the lack of transparency regarding player limits imposed by sportsbooks in Massachusetts. The MGC expressed concerns about unclear communication and limited information on why and when a player might be restricted. The commission fears that sportsbooks may impose limits on winning players, potentially driving them towards illegal markets.
The MGC aimed to address five guiding questions during the roundtable regarding player limits:
1. How and why are patrons limited on your platform, including individual limitations?
2. What is the experience of patrons once they become limited?
3. What are the responsible gaming implications if patron limits are more heavily regulated?
4. What would be the impacts on the industry if limits on individual patrons were prohibited or limited by law?
5. How do other jurisdictions and sportsbooks handle player limits?
Jack Andrews, a professional gambler representing sports betting company Unabated, provided insights from the perspective of sports bettors. He highlighted the lack of communication from sportsbooks when limiting players and the absence of clear explanations or time frames for the restrictions. Unlike brick-and-mortar casinos that limit players at specific tables, sportsbooks impose pervasive restrictions across all games.
The MGC received numerous stories from sportsbook users detailing similar experiences. Commissioner Skinner emphasized that the issue is one of fundamental fairness.
Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a consultant specializing in problem gambling, shared a case from Washington, D.C., where a sportsbook falsely claimed that a patron was limited due to problem gambling. This highlights the need for more transparency and improved communication between sportsbooks and players.
The roundtable concluded with a commitment from the commission to continue the conversation, this time with the active participation of sportsbook operators. Commissioner Eileen O’Brien acknowledged that this was just the beginning of the discussion.
Overall, the roundtable shed light on the lack of transparency in sportsbook betting limits and the potential consequences for both players and the industry. The MGC’s goal is to ensure fairness and prevent players from turning to illegal markets due to limitations imposed by sportsbooks. Continued dialogue between the commission and operators will be crucial in addressing these concerns and finding a balance that benefits all stakeholders involved.