Sports betting companies balk at discussing limits on bettors

BOSTON (SHNS) – Prodded into action by bettors who said their wagering was limited by sports betting companies after cashing regular wins, state gambling regulators planned Tuesday to convene a roundtable with 10 companies, a bettor representative, responsible gambling officials and more.

But then all 10 of the sports betting companies balked, telling the Gaming Commission they did not want to talk about a controversial topic — how and why sportsbooks restrict how much or how often someone can bet — in a public meeting.

Acting Chairman Jordan Maynard said Tuesday’s roundtable was planned because the commission heard from bettors and read in media reports that “some operators limit bettors who routinely win.”

“Some claim they were not in violation of house rules, state laws or regulations, or other authorized acts when they were limited. It was the understanding of the MGC team that operators have the right to limit their risk by blocking those attempting to circumvent the rules. If a player is violating rules, laws or regulations, they should not be welcome to access a market,” Maynard said. “That said, many at the MGC, myself included, were wondering if there were patrons who were wagering honestly who were being limited.”

The acting chairman highlighted that “stamping out the illegal market” was a key priority of the Legislature when it legalized sports betting in 2022.

“There is a worry that if we have operators limiting patrons who are playing by the rules, that limitation will naturally incentivize those players to turn to the illegal market,” he said.

In comments submitted to the commission and included in Tuesday’s meeting materials, bettors from around Massachusetts (and other states) shared the circumstances that led them to be limited by sportsbooks, with many people claiming they did nothing untoward.

“After I started sports betting and winning, I had restrictions and limits placed on my accounts by sportsbooks. On some platforms I cannot bet more than $5 at a time. I didn’t take advantage of any system — I have specialized knowledge about sports and work with modeling sports outcomes,” a Bay Stater named Alec McCarren told the Gaming Commission. “The sportsbooks will limit smart bettors playing within the rules, but offer predatory VIP programs and invest a ton in targeted advertisements to bettors that consistently lose, fueling addiction to fuel their profits. They can’t have it both ways.”

Jack Andrews, a professional bettor who also co-founded the consultancy Unabated Sports, said he was limited within about three weeks of mobile sports betting becoming legal in New Jersey, even though he was actually down $600 at the time.

“I later talked to the traders at DraftKings, who were the ones that limited me, and they said, ‘Oh, we limited you because we saw you were betting second inning lines in baseball and we knew anyone betting second inning lines must know what they’re doing. So we didn’t want your action anymore,'” he said.

The perspective of betting companies was absent from Tuesday’s roundtable, but at least one operator shed some light on its limiting practices in a letter shared with the commission ahead of time.

“Per the house rules of both Plainridge Park Casino and Penn Sports Interactive previously approved by the Commission, PENN reserves the right to make changes to the site, betting limits, payout limits and offerings. PENN may limit a patron for various reasons, including taking advantage of or manipulating the sportsbook or abusing promotional play,” PENN Entertainment wrote.

The company said it is not aware of any law or regulation in the 19 jurisdictions in which it operates that prohibits operators from limiting patrons, and cautioned the Gaming Commission against implementing any such regulation in Massachusetts.

“[A] law or regulation prohibiting or limiting operators’ ability to allow limits would lead to a large reduction in the amount of wager opportunities offered, reduced limits for all patrons (rather than just individual patrons who are manipulating or abusing the system), less sports and leagues available to wager on, and potentially, a reduction in available operators entirely. The typical, recreational bettor would experience a vast reduction in betting options if such a law or regulation were put into place,” PENN said. “The result would be a less competitive product offering for the customer and reduced revenues for the Commonwealth.”

At the start of Tuesday’s meeting, Maynard said that he had “been made aware that 10 active operators in the commonwealth, after initially signalling that they would attend and actively participate in this public roundtable, decided not to.” He said the companies “were requesting an executive session to discuss these matters, as they felt that some information would be too sensitive to reveal in public.”

“I want to clear the air here. We are required by law to do our job in an open forum in Massachusetts. At times it can be uncomfortable to have these conversations in public, and we understand it. My fellow commissioners and I are faced with this situation at almost every meeting, without the benefit of being able to collaborate before we join a meeting. It’s tough,” he said. “But that said, transparency is key to integrity of the industry in Massachusetts.”

General Counsel Todd Grossman said the commission reviewed the matter and determined that “there is no clear and safe way to enter into executive session in the circumstances to discuss this particular information.”

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WWLP.