Massachusetts operators skip regulator's roundtable on wager limits

State regulators for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) have been left frustrated after 10 operators opted against attending a public roundtable regarding customer betting limits on Tuesday, May 21.

Leading sports betting operators licensed in the Bay State made clear to the MGC they did not wish to disclose risk management practices they deem confidential in a public forum, nor were they under any legal obligation to attend.

Those fears were confirmed in email correspondence to the MGC, which the regulator published yesterday, along with emails from customers who had been subject to betting limits, in line with the public roundtable.

Bally’s was the only operator to take part in the debate despite not having gone live in the market yet.

In comments reported by SBC Americas, MGC commissioner Nakisha Skinner made her feelings on the situation clear. “It was not a good use of our time given we did not have our primary stakeholders as part of the discussion,” she stated.

It was a sentiment echoed by Bradford Hill, also a commissioner at the MCG, who added: “It really didn’t give us the starting point that I hoped we would get today.”

Given the sheer number of operator no-shows, the discussion was restricted, which in turn left regulators hamstrung. No rules were changed or new policies announced, but this debate is likely to rumble on as some bettors continue to be hindered by strict wagering limits.

Skinner went on to state that the regulator has received plenty of feedback from bettors of varying experience and skill level who felt restricted by bookmaker wagering limits.

“The comments overwhelmingly indicated that regular patrons, individuals who casually or recreationally wager, are limited simply for winning, winning in the ordinary course,” Skinner explained. 

“And, to me, that’s a much different conversation that affects many more individuals, many more citizens of this commonwealth, than the handful – I don’t know how many, forgive me – of sharps that might be sort of gaming the system from the operators’ perspective.” 

Thanks but no thanks

The MGC revealed seven operators had confirmed they would not be present at the roundtable, with the regulator publishing emails from senior members of staff at each firm.

DraftKings, the market leader in Massachusetts, its home state, said that after “careful consideration” it had declined to participate in the session.

DraftKings noted that while the topic is one it would welcome the chance to speak to the commission about, it did not feel a public forum was the best place to do so.

“As the leading sports wagering operator in Massachusetts, DraftKings believes that its perspective would be helpful to any policy discussion about wagering limits and it would welcome the opportunity to further educate the Commission on this topic,” the Boston-based bookmaker firm said.

“However, any meaningful discussion on wagering limits would necessarily involve disclosure of the company’s confidential risk management practices and other commercially sensitive business information.” 

Caesars, Encore Boston Harbour, and MGM Springfield all sent short responses citing concerns over discussing limits in a public setting, while FanDuel said it was “thankful” for the invitation but that it was “critical” to maintain confidentially over its systems.

In an email from Fanatics Betting and Gaming SVP of regulatory affairs, Alex Smith, the exec detailed how the operator had met with the MGC in April to discuss risk management practices.

The operator said it considered it had already provided all the information required in that meeting and that a public forum would “give rise to a legitimate concern of harm to our business”.

Finally, PENN Entertainment was the only firm to provide email written answers to all five questions put to the operators by the regulator.

One answer read: “PENN may limit a patron for various reasons, including taking advantage of or manipulating the sportsbook or abusing promotional play.

“Patron limits are a percentage of normal wager limits, and in wagering markets that have guaranteed stakes, the guaranteed stakes supersede any percentage limits imposed by PENN.”

The ESPN Bet operator also said any introduction of legislation to prohibit limits on customers would have a significant impact on the sector.

In her email, deputy chief compliance officer Samantha Haggerty said: “PENN is not able to speak for the industry as a whole.

“However, 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.”

Bally’s Interactive spokesperson, Justin Black, appeared on behalf of the only operator in attendance and insisted the operator does not limit bettors solely on their winnings. “It’s based on underlying factors that are proprietary to Bally’s from a risk perspective,” he said.