The Massachusetts Gaming Commission said Thursday will hold a public meeting on September 11 to discuss possible first-in-the-nation restrictions on operators limiting players. 

The date for the meeting was set during an agenda-setting meeting on Thursday. The meeting on player limits is expected to consist of two parts, One will feature operators. The other would feature members of the public and responsible gaming advocates and experts. 

"I hope. no, I expect, every operator will engage in this discussion with us," Interim MGC Chair Jordan Maynard said during an MGC meeting on August 15.

On May 21, every legal Massachusetts retail and mobile sportsbook in operation at that time chose to skip a public roundtable called to discuss the issue of betting limits being placed on winning players. 

Both in public and private, Commissioners have been roiled by the snub. 

In a meeting on August 1, Commissioners offered a "carrot and stick" approach to the state's now 7 online and 3 retail operators during a scheduled discussion on the matter. 

'Ultimately there may be some regulations that come out of this'

"Ultimately there may be some regulations that come out of this. My question to the operators is do they want to be a part of the conversation or just reactive," Maynard said on August 1. "We're having a larger policy conversation. Hard for me to believe operators don't have an opinion on this policy decision we may or may not make."

The idea of another roundtable was panned by Commissioners at that time, as they also floated the idea of demanding operators issue quarterly reports detailing the number of players limited and the reasons why. 

"We're going to give it another go. I don't love a roundtable at this point. We tried it, but they chose not to come. I would like to give this one more shot with both sides but would like to see it in the form of a public meeting with some questions written," Commissioner Eileen O'Brien added. 

The MGC had given operators a series of questions ahead of the May roundtable. All the operators issued similar statements saying they had concerns about some of their specifics being discussed in an open, public session. But MGC legal counsel Todd Grossman has made it clear he does not believe the MGC could legally discuss this issue in a closed session, citing the state's public record laws. 

"I hope every operator will come and join us and operate in good faith. We need to learn," Maynard said. "I want us to have a good conversation and continue to have it. I want to have the conversation." 

Commissioners on Thursday panned the thought of pre-planned questions for the operators at the to-be scheduled meeting. 

Public Voices Join Discussion

Since the snub, the issue of player limits has spread throughout the sports betting ecosystem. Richard Schuetz, Billy Walters and Gadoon “Spanky” Kryollos recently launched American Bettors' Voice. Their group was noted by O'Brien on August 1, who suggested the MCG reach out to ABV to discuss this issue. 

BetMGM, PENN/ESPN BET, DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars, and Fanatics chose not to attend the first-of-its-kind public discussion in May. As did Encore Boston Harbor and MGM Springfield. Plainridge Park Casino is owned by PENN. 

The MGC could simply adopt regulations governing the arbitrary practice of books limiting players who win, without the full input of the operators by going through its normal regulatory operational standards. 

That option was hinted at again on August 1. 

Commissioner Nakisha Skinner cited a quote from DraftKings including the MGC's agenda packet where the operator said it limits less than 1% of its customers. 

"I want to see case studies. How did this individual come to be limited? Data is where I come from," she said. "It's all about transparency and fairness. What communication is provided to the bettor when they are limited?"

May Snub Left Commissioners Fuming

The May 21 snub left Commissioners upset, to say the least. 

"This was not a good use of our time today," Skinner said that day.

Commissioner Brad Hill spoke of his "anger" over the operators not showing up that day. "There was a lot more information we could and should have gotten today," Hill said. 

The operators all voiced concerns about some of the information in a meeting such as this being publicly revealed. 

Maynard has often said "fundamental fairness" remains the MGC's concern in this matter.

"There's been a lot of complaints about individuals not having communication from operators," Skinner said on May 21. "That's concerning to me," 

"Individuals can bet thousands of dollars," she added, "but when they start to win, they're shut off." 

Of the operators, she added "It has to be more than this sort of 'trust us' approach." 

Public Comments Blast Double-Standard 

The MGC received 59 comments from members of the public ahead of the May roundtable. Many voiced sentiments similar to this one: "I believe the current environment where the books advertise and attract players with promotions to get them hooked and then only allow continued bets from players who lose a lot is not sustainable and is not good for the state of Massachusetts. To prey on certain gamblers for larger amounts and then limit other gamblers to $3 bets is just ridiculous." 

One patron said he cashed $13,500 on a $375 wager on any non-QB throwing a touchdown pass in Super Bowl 58. 

The +3500 ticket cashed when San Francisco WR Jauan Jennings hit Christian McCaffrey with a 21-yard TD pass in the second quarter. 

This bettor, who asked to remain anonymous, had no limits on his FanDuel account prior to the Super Bowl. Since that hit, his wagers have been limited to $50. 

Sportsbooks Cite 'Sensitive Business Information'

Each operator who chose not to attend the May 21 cited company privacy concerns. 

"After careful consideration, DraftKings decided not to participate in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission roundtable regarding wagering limits, because among other things, any meaningful discussion on wagering limits would necessarily involve the disclosure of DraftKings’ confidential risk management practices and other commercially sensitive business information. DraftKings looks forward to working with the Commission to explore alternative ways to contribute to this discussion, while preserving the confidentiality of that information," Boston-based DraftKings said in a statement. 

Other books offered a similar reply to the MGC. 

"We do not believe that we can have a meaningful discussion in a public forum about our wager limits and risk management processes. Risk management, similar to trading (i.e., setting prices) is a core part of our business and our value proposition as a sportsbook, and it is critical for FanDuel to maintain confidentiality over our proprietary systems. We respectfully request the opportunity to meet privately in Executive Session to discuss these matters and provide the level of information necessary to properly understand our approach," FanDuel Vice President, Product and New Market Compliance Cory Fox wrote to the MGC in an email on Saturday. 

PENN Entertainment, the parent company of Plainridge Park Casino and the operator of the ESPN BET sportsbooks, told the MGC on Monday that "it is unable to participate in a public meeting regarding this topic due to the competitively sensitive and proprietary nature of PENN’s risk and trading information."

PENN did offer answers to five questions the MGC had posed to operators. 

There are no rules or regulations that prohibit customer limits for any reason. 

"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. The result would be a less competitive product offering for the customer and reduced revenues for the Commonwealth," wrote Samantha Haggerty, Deputy Chief Compliance Officer, Regulatory Affairs Counsel for PENN on Monday.  

Operators Say Limits On Winners Are 'Sporadic' 

Multiple books contacted for this story would not discuss player limits on the record. No licensed book in Massachusetts has yet to make it publicly known how many bettors have been limited because they won, and more importantly, the criteria used in making the decisions to do so. 

Speaking on background, operators say stories such as this are “sporadic” and more a creation of social media as opposed to wider trends. They argue – at the same time – that the effect these players have on the books is strong enough to negatively impact revenues but there aren’t enough of them for it to be a concern for the public or regulators. 

They argue limits are necessary to help maintain profitability. And they cite their user agreements, which give them wide latitude in terms of refusing wagers, or placing limits on the dollar amount of wagers. 

Player limits, long common to known sharps in Las Vegas, wasn’t on the radar of any legislators or regulators since sports betting was cleared to go nationwide outside of Nevada by the Supreme Court’s decision in the PASPA case in 2018. 

Questions Posed To Operators 

Each operator in the state was asked to answer the following before the May 21 meeting. These same questions may be asked ahead of the yet-to-be-scheduled public meeting. It's not known if these questions will be asked again of the to-be-schedule hearing. 

1. Please detail how and why a patron may be limited on your platform, including how you may limit patrons on an individual basis.
2. Please explain the experience of a patron once they become limited. 
3. What are the responsible gaming implications if patron limits are more heavily regulated? 
4. What would be the impacts to the industry if allowing limits on individual patrons was prohibited or limited by law or regulation? 
5. What are other jurisdictions and/or other sports books doing?

Currently, the Commission has just four members since the replacement for Cathy Judd-Stein, who retired in March, has yet to be named. 

Expect Some Changes On Limits In The Future

In terms of the substance, it’s doubtful that the status quo will remain in place where operators are allowed to limit bettors without warning, explanation, or recourse, especially the comments made by Maynard on Thursday. 

The MGC prides itself on being patron-focused, whether those patrons bet at a casino, at a parimutuel site, or via a licensed sportsbook. 

The basic issue of “Why do you limit players when they win, but not when they lose?” will be a tough ask for operators.

At the May 21 meeting, the issue of limits on problem gamblers was also discussed. O'Brien said this, too, should be a concern of the MGC and asked one of the roundtable speakers, Brianne Doura Schawohl, to provide examples to the body.