In case there was any doubt, I’ll be watching today’s Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting closely, as it will tackle the always-hot topic of sports bettor limiting. The proceedings start at 10 a.m. and I’ll tweet the highlights here, so follow along! 
Here's my primer on today's meeting and on limiting more broadly:
Massachusetts is Investigating Sports Bettor Limiting. What Is It?
@Coverscovers.com/industry/massa…
Massachusetts is Investigating Sports Bettor Limiting. What Is It?
@Coverscovers.com/industry/massa…
@Covers And we're off. The MGC meeting on limiting has begun:
MGC Interim Chair Jordan Maynard starts meeting by saying the regulator was made aware of patrons being limited and that those patrons were given no notice as to why or how long those limits would last. Maynard also recalls the May meeting on limiting, in which no active operators participated. Says all hands on deck for today.
Maynard slams illegal operators, saying they "prey" on MA residents, don't play by rules, and not subject to regulatory scrutiny. "They are not our partners."
We'll start with operators and then after a short break move to "representatives of patrons, responsible gaming and alternative sportsbook models regarding wager limitations."
Maynard makes it clear we are going to have a nice, respectful meeting.
Maynard makes it clear we are going to have a nice, respectful meeting.
The gang's all here, as representatives from Bally's, BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics, FanDuel, PENN, etc. all introduce themselves.
First q from Maynard: Please detail how and why a patron may be limited on your platform, including how you limit patrons on an individual basis.
BetMGM's Sarah Brennan says many factors considered, but that they limit only a small group of "advantage players."
Says this small group insists limiting is a bigger problem than it is. Limiting of advantage players allows BetMGM to offer more markets to the larger population of non-advantage players.
Says this small group insists limiting is a bigger problem than it is. Limiting of advantage players allows BetMGM to offer more markets to the larger population of non-advantage players.
BetMGM's Jeremy Kolman says they limit a "very small minority," or approximately one percent, of advantage players. BetMGM looks for patterns like capitalizing on errors in odds, "syndicate betting" by groups, wagering inconsistent amounts.
Kolman says bettor limits are done by assigning a "stake factor" to players that corresponds to how much a patron is permitted to wager on any given market. 1.0 factor means they can bet to BetMGM's max, but if they observe advantage play, could factor someone down to 0.5 of max.
Kolman says its not a "results-driven" process but one based on wagering patterns.
Kolman says the decisions on limiting are made by trading team.
Asked if AI used, BetMGM reps don't have an answer. No trading team reps present for the meeting.
What's an "advantage player"? Kolman says no singular definition, but there's multiple factors. "24 hour monitoring type of thing" when it comes to limiting based on behaviors they see.
Commissioner Skinner wants to know if casuals get limited. We will look at patterns of betting behavior to determine whether or not BetMGM needs to limit somebody, Kolman says. Some bettors may self-identify as casual but behavior may cause BetMGM to consider them an advantage player.
Cory Fox of FanDuel says their risk management similar to BetMGM. Users limited for a variety of reasons, picking off bad prices, courtsiding. On an average day tho, FanDuel taking bets on ~2700 events. Happy to take wagers but have to protect themselves.
Fox says this is a "very limited set of users" who actually get limited.
Very small amount of wagers are at the max at FanDuel, Fox says. 0.04% or so, I think was the number.
Jake List of DraftKings says re: limiting it comes down to behavior as well. Alex Smith of Fanatics notes we are talking about sub-percentages of sub-percentages of players.
Fox says flexible wagering limits allows them to offer more markets. Suggests it helps with keeping players on legal books and not going offshore or illegal.
Ken Fuchs of Caesars says they also deal with "automated bots." Adds that it's a "tiny fraction" of customers and wagers subject to limits.
Fuchs says there is a "myriad" of criteria that can lead to limits. Our liquidity isn't endless, he says. Might have smaller markets where risk tolerance is lower. We find a lot of bots on desktop, he says. "Collusion" among customers and syndicates.
We do see customers colluding trying to take advantage of bonuses with offsetting wagers, Fuchs says.
Maynard wants to know about the "bots" and if it's a problem they should be thinking about. Fuchs says they are often attached to legit players, using computer sim programs to place rapid bets and take advantage of errors, arbing, etc. Not human betting, but computer program.
Even markets like NFL Draft or awards... those are offered for customer enjoyment, don't expect to win. We want to keep those markets up, but there are people who will take advantage of them.
Trying to protect "vast majority" of customers just trying to bet on their fave teams and players, Fuchs says.
Fox of FanDuel says they review player behavior on site, types of markets they play and the outcome. Get insight on whether they believe the user should be limited. Then make decision based on that info. Again, though, "small" percentage of users subject to this.
Smith of Fanatics says nearly half of people being limited are net losers at time of limiting. Speaks to focus on behavior not outcomes.
Commissioner O'Brien asks why not just shutting down in-play markets isn't a solution to courtsiding. Fox of FanDuel says it is a solution but challenging to get timing right. Users at home already have a delay.
Fox also suggests that if users go offshore and exhibit same limit-worthy behavior there they are likely to get limited as well.
O'Brien wonders if commissioners need to be looking at the "lag" issue with in-play. Wants to know if there are notifications for limiting.
Fox of FanDuel says when users go to place wager above their limit the bet slip will say it's above the limit and here is the actual limit for them.
"So they have to try and fail though before they get that alert?" asks O'Brien.
They do, Fox says.
"So they have to try and fail though before they get that alert?" asks O'Brien.
They do, Fox says.
Fox says they are not going to send users an email outlining all of the limits for their markets. At a minimum you could alert users that it's happening, though, O'Brien says. We've had people complaining to this agency, she adds.
O'Brien says she's heard at conferences that sharp bettors were used to be used to help set lines, but no longer the case. Some of the complaints we get is that people start winning and then get limited.
Fox says whole idea of limiting is you are still allowing wagers from users and getting info from them. We have limitations across the board for markets and then for bettors. Seems like you have your cake and eat it too, O'Brien says.
Fuchs says there are limits that happen in real-time based on game state, liability. A limit is not a hard line, though. Adds there are "bad actors" on social media.
List of DraftKings says courtsiding is a good example of what benefits the most versus the few. May have 200 people betting online who have a delay but then a few bettors are there in person. Want to be able to provide those markets to the many.
On disclosure about limiting, concern with increased info is it could help customers evade controls. If customers are able to find more sophisticated strategies to beat controls, then we have consider removing more markets, offer worse odds, etc., List says.
Could there be a general notification, such as 25% limit on college basketball, etc. Maynard asks. We're trying to solve a problem, didn't just wake up one day and want awkward convo with operators. MGC is getting complaints from customers. Worried about casual bettors caught up in controls.
Fox of FanDuel says they are willing to work with commission on the transparency angle. BetMGM's Brennan suggests it could be challenging communicating all the factors that go into limiting.
On the "ban or bankrupt" model allegations... Fox says they have programs and teams for risk management and others searching for problem gambling risks. Smith of Fanatics says they likewise have separate efforts for risk and RG. "We hate seeing when players are experiencing gaming harm."
Fuchs of Caesars says when players are banned it's typically tied to illegal or suspicious activity, repeated violations of T&Cs. We are not banning customers for beating us we are banning them for other reasons, he adds.
Five mins left for operator segment. Commissioner Hill says they are trying to get the facts and today is getting the dialogue going. Not the end of the discussion.
O'Brien wants stats. Convos with staff need more specifics.
And that's all for the operator segment of today's meeting. Interim Chair Maynard says they are looking for "fair and equitable solves" for patrons having issues. If people are gonna bet in MA, this group of operators is who you should be wagering with, he adds. RECESS!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
