Massachusetts Sports Betting Operators No-Show at Key Regulation Roundtable


The six online sports betting operators licensed by the Massachusetts’ regulatory body did not participate in a recently held roundtable discussion on the procedures by which sportsbooks place restrictions on punters. While adverts for significant players like DraftKings and BetMGM grace the iconic Green Monster at Fenway Park, home to the beloved Boston Red Sox, their representatives were conspicuously absent from the important meeting.

This omission comes as the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) seeks to gain a thorough understanding of the criteria and circumstances under which sportsbooks place betting limitations on their patrons. The commission offered ample notice to the licensed sportsbooks, inviting them to Tuesday’s discussion, only for all to decline.

Follow us on Google News! ✔️

MGC’s interest in the matter has been piqued by the increasing number of complaints lodged by disgruntled bettors, finding their wagering capabilities suddenly capped. Acting MGC Director, Jordan Maynard, opened the virtual meeting by delivering the unexpected news that no representatives of the sportsbooks would be sharing insights into their policies surrounding betting limitations.

Maynard outlined the raison d’être for the roundtable discussion, articulating a desire to delve into the specifics of when and why a bettor might find their capacity to place bets hampered by these operators within the state. The commission hopes to gain clarity on the circumstances under which operators impose limitations on winning bettors.

Maynard relayed the commission’s assumption that restrictions were commonly placed on patrons breaching the house rules of sportsbook operators. However, he stressed, the commission was unaware that the current regulations could allow a sportsbook to limit or exclude a winning patron.

The roundtable’s objectives were to glean the standpoint of the state’s sportsbooks and gain an in-depth understanding of the limiting practice. However, the sportsbooks opted for a private meeting to safeguard the confidential nature of their risk management procedures.

Maynard, while defending the necessity of the open forum by state law, acknowledged the discomfort resulting from public scrutiny in sensitive matters but emphasized the crucial role of transparency for preserving the integrity of Massachusetts’ gaming industry.

Feedback from the sportsbooks towards the roundtable invitation echoed concerns about safeguarding company secrets in a public setting. FanDuel’s vice president gave an affirmative response to the state regulatory body while citing risk management as an integral part of their business model. Simultaneously, DraftKings opted for privacy, citing the exposure of confidential risk management practices that might result from a forum attendance.

Public sentiments diverged from the sportsbooks’ claims that betting limitations are rarely employed. The MGC found considerable public outcry following an open comment period, with many bettors alleging unjust limitations by the licensed sports wagering operators.

One punter, Brady Hughes, claimed he had been unfairly targeted by three major sportsbooks in the state, reducing his wager to paltry amounts. He expressed his grievance on sportsbooks’ double standards in advocating ‘responsible gaming’ while simultaneously restricting profitable bettors.

His sentiment was echoed by fellow Massachusetts bettor, Nick Mascarello, who took aim at sportsbooks concealing restrictive practices behind ‘responsible gambling’ slogans. He called for fair wagering limits, advocating for a minimum smaller wager of $100 for winning bettors, contrasting it with the high-risk bearing capacity of long-term losing bettors.