.svg)
While U.S. operators maintain that the number of players who have individual wagering limits imposed on them is minimal, player advocates and responsible gaming advocates remain concerned about the process of those decisions.
After operators addressed the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) last week regarding the practice of limiting players, another roundtable comprising advocates for players addressed the commission, and one of the common concerns the panel shared was regarding how responsible gaming concerns were related to the process.
"For me, top of mind is two things, are we using data in the same way to make decisions on limiting someone who might be experiencing gambling related harm, and what are those percentages that the average operator is limiting someone for true, responsible gaming concerns?” said Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a responsible gaming consultant.
“Having responsible gaming be used as a scapegoat is just as dangerous as not using the player monitoring systems and data tracking to truly intervene and to limit someone who might be experiencing harm.”
Joe Brennan, executive chairman for Prime Sportsbook, which operates in Ohio and New Jersey, said that the practice of limiting can be “somewhat cynically exploited” by operators as a player protection step.
“I know I still hear from quite a few players, who really what they are is they're young, would be professional players, and they are trying to make their way in this game and do it professionally, and this is one of the reasons that is given to them when they are shut down or they are limited, and that is they're being investigated for potential responsible gaming issues,” he said.
One common thread from the operator roundtable was a discussion about the transparency associated with being limited, and potentially notifying players about how and why they would be limited.
Many operators on the panel argued that, in the majority of cases, players are being limited for behaviors and are well aware that they have been banned, but others argue that the transparency is still lacking.
“We talk to players, we engage with players every single day who can't get a piece of information from the sportsbooks,” said Marlene Warner, CEO of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health. “They don't know how to get an answer from a live human being, whether that be through electronic means or on the phone.”
Richard Schuetz, CEO of bettor advocacy group American Bettors' Voice, added that he was skeptical that a notification requirement would truly capture the reasoning as to why a player was limited.
“I think that notification will look like, you have violated our terms and conditions, understanding that terms and conditions can be over 125 pages of text, would demand a team of lawyers to sift through, and it is absolutely a tool that is used, never against the book, always against the player,” Schuetz said.
“It’s a great model … but it ain’t gonna happen, you’re going to get the same kind of obtuse communication that you’ve violated our terms and conditions.”
Warner also argued that, in many cases, the issues that operators have imposed limits for can be linked to responsible gaming issues.
“A lot of the conversation was around integrity, collusion, a number of things,” Warner said. “They were discussed as if they were separate, apart from gambling problems, and I think that is a mistake.”
Brennan argued that sportsbooks should be looking to capture the information that a sharp bettor can provide to sharpen their own lines.
“If you don't know what the smartest people with the most money are doing in the marketplace, do you really have a good product?” he asked. “They talk about all the many markets and the odds and how it's difficult for them to be able to run tight markets up and down their offering, even in the smallest market, it's even more so when you're not going to allow people who can come in and make those markets better, make those markets sharper.”
“It would be like offering a stock market where you just decided, well, we're not going to let Goldman Sachs participate in this market because those guys are too smart, they’re too sharp and they make too much money,” Brennan added.
Brennan also pointed out that as states look to capture more players into the regulated space, the limiting of players has the opposite effect.
"If these operators in your state are limiting and shutting down winning players not taking their action, what are those players supposed to do? What is their alternative?” he said. "Because you have players that are willingly trying to enter a regulated market, taxed, well regulated, visible market, and you have the operators who are talking about transparency and security and risk and trying to avoid the next Jontay Porter incident, and they're standing there and they're saying no entry.”
