Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You

Citing the need to protect trade secrets, sportsbooks no-showed a Massachusetts Gaming Commission roundtable on limiting bettors. The MGC was not pleased.

A big part of poker is bluffing and calling bluffs, and that’s precisely what played out during the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s scheduled roundtable discussion on limiting sports bettors.

The MGC put in a sizable bet with its roundtable on limiting bettors, and the licensed sports betting companies called that bet, skipping the meeting with nothing more than a bluff catcher.

---

SPONSOR’S MESSAGE - Sporttrade was borne out of the belief that the golden age of sports betting has yet to come. Combining proprietary technology, thoughtful design, and capital markets expertise, our platform endeavors to modernize sports betting for a more equitable, responsible, and accessible future.

Sporttrade is now live in Iowa, alongside Colorado and New Jersey.

---

In what can only be described as a shocking move, the state’s licensed sportsbooks (except for Bally’s) decided to no-show the meeting, sending written statements rather than representatives when their request for a closed-door executive session meeting was denied.

The manner in which the sportsbooks decided not to participate adds fuel to the fire. As Dustin Gouker, who was a participant in the roundtable, tweeted:

“I think the more absurd part is they all agreed to the public roundtable, post de facto tried to change it to an executive session, and then all bailed out separately with very little warning. They honestly wasted everyone's time. Not serious behavior.”

MGC Commissioners openly voiced their displeasure in real-time (you can feel the annoyance through the video stream). Multiple commissioners, including Nakisha Skinner and Bradley Hill, expressed their frustration, with Hill going so far as to call it anger.

Multiple observers noted the unprecedented nature of what occurred.

“All of Massachusetts sports betting operators refusing to participate in today’s roundtable on the limiting of players is probably the biggest middle finger I’ve seen by licensees in the 20+ years I’ve been in this industry,” Prime Sports Joe Brennan Jr. tweeted.

“Maybe it’s inside baseball, but it sure feels like everybody not showing up in MA could be a moment people still talk about and remember years from now,” Adam Small of Lottery Geeks and Casino Reports said on LinkedIn.

“…The way that the ten firms stiffed the MGC was the absolute ultimate statement of arrogance and ignorance. This could only have taken place in an environment where industry leadership egos were running wild and unchecked,” former regulator and casino executive Richard Schuetz wrote in a column.

How Did This Happen?

We are now waiting to see if the MGC was bluffing or if it has the best hand because I only see two ways the industry’s no-show could play out:

• It’s the shrewdest of shrewd moves, signaling the bubbling over of long-held frustrations with what the industry sees as the MGC meddling beyond its regulatory mandates.

• Operators have just provided more fodder to an already adversarial and powerful regulatory body, shifting the relationship into the realm of hostile.

So, did the industry just put the MGC in its place, or did it just open the proverbial can of worms and give the MGC free rein to crack down on advertising and increase punishments for misdeeds?

Can You Keep a Secret?

The unwillingness to appear stems from the sportsbooks’ stated belief that the topic cannot be discussed meaningfully without divulging trade secrets.

How an operator identifies and limits bettors is a trade secret. If and why you limit bettors and how you communicate these decisions to customers is a policy, and every regulator should have the right to investigate and approve it.

As Commissioner Skinner said, there is a vast chasm between backing off an advantage player and a regular bettor, and “trust us” is not an acceptable answer.