Low Number of Massachusetts Sports Betting Accounts Limited

• An analysis of Massachusetts sports betting limitation data found that users who consistently beat the closing line are more likely to be limited than those who do not
• However, the overall number of accounts in Massachusetts that are limited are very low
• Additionally, users who have had their limits have been raised are far more likely to be sports betting VIPs than those who have had their limits decreased

An analysis of Massachusetts sports betting player limitation data by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission set out to answer the question of whether sports bettors who showcase a tendency to win have their betting limits raised, while those who demonstrate a tendency to lose have their betting limits decreased?

The answer to both, according to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, is yes it does.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission today discussed the results of sports betting user limitation data, which showed that while a very small number of sports betting accounts are actually limited in the commonwealth, a clear correlation between consistent winning and harsher limitations does exist.

If You Win, You’re Not Always In

Each of the state’s eight licensed sportsbooks provided the MGC with player limitation data this past April. The only problem? There was so much data the MGC hired a data analyst to comb through the information to evaluate, among many things, if there was any correlation between a customer’s win rate and a sportsbook limiting their action on a platform.

Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chair Jordan Maynard said the analysis clearly showed several facts about sports betting customers in the state.

“We have learned a few key facts. Sports betting operators need to manage risk, and patrons who take advantage of the legal markets are often limited for justifiable reasons. That being said, anecdotal reports of a small number of patrons who find themselves facing restrictive limits with little justification, or no notification, appears to be true,” he said.

Carrie Torrisi, sports wagering division chief of the MGC, provided more clarity to his statement. There is a clear correlation between a Massachusetts sports bettor who “consistently beats the closing line” and having their limits increased, while those who consistently lose have their limits decreased.

So what does this mean? It means that for Massachusetts sports betting customers who consistently win money on a sports betting operator platform and beat a closing line, they are more likely to face harsher betting limitations compared with a customer who does not consistently beat a closing line.

“To summarize, we sought to answer the question of whether data from Massachusetts operators show that players who demonstrate a tendency to win have their limits decreased, and players who demonstrate a tendency to lose have their limits increased, and the answer to that question is yes,” Torrisi said.

Additionally, Torrisi said the data shows users who have had their limits raised are far more likely to be classified as VIPs by sports betting operators, while very few limited players are able to achieve VIP account status.

Very Few Accounts Actually Limited

While there is a correlation between winning and limiting, Torrisi stressed that the actual number of player accounts in the commonwealth that are limited is very small.

As of Dec. 10, 2024, data shows that 0.64% of all Massachusetts sports betting accounts are limited in some fashion.

Among the limited players, 12.7% were limited severely to less than 1% of the default (the amount an account can wager on the day it is created), 57.6% were limited from 1% to 24% of the default, 11.9% were limited from 25% to 49% of the default, 14.3% were limited from 50% to 74% of the default, and 3.4% were limited from 75% to 99% of the default.

Dustin Gouker, a consultant for Closing Line Consulting, addressed the MGC and said it is likely that sportsbooks appear to limit 1% or less of their total userbases, which the Massachusetts data backs up.

“Sportsbook appear to limit very little. There is a small cohort of people who wager and are limited…sportsbooks do limit people, this is not a secret, they openly admit the practice. Within that group there are a lot of subsets who is limited and how they’re limited. There are definitely people who are winning bettors, beating closing line value, and able to beat the sportsbooks. Some of those people are limited to varying extents,” he said.

Next Steps for Gaming Commission

The MGC tries to be the most fair regulatory gaming in the country, Maynard said. It is an issue of fairness that a certain subset of players who are not taking advantage of the state’s regulated market are blocked from fully participating.

“This is really about fairness. When players aren’t taking advantage of the books, but yet they’re limited, they need to be able to get out of that box and back into the market,” he said.

So what can be done? The first step, MGC members said, is a potential new regulation requiring licensed sportsbooks to notify players if they are being limited.

“I would like to see the staff come back with some language on a regulation that players be notified that they’ve been limited. If you’ve been limited you should at the very least be told you’ve been limited. I’d like to also see language as to why they’ve been limited,” Commissioner Brad Hill said.

Additionally, Commissioner Eileen O’Brien said the state’s sports betting advertising regulations should once again be examined by the commission, specifically on what representations are made in the materials as this being a means of entertainment or a means of making money.

O’Brien said she would also request a deeper dive as to why operators limit customers, and if there are any circumstances as to how players can have their limits lifted.

Commissioner Nakisha Skinner agreed with the assertions from her fellow commissioners, but also requested the state’s sports betting operators be allowed to respond to the information uncovered by the MGC. It is one of the only ways the commission can get a “true reading” on the direction it should take, she said.

Torrisi said the sports wagering division will begin working on an initial draft of what limiting notifications will look like, getting more information on how limiting decisions are made from operators, and then reaching out to operators for their responses on the commission’s findings.