Throughout 2024, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) has underscored two clear objectives concerning its examination of sportsbooks and the restrictions they may place on bettors.
Namely, they refuse to rush decisions and are committed to thorough investigation.
This dedication was evident on Thursday, as the commission voted to direct its Sports Wagering, Legal, and Communications Divisions to request detailed data from the state’s licensed sports betting operators.
Their main goal was to establish just how widespread these betting limits are.
The conversation around this issue began back in May, but only one sportsbook operator attended the meeting.
It wasn’t until a September hearing that most operators showed up when they argued their limits on bets impacted only a small number of players.
Massachusetts, Ready to Advocate for Bettors
Carrie Torrisi, the commission’s sports wagering division chief, explained during Thursday’s session that a review and analysis of the data would likely reveal the “volume of patrons being limited” and examine whether a correlation exists between patrons whose betting limits have been reduced and who display winning behavior, and those whose limits have been increased and exhibit losing behavior.
While complaints about betting restrictions are common in gambling circles online, few regulatory bodies among the 38 sports betting states have paid much attention to the issue.
Massachusetts regulators are positioning themselves to advocate for bettors and not just act as a rubber stamp for sportsbooks.
Any findings they will produce will likely have a nationwide impact.
The Kiosk Debate
Thursday’s meeting also featured a presentation by non-partisan consultancy specializing in the economics, regulation, and policy of legalized gambling worldwide, Spectrum Gaming Group.
The group’s presentation was aimed at the feasibility of introducing sports betting kiosks in the Bay State.
The respective kiosks are currently found in states like Montana, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.
The Massachusetts commission was eager to learn from those particular experiences.
According to Spectrum’s executive vice president, Joseph Weinert, Ohio’s experience offered the most relevant comparison in terms of population.
In 2023, explained Weinert, kiosks in Ohio generated just 0.14% of the total amount of money wagered there.
The executive VP further added that in Ohio, even fewer wagers were made at kiosks in 2024 compared to 2024, meaning that “the results are worsening.”
Illegal Betting and Public Health Concerns
Matt Para, Spectrum’s senior advisor for technology, highlighted mixed results from kiosks in other regions.
He suggested that large sports bars might be the only viable locations, giving an example of a promotional campaign that could encourage bets.
Despite this, Para cautioned kiosks would likely not curb illegal betting. He also argued that “Not all lottery retailers would make for good sports betting hosts.”
Public health concerns were also raised. Marlene Warner, chief executive officer of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health, argued that mobile betting already rules over the market.
Mobile sports betting already accounts for a whopping 97.5% of all wagers in Massachusetts.
Kiosks, warned Warner, would “normalize gambling even further” for young people and pose risks for minors, making them a case of “too little, too late.”
Commission Members, “Not Surprised” of Kiosks’ Lack of Significance
Commission member Brad Hill said he was “not surprised” kiosk betting wouldn’t be significant, given the rise of smartphone wagering.
“Initially, I thought (kiosk betting) would be helpful, but now we see it’s all done on the phone,” Hill said, adding “This is not the panacea we thought.”
He also noted that the state legislature could allow groups like Veterans of Foreign Wars to host kiosks at their locations, but emphasized that it “isn’t the moneymaker some think it is.”
Earlier this month, the commission chaired by Jordan Maynard revealed its official seal of approval for licensed operators.
