Testing the Limits: Can Operators and Players Find Common Ground on Restrictions?

Are Restrictions an Unfair Practice Against Winning Players?

Sports betting is a unique form of entertainment, governed by its own set of rules. While it remains a type of gambling, it is distinct in that the human factor often plays a significant role. Bettors conduct in-depth analyses of upcoming sports events and develop personalized strategies to maximize their success. While a game can end with any result—sometimes surprising for both operators and players—thorough analysis and swift action on emerging information can significantly improve a bettor’s odds of success.

Operators employ their own analysts to set and adjust odds for specific events, ensuring they closely reflect the real probabilities of various outcomes. In the dynamic world of sports, it is crucial to stay vigilant, as every new piece of information can influence the outcome of an event. With this in mind, it becomes evident that sports betting is ultimately a contest between the operator and the player. For a player to consistently come out ahead in the long run, they must, with a bit of luck, more accurately predict outcomes than the operator, especially in cases where the odds appear inflated from the player’s perspective.

While this is not secret knowledge, many bettors rarely stop to consider it. Their objective is not only to predict outcomes correctly but also to analyze events more effectively than the operator. In essence, the bettor’s goal is to outsmart the operator. This dynamic is at the heart of the debate on player restrictions by sports betting operators. Many bettors allege that companies resort to unfair practices to gain an additional advantage and avoid losses, particularly when faced with players who consistently assess probabilities more accurately than the operator.

“I Was Limited Because I Won Too Much”

One of the primary tools operators use to manage their business is imposing limits on players. At its most basic level, this can mean lowering the maximum wager a player can place on a single sports event. However, these limits can extend further, restricting access to specific markets or bet types. The most common complaint from bettors is that operators limit their ability to use their services, often correlating these restrictions with their consistent success in beating the bookmakers.

“After I started sports betting and winning, I had restrictions and limits placed on my accounts by sportsbooks. On some platforms, I cannot bet more than $5 at a time. I didn’t take advantage of any system — I have specialized knowledge about sports and work with modeling sports outcomes,” said one bettor during a recent roundtable organized by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) to address the issue of player restrictions.

From the bettor’s perspective, the situation seems clear: “If I win, operators impose limits to prevent me from continuing to win.” On the operators’ side, restricting players is framed as a risk management tool. It’s essential to note that operators are often large corporations with sophisticated systems designed to mitigate risks. However, where does risk management end and unfair practices against skilled players begin? The line is undoubtedly blurry.

This issue has grown significant enough to capture the attention of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which decided to take a closer look. While the MGC has not yet issued any final decisions or resolutions, it has helped shed light on the broader context of restrictions and provided insight into the perspectives of both players and operators.

MGC’s Uncompromising Stance

The issue of player restrictions was brought to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) in July 2023. However, momentum picked up in the first half of 2024, when the commission began gathering detailed information on the topic. In May 2024, the MGC organized its first roundtable with operators to gain insight into their perspectives on player restrictions. Unfortunately, the event fell short of expectations, as Bally Bet was the only operator to send a representative.

Nearly all other operators declined to participate, citing the public nature of the meeting as their reason. They argued that an open forum would involve discussing sensitive business information, which they deemed confidential. The MGC expressed disappointment and frustration with the operators’ decision, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the gambling industry. Commissioner Brad Hill noted that the absence of operators prevented the commission from obtaining valuable insights. Commissioner Nakisha Skinner went further, calling the operators’ absence a “disrespect” toward the regulators.

The commission adopted a firm stance on the matter. Chair Jordan Maynard highlighted that Massachusetts law requires the MGC to act openly and transparently, leaving no room for private discussions on the subject. He stressed that the commission would not compromise or entertain closed-door conversations.

Faced with mounting pressure, operators appeared to reconsider their approach. The September 2024 roundtable proved much more productive, with all major operators in attendance. This meeting provided valuable insights into the operators’ perspectives on player restrictions and marked a significant step forward in the ongoing discussions.

Why Do Operators Limit Bettors?

The positions presented by operators at the MGC roundtable revealed a relatively clear and consistent perspective on the role of restrictions, when they are applied, and to whom. According to operators, limits are an essential risk management tool aimed at maintaining a balanced and sustainable market for all participants. They also emphasized that restrictions are not as widespread as critics suggest, affecting only a small group of players. Furthermore, operators stressed that limits are based on betting patterns rather than on whether a player wins or loses.

Some operators provided the MGC with specific data to underline the limited scope of the issue. BetMGM reported that only about 1% of its customers in Massachusetts are subject to restrictions. FanDuel stated that just 0.043% of bets in 2023 hit the maximum limit for a given player. Fanatics went even further, claiming that 90% of their winning customers face no restrictions whatsoever.

Operators argue that restrictions target a small subset of bettors and are not related to whether players win or lose. While players accuse operators of unfair practices, operators counter by asserting that the real issue is unfair practices by certain players.

According to operators, restrictions are necessary to protect against abuses such as exploiting pricing errors, betting on low-liquidity markets, syndicate betting (where groups of bettors collectively exploit system loopholes), and “courtsiding” — live betting during in-person attendance at sports events to capitalize on data transmission delays.

Additionally, operators attempted to convince the MGC that player limits benefit the competitive market as a whole. They warned that banning or restricting the ability to impose limits could result in reduced market offerings and less attractive odds, ultimately disadvantaging the majority of players.

Doubts About Operators’ Stance

The perspectives presented by operators have not resolved the debate in Massachusetts; if anything, they have intensified it. The assurances given by commercial operators were met with skepticism and challenges. Gambling journalist Jeff Edelstein openly questioned the claim that limits are unrelated to winning players. “You’ve heard them talk about advantage players. The translation for that is a good player, a good bettor, a smart player. They are saying, ‘We don’t want smart players. We don’t want good players, because we see them as a threat,’” Edelstein remarked emphatically.

Another journalist, David Hill, accused operators of double standards, noting that high-stakes VIP players, who may not necessarily be consistent winners, often receive preferential treatment with high limits, while winning non-VIP players face restrictions.

The commission also raised concerns about the impact of limits on problem gambling. Operators argued that limits could serve as a responsible gambling tool, helping to curb losses for players. However, representatives of the MGC, including Marlene Warner and Brianne Doura-Schawohl, expressed doubts about whether operators genuinely use restriction data to identify and assist problem gamblers.

At its core, the issue highlighted a lack of transparency and concrete evidence. Operators failed to demonstrate convincingly that limits truly affect only a small percentage of players and are not connected to winning behaviors. Furthermore, operators admitted during the roundtable that they typically do not inform players about imposed limits or the reasons behind them, claiming that players “usually know” why they have been restricted.

This lack of clear communication became a key point of contention. The MGC emphasized that failing to inform players about restrictions is unacceptable and suggested introducing mandatory requirements for operators to disclose limits and their rationale.

While the September roundtable did not result in any definitive resolutions, the MGC recently announced that the issue remains under review. The commission has requested more detailed data from operators to better understand the scope of the problem. Discussions are expected to continue into 2025, potentially leading to new regulations addressing player restrictions.

Do Operators Have the Right to Limit Players?

The debate around player restrictions has been one of the most compelling topics in the gambling industry throughout 2024. A key milestone was operators finally breaking their silence and presenting their stance on the issue. While player complaints have been known for some time, the operators’ perspective had largely remained unspoken until now.

According to operators, limits are an essential part of risk management and are applied solely to curb the activities of players engaging in unfair practices. However, this premise introduces a fundamental problem: as established earlier, the objective of sports bettors is to outsmart the operator. Drawing a clear line between fair and unfair tactics can be challenging but is critical in this context.

It’s also essential to consider the inherent power dynamic between operators and players. Operators dominate the relationship—they set the odds, provide the platform for placing bets, and define the terms and conditions. The player’s only recourse is to accept these terms or opt out of using the service. While this is standard across most forms of gambling, it remains a crucial factor in discussions about the fairness of player restrictions.

Transparency: A Central Issue

A significant concern is the lack of transparency surrounding limits. Players are often not informed about why restrictions are imposed, making it difficult for them to engage in meaningful discussions with operators. This lack of communication could become a focal point for regulatory authorities, as it seems both practical and feasible for commissions to enforce clearer disclosure requirements in this area.

Responsible Gambling and Player Safety

Another critical issue is whether restrictions genuinely serve as a tool for promoting responsible gambling. Are they effective in identifying and assisting players exhibiting problematic behavior, or do they merely exacerbate these issues? Addressing the health and safety of players is a separate yet equally vital aspect of the debate.

Balancing Interests

Many questions remain unanswered, and finding solutions will require balancing the interests of operators and players. For example, “courtsiding”—live betting during in-person attendance at sports events to exploit transmission delays—highlights the limitations of operators’ technological capabilities. Some might argue that if an operator cannot adequately manage such risks, the service should not be offered. However, this approach could lead to overly restrictive measures.

The topic of player restrictions is undoubtedly worth discussing and addressing. However, over-regulation could have unintended negative consequences. The ultimate goal should be to establish a compromise that provides players with greater transparency while safeguarding the business interests of operators. A balanced approach is essential to ensure fair and sustainable outcomes for all stakeholders.