American Bettors' Voice (ABV) is currently engaging with various states to advocate for regulations similar to those recently established in Massachusetts concerning the treatment of bettors by sportsbooks.
While this initiative won't prevent sportsbooks from limiting successful bettors, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's new rule is seen as a significant initial step toward regulating such practices. The regulation, which was unanimously approved with a 5-0 vote, mandates that operators notify bettors of any limitations within 48 hours, provide reasons for these decisions, and specify the markets affected.
Massachusetts is the first state to implement such a regulation, and ABV, which collaborated with the MGC on this rule, is in discussions with other regulatory bodies. A board member of ABV, known as Sigma Squirrel on Twitter, mentioned, “We are engaged in conversations with other states. I can’t disclose which ones, but ABV is helping them with similar regulatory processes.”
This move aims to address the controversial practice of sportsbooks excluding sharp bettors. Although sharp bettors may still be limited, they will now be informed of their status instead of having their bets rejected without explanation.
“This is a crucial first step,” Sigma Squirrel noted. “While it won’t stop sportsbooks from limiting their customers, it will raise awareness among state gaming commissions about the practice and the need for regulation.”
Despite the positive outlook, some remain skeptical about the effectiveness of the new regulation. Professional bettor and Unabated founder Captain Jack Andrews expressed cautious optimism, stating, “We don’t yet know how this will play out. Will operators find loopholes? Will regulators enforce it properly? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
While not all in the gambling industry sympathize with sharp bettors, the practice of limiting winners is a part of sportsbooks' profitability strategy, which often involves encouraging losing bettors to wager more through VIP treatment. Responsible gaming advocates argue that individuals showing signs of problem gambling should be restricted rather than incentivized to bet larger amounts.
ABV has made it clear to the MGC that this dynamic needs to be understood. “We assisted the MGC in crafting the data requests that led to this regulation,” Sigma Squirrel explained. “We helped demonstrate that winning bettors get limited while losing bettors are rewarded with VIP treatment.”
The hope is that Massachusetts will continue to advocate for sharper bettors' rights, potentially leading to a future where all players are treated equally. ABV suggests that the next logical step would be to establish minimum house limits across all betting markets. Ideally, a VIP's maximum bet would be set relative to the minimum house limit.
For instance, if a professional bettor is limited to $1,000 on an NFL wager, a VIP could have a maximum bet of $10,000, which is ten times the minimum house limit. “With such regulations, the game becomes fairer,” Sigma Squirrel stated. “It mirrors the structure of a physical casino, where posted minimums and maximums are based on each other. This fairness is crucial in addressing problem gambling, as there’s no justification for sharp bettors to be restricted to 1% of their limit while VIPs can wager 1,000 times that amount.”