It’s no secret sportsbooks limit sports bettors, but what Massachusetts regulators want to know is if there’s a way for operators to cut the perhaps wrongly or unjustly limited a little slack.
- The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is exploring ways to help limited sports bettors – particularly those restricted simply for winning – regain fuller access to betting.
- Data shows that sharper bettors are more likely to be limited, while VIPs and losing bettors often get more favorable treatment.
- While banning limits is unlikely, the MGC looks like it will push for greater transparency and even possibly regular reviews of limited accounts.
That was the possibility raised near the end of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s (MGC) meeting on Tuesday, which again dove into the sticky subject of sports bettor limiting.
The MGC has arguably been the most proactive of all regulators of online sports betting in the U.S. when it comes to the controversial topic of limiting, the term for sportsbook operators restricting the amounts that customers can bet.
Operators say the practice is needed to protect themselves financially from bad actors. However, it is irksome for the bettors who are limited, some of which suspect they are being limited just because they win.
After being contacted by a number of annoyed gamblers, members of the Massachusetts sports betting regulator have now met and discussed and studied the issue of limiting multiple times over the past year or so.
An analysis of data collected from operators by commission staff, published on Tuesday, found that, on average, the total percentage of Massachusetts sports bettor accounts that were limited as of last December was 0.64%.
Of that small percentage of players, the bulk, 57.6%, were limited to 1% to 24% of the default bet amount for users.
“Sports wagering operators need to manage risk, and patrons who take advantage of the legal market are often limited for justifiable reasons,” MGC chair Jordan Maynard said during Tuesday’s meeting. “That being said, anecdotal reports that a small number of patrons find themselves facing restrictive limits with little to no justification or notification appears to be true. It also appears to be true that operators are correct that only a small number of patrons are limited.”
So, while the MGC did find that only a tiny percentage of bettors are being limited, the sliver still posed some concerning enough questions for the regulators.
I'm the man in the box
That is because of what else the data collected from operators showed.
A memo to the commission showed that “players who consistently beat the closing line are more likely to have a lower stake factor (i.e., have their limit lowered) and players who do not consistently beat the closing line are more likely to have a higher stake factor (i.e., have their limit raised).”
“In addition, individuals whose limits have been raised are far more likely to be classified as VIPs while very few limited players had VIP status,” the memo added.
In other words, someone who bets like a sharp is more likely to be limited in Massachusetts than someone who bets like a square.
Or, as Commissioner Eileen O’Brien described limiting, winning tendencies make it more likely for online sportsbook operators to put “somebody in the box.”
"While percentages vary across operators, on average, the total percentage of Massachusetts player accounts that were limited as of December 10, 2024, was 0.64%." pic.twitter.com/rF5CPrHPkB
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) September 30, 2025
While the MGC acknowledged there are real needs for operators to put someone into that box (i.e., courtsiding), what commissioners may be less willing to tolerate is someone who gets limited for just winning fairly and squarely.
That, the chair suggested, could be contrary to one of the reasons for legalizing sports betting in Massachusetts in the first place, which was to channel wagering already happening with illegal and unregulated operators into the regulated market.
The illegal and unregulated market hasn't gone away, either. State-regulated sports betting markets even have newer competition, in the form of federally regulated sports betting via prediction markets.
With all this going on, a few members of the MGC publicly pondered on Tuesday whether there should be a way for limited bettors to regain fuller wagering capabilites.
“I think the Massachusetts Gaming Commission tries to be the most fair regulator, period,” Maynard said during the meeting. “And so this is really about fairness and making sure that when players aren’t taking advantage of the books, but yet they’re limited, that they’re able to get out of that box … and back into the market.”
What exactly the MGC will do about limiting remains to be seen.
The direction given to staff on Tuesday included getting the ball rolling on regulations requiring that bettors be notified they’ve been limited and why, as well as obtaining more information about why bettors are limited at all. There could still be more action to come.
MGC staff, for example, suggested possible regulations that would require operators to manually review the “stake factor” of all limited players every six months. In other words, an operator would have to periodically reconsider whether a limited player should be allowed to bet more.
“I do like the idea of trying to figure out when and how people get out of that box,” O’Brien said near the end of Tuesday’s meeting.
Betting not a whit
Again, though, there are no new limiting regulations on the books yet. Operators will also be asked for their feedback on the MGC’s next steps.
Still, the MGC’s work on limiting isn’t happening in a vacuum. While the state’s sports betting regulators are trying to be as fair as possible, they can only do so with operators and players under the MGC’s oversight.
And every day, it seems, more and more avenues are opening for sports bettors to place wagers with operators that are not regulated by any state, much less Massachusetts. Those avenues include federally regulated prediction markets offering sports event contracts, something that Massachusetts is fighting in court.
Yet prediction markets, sweepstakes sportsbooks, and offshore sportsbooks are all still accessible in Massachusetts and other states.
These entities, unlike state-regulated operators such as DraftKings and FanDuel, do not pay tax to the state and do not abide by the wishes of state regulators when it comes to things like limiting players.
They also compete for business with state-regulated sportsbooks, and are standing by to accept action from limited players who have been pushed out of state-regulated bookmaking operations.
Here is DraftKings' annual reminder to investors that they limit sports betting customers but that state lawmakers and regulators may not allow them to do so forever:https://t.co/pwWaxS4Pna pic.twitter.com/QPHN6Y3FZM
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) February 16, 2024
The MGC got a reminder of this state of affairs during Tuesday’s meeting, as gambling consultant and newsletter scribe Dustin Gouker publicly and privately briefed commissioners about limits and the wider world of wagering.
On limiting, Gouker noted, some people who get limited are indeed just winning bettors. There are also arbitragers, courtsiders (people betting at games trying to beat sportsbooks before they move the odds), and syndicate bettors that are getting put in the limiting box.
Put differently, the small percentage of limited bettors is also made up of smaller percentages of people being limited for various reasons. Whatever the reason, though, limited bettors could still be wagering as much as they want with operators that aren't regulated by the state.
“Sharp activity still finds a place in the black and gray markets, and even now the white markets,” Gouker said.
The CEO of CME is a Kalshi user pic.twitter.com/YRCk9TNe5T
— Kalshi (@Kalshi) September 29, 2025
Those currently “white” markets include federally regulated prediction markets offering currently legal sports event contracts in all 50 states.
The contracts allow users to bet "yes" or "no" on various event outcomes, including sporting events. And since prediction markets are technically peer-to-peer, matching buyers and sellers, the only limit is how willing someone is to take the other side of your bet.
“That is one place where people are able to bet and are not going to be limited,” Gouker said. “This is a betting exchange.”
So, what would be ideal for all parties, Gouker suggested, is more choice in state-regulated markets like that of Massachusetts, something regulators themselves may not be able to accomplish.
It would involve creating an environment (perhaps by lowering tax rates or licensing fees) that could entice the likes of exchange operators like Sporttrade and sharp-friendly books such as Circa and Prime.
While prediction markets may ultimately have their sports betting ambitions curbed by the courts, there is no guarantee of that, and it could be that they are here to stay. In that scenario, having a competitive offering at the state level becomes even more important.
“We are seeing the [limiting] problem solved for you by nationally regulated prediction markets,” Gouker said, adding later that, “if you're going to sit here and say, ‘We're going to have state regulated markets competing with this,’ then you need to change the regulatory regime. You need to allow exchanges. You need to allow sportsbooks that take sharp action.”
Adjusting something like a tax rate, though, would require legislative action, not regulatory.
Furthermore, if a state were to try to mandate higher limits for sports bettors, operators would act to try to mitigate those impacts, Gouker said. Those actions could include offering worse odds or fewer promotions.
“This, of course, would be antithetical to creating a robust ecosystem that continues to channelize action from the black market to regulated,” Gouker said.
Won't you come and save me?
While prohibiting limits may be a non-starter, then, what the MGC could do is push for “transparency” from operators, Gouker suggests. And that, at least, is what it seems the commission plans to do.
Still, Massachusetts may also offer a way for bettors to get themselves out of “the box.”
Maynard said the MGC’s briefings led him to believe that algorithms are at least partly to blame for the situation with limiting, and that some human participation could be helpful.
Moreover, the chair noted that a “key component” to legalizing sports betting in Massachusetts was to “stamp out” gray and illegal operators.
“To do that,” he said, “the commonwealth must ensure that patrons who are not taking advantage of books are allowed to wager in the regulated market.”
