It’s one of the most famous Latin phrases of all time, right up there with carpe diem and caveat emptor.
Of course, I’m talking about “acuti lusores, limitabimini,” which means — duh — “sharp bettors, you will be limited.”
Honestly, it probably goes back further than the time of Caesar(s) …
OOOG {wearing a fancy bone necklace, sporting a wheel}: Lemme get 20 rocks on Lurp getting eaten by that sabertooth tiger Sunday.
GORM: Can’t do it. You’re limited to .0001 rocks. You’ve been killing me on closing tiger value.
Listen: Sportsbooks limiting bettors did not begin post-PASPA. It’s been happening forever. Offshores have been doing it since the dawn of the internet.
“And they’re typically just as bad in of ridiculousness,” noted bettor Capt. Jack Andrews said. “But they typically let you win $20,000 or so before limiting you, not profile you from the first bet.”
But for s of America’s legal sportsbooks, that’s exactly what’s happening. They’re being profiled from the moment they place that first wager.
Just like me.
Now, to be fair(ish), I was (and remain) a bonus hog, and I definitely did dabble in some arbitrage betting, but — and I cannot state this clearly enough — I am not an overall sharp bettor.
The only area where I have routinely won money — and we’re talking hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands of dollars — is in the NFL Draft, NBA Draft, and Oscars betting. Information markets. Apparently, I can use Twitter better than the bookmakers.
But despite my unsharpness, I am limited at numerous major sportsbooks — at least five I’m aware of. In some cases, I’m limited to no more than $20 or so on a side, and in other cases to — very literally — pennies on draft and Academy Award markets.
In fact, I’ve been limited at some books where I’m an all-time loser.
What’s also weird is I have not been limited at some books (thank you, FanDuel) where I’m a long-term winner.
Why have I been limited here, not limited there? Who knows? But if I move to Massachusetts (spoiler alert: I’m not), I just might find out — especially with recent attention around MA sports betting bonuses and how the state might approach sportsbook limits moving forward.
Too much discretion 1c2t2u
“There should be a way for patrons to really understand what will get them limited. It’s really at the operator’s discretion, and there’s no way for a patron to know what has happened. I don’t think our regs go far enough.”
That was Nakisha Skinner, one of the commissioners of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Last week — after it first being brought up over a year ago — the commissioners spent about 15 minutes talking about sportsbooks limiting their customers.
According to regulations in that state — and, clearly, everywhere else — it’s well within the rights of the sportsbooks to limit who they want, when they want, and for whatever they want.
But the commissioners were not exactly enthralled with this process.
“This is the beginning of the conversation,” said Eileen O’Brien, another one of the commissioners. “Seems to me the regs and the house rules puts a tremendous amount of discretion in their hands.”
Rome was not built in a day 6f4g6i
Here’s some of the most inside baseball stuff you’ll ever read: The dozen or so reporters who routinely cover the Massachusetts Gaming Commission loathe covering the Massachusetts Gaming Commission because they routinely — ahem — take their time when it comes to their job.
Watching an MGC meeting is like watching paint dry but without the excitement. Or the paint.
And the notion of them going in and changing a regulation is scary for us reporters.
“This conversation is just beginning, and commissioners are going to be seeking significant input as they consider policies regarding these issues,” an MGC spokesman told me.
Well, that doesn’t sound so bad.
Is that it?
“If commissioners determine they would like to amend a regulation, staff will draft regulations, review them with commissioners, set a public hearing, accept public comment for a period of time, bring those comments back to the commission, potentially make changes, put regulations out for public comment again, bring regulations back to the commission, and ultimately the commission would vote whether or not to adopt a regulation change,” the spokesman said.
Oh.
And — it was a year ago in January when this was first brought up as a potential topic of discussion. Only took 14 months to get there.
In short: Don’t expect anything to happen in Massachusetts when it comes to betting limits for quite some time, if at all.
Real, and not spectacular 1171m
So, is there a better solution to this very real problem?
Before we get there, let’s be clear: It is a very real problem.
Let’s tackle the “real” aspect first: DraftKings, as an example, doesn’t even try to hide the fact they willfully limit customers. It says so right in its SEC filings.
“We follow the industry practice of restricting and managing betting limits at the individual customer level based on individual customer profiles and risk level to the enterprise,” it reads, though it does note this practice — which again, has been going on since the dawn of time — may not last forever.
“However, there is no guarantee that jurisdictions will allow operators such as us to limit on the individual customer level,” it continues.
As for the “problem” part? Look no further than a recent Truist survey, which showed 31% of sports bettors use offshore books (which, OK, fine, maybe that’s a lot of Texas bettors) but that 71%(!) of bettors who bet more than $500 a month (classified as “VIP” bettors, per the survey) are using offshore sites. There are many reasons for this, as the survey pointed out, but “no limits” was high up on the list.
If you’re a sports bettor who has been limited … well, what else can you do besides go offshore?
A better way? 271x6r
Now, here inPrime Sports to play with, which is more of an old-school model.
Everyone has the same limit at Prime — all bettors are welcome, you can re-bet to your heart’s content. And if you want a higher limit, ask.
Truth be told … outside of the occasional promo to take advantage of — and the richer selection of prop and live markets — there is probably zero reason for me to ever bet outside of the exchanges and Prime for standard-type wagers. The odds are better, and I don’t run the risk of getting limited if I win.
But that’s here in New Jersey. Prime is only available here and in the Kentucky, and Iowa. The exchanges only operate here in New Jersey. (Colorado has Sporttrade, but for now, it’s run as a “typical” book.)
So maybe, in the end, this is the real answer. Forget the Latin we started with; maybe it’s time for some French and a little old-school laissez-faire competition.
Maybe instead of the regulatory agencies trying to force the limiting genie back in the bottle, they simply allow — and encourage — more options in their jurisdictions. Open it up to the exchanges. Invite Prime, Circa, and other “all comers” operations. Let the market figure it out.
Honestly, there’s room for everyone at the trough.
