Managing Editor
Many sportsbooks place limits on winning bettors or even ban them entirely, but that common practice would be forbidden in New York under a law proposed by Assemblyman Alex Bores. He introduced his bill, A09125, last week.
Some sportsbooks are more aggressive in limiting players than others. A few, like Circa, don’t do it at all.
The practice is unpopular among bettors. The culture of sports betting is meritocratic in the same way poker is, so the idea that being too good is punishable by banishment doesn’t sit right. From the bookmakers’ point of view, however, it’s just good business.
More importantly, the ability to limit winning players is what allows “softer” sportsbooks to offer perks for losing players. The ones that tolerate winners don’t make things any easier than they need to.
If it were to become law, A09125 would prohibit sportsbooks from applying individual betting limits on players, except under one of two cases:
- The wagering is “suspicious,” or,
- The player is exhibiting signs of problem gambling.
Existing New York law defines suspicious wagering as follows:
Unusual wagering activity that cannot be explained and is indicative of match fixing, the manipulation of an event, misuse of inside information, or other prohibited activity
More specifically, the law would prohibit imposing such limits based on a bettor’s performance or betting volume. It would also require limited players to be informed, in writing, of the justification for those limits.
As a fresh bill, appearing late in the year, with only one sponsor, it’s far from certain that A09125 will go anywhere. It’s currently with the Racing and Wagering Committee, and that may be where it stays. And yet, it’s a proposal worth examining further, because it will likely resonate with many bettors.
Differing Attitudes Toward Advantage Gamblers
The perception and treatment of “sharp” gamblers varies widely depending on the specific gambling product.
At one extreme are casino games and the lottery. It’s widely understood that casino games are not intended to be beatable. Although techniques like counting cards at blackjack aren’t legally considered to be cheating, there’s a sense that the players who seek out those edges are “getting away with something.”
It’s therefore unsurprising when casinos eject those players. With lotteries, there are sometimes even accusations of “fraud” when players sniff out a profitable situation and conspire to buy large quantities of tickets.
Poker, of course, is at the other extreme. Winning players are celebrated, held up as aspirational figures, and even sponsored by the companies whose products they profit from. In part, that’s because poker is a player-vs.-player product, so the operator is never on the losing end of the bets. Prediction markets and daily fantasy sports sites are similarly unlikely to ban winners.
Ironically, in poker, it is often the players themselves seeking to exclude winners. Organizers of private games — which recently became legal in Nevada — often exclude most pros in order to keep the rich, recreational VIPs coming back.
Who Would Benefit From a Ban on Player Limiting?
A ban on player limiting would no doubt be welcomed by bettors, especially those who’ve been on the receiving end of the practice. In the long run, however, it might only serve to reduce differentiation in the industry.
Books like Circa use their sharp-friendliness as a selling point. Circa doesn’t have a site in New York, so it’s a moot point there. However, if such a law became the norm everywhere, it might hurt brands that position themselves that way.
On the plus side, it might draw more players to regulated sites who would otherwise play offshore. One of the points in favor of offshore books like Pinnacle is that, like Circa, they never limit winning players.
If anyone would benefit from the rule, it’s the winning players who would otherwise be limited by “soft” books like DraftKings, BetMGM, and Caesars. However, even they might not benefit as much as they expect.
After all, why would a player want to play on DraftKings if other books that don’t limit as aggressively are available? It’s because of the things that DraftKings offers that others don’t. However, those things cost money. Although DraftKings has finally become profitable after many years in the red, even the biggest U.S. sports betting operators operate on a slim margin. If the return of winning players pushed them back into the red, it would likely result in cuts to the features that the sharps are hoping to benefit from.
Are There Upsides to a Book That Limits Players?
It’s easiest to see this by taking Circa as an example and looking at the things it lacks:
- No welcome bonuses.
- No VIP program.
- Fewer prop options overall.
- Lower limits on some bets, which apply to all players equally.
- No “goodwill” cancellation of bets in the event of, e.g., player injury early in a game.
When facing criticism for those things, Circa is quick to point out that it doesn’t limit players and offers better odds overall. It markets itself as a “no frills” sportsbook.
No doubt the fantasy when looking at a bill like A09125 is that DraftKings and its ilk would continue doing business as before, but be forced to accept net-winning customers. In reality, each soft book would be forced with a choice. Either they’d have to behave more like the sharp books, or they’d have to offer worse odds.
Winning players want to be on the soft books like DraftKings because they’re easier to beat. But being easy to beat and allowing players to go on beating you without limitation is not a viable business model.
Chances are, Bores’s bill will go nowhere. But if it does advance, anyone getting excited about it should consider that it amounts to a ban on soft books. It might just hurt recreational bettors without any lasting benefit for the sharps.
