In sports betting, winning too often can quietly shrink your wager limits to cents; a new bill would make that illegal in New York and could force the country’s biggest betting market to book bets it doesn’t want.
The Fair Play Act, introduced this week by Assemblymember Alex Bores, would bar licensed sportsbooks from banning or limiting wager sizes unless it is tied to responsible gambling or sports integrity concerns.
If enacted, New York would be the first US jurisdiction to have a law of its kind. It is the largest US sports betting market where operators begrudgingly play by rules they would elsewhere reject.
New York’s legislature does not reconvene until January, giving stakeholders time to shape the bill.
How sportsbooks handle winning players
Bores has been examining the industry for over a year, looking at ways to make sure the market serves New Yorkers fairly, he told LSR. That work started with protections for people losing money, but quickly shifted when he learned how fast sportsbooks cut off those who win.
“It just seemed like a fundamentally unfair proposition that these companies would advertise the idea that you could win a lot of money … and then on top of that, these books are regularly banning the people who are winning,” Bores said. “Winners keep the books honest. Without them, it’s like having a stock market where you could only buy, not sell — you need both sides of the market for there to be a fair field.”
Sportsbooks often argue limits are necessary when bettors gain too much of an edge. It is an industry-wide practice nearly every major operator uses to protect their margins from sharp players who hunt for pricing mistakes. Casinos have long reserved the same right at the tables, quietly backing off or showing the door to gamblers who beat them too often.
“People who are doing this for profit are not the players we want,” a message DraftKings CEO Jason Robins has reiterated over the years to investors.
Both DraftKings and Penn Entertainment note in their annual reports that changing how customers can be limited is a risk factor to their businesses.
Fierce opposition expected
The proposal is a lock to draw heavy opposition from the gambling lobby, which maintains limiting is essential for managing risk. Bores said he is open to good-faith conversations with the sportsbooks but expects heavy opposition.
“Whether or not it is the best policy, they may come extremely loudly against anything threatening profitability,” he said. “Their most effective tactic has often been mobilizing their users against restrictions, sometimes by outright lying about what a policy does.
“I think this case is different. It’s clearly a very pro-user policy.”
The tension is familiar. Operators fought hard against New York’s nation-high 51% tax rate, with Robins calling the market an “unstable foundation” and warning it was “unsustainable.” He testified the company might have to offer worse odds in New York if the tax remained in place. Caesars CEO Tom Reeg went further, calling the tax “ridiculous” and saying it “doesn’t benefit anyone.”
Yet, the companies stayed. New York handled a US-record $22.7 billion in wagers last year, resulting in more than $1 billion in taxes to fund education.
Sportsbooks respond to policy changes
Not every threat has been empty, though. In Illinois, DraftKings and FanDuel responded to a new per-bet tax by charging their customers 50 cents per wager, effectively making odds worse. Other sportsbooks subject to a lower tax responded with higher minimum-bet amounts.
New York isn’t alone in scrutinizing the practice. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is studying how often bettors are being limited and whether consumers should have recourse when it happens.
Wyoming regulators, meanwhile, have downplayed concerns, saying fewer than 1% of accounts were limited in that state and that most cases involved suspected cheating or bonus abuse rather than simply winning too often.
Next steps for NY sports betting bill
As written, the measure does not specify a minimum-bet threshold or codify other restrictions, leaving the door open for amendments around advertising and additional carveouts. Enforcement would likely fall to the New York State Gaming Commission, which helped draft the bill.
Bores acknowledged the proposal will evolve and could potentially be folded into a larger gambling package.
“It’s intentionally not putting a hard limit in … this is the place to start,” Bores said. “There has been a big interest in taking some holistic actions around this industry and I think this will be part of the conversation of bills that we’re looking to do this year.”
The bill’s first stop is the Assembly’s Racing and Wagering Committee. Bores, meanwhile, is seeking a Senate co-sponsor.
