here, we're going to stream live. How's that? Good morning, everyone. This is a meeting of the master, she's this gaming commission, because we are meeting virtually reason. Good morning. Mr. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And good morning. Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. Right. Before we get started, I'm just going to recognize that today is the International Women's Day. And I want to acknowledge that I have the privilege of serving with two other women on this five member body, public body. So we are represented well here at the gaming commission. Of course, we have our leadership with our executive director, Karen Wells, and director of IEB, Loretta Lilios. Her counsel is here. I'm another, another dynamo woman in our, our legal department, while led by a very capable gentleman is really supported very wildly by four excellent women lawyers. I could go on in terms of our staff, but let's also just really exciting is that the gaming industry continues to expand in terms of female leadership and this commission watches that in terms of the numbers here in Massachusetts. They also just want to recognize the leadership in Massachusetts. We've had an election that's left us with our white female dominated Commonwealth. We have a two women at the helm of the governor's office, Maura Healy and Lieutenant Governor Driscoll. We have first treasurer Goldberg and attorney general, Andrea Joy Campbell. And we have a newly elected state auditor, the editor of the Ziegliow. And of course, other women are leading in the cabinet. So this is a good year to acknowledge women generally in Massachusetts. The most important I want to also acknowledge the allies. A lot of them are in the form of men who have made sure that women could gain a safe voice around the world so that we could have leadership positions. And that's not lost on any of us. So with that, a little bit outside our lane, but when I look at the number of women in just today's meeting, it's certainly not worthy. So we'll get started then. And we have quite an agenda. Sterl, we're going to turn to you later in the day, but right now we're going to turn to the general counsel. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners and all who are joining. We're going to jump right in. I believe that the first item up pertains to section 152 of the regulations. And Caitlin, there you bear to jump in on that. I'm going to kick this right over to Paul. This is an amendment to 205 CMR 152. Individuals excluded from gaming and sports wagering, another collaboration between legal and the IEV. And Paul will walk through the regs and we are all here for questions. Thanks. Good morning, commissioners. The recommended, the recommended edits to this regulation should be mostly straightforward once you understand the rationale behind them. So I'm going to start with the rationale and then dive into the text. Chapter 23 N empowers the commission to maintain a list of all patrons who are excluded from sports wagering and instructs that no patron on that exclusion list may participate in sports wagering of any kind. Chapter 23 K gives the commission similar statutory authority with respect to gaming and section 152 of the regulations is the longstanding regulation implementing that authority in the gaming context. So the reasons that an individual should be excluded from a casino under Chapter 23 K, for example, being a known cheat, having violated gaming law, having a reputation which would undermine public confidence in the industry, reflect risks to safety integrity or public confidence that carry over to sports wagering as well. And someone engaged in similar misconduct in the sports wager in context would pose comparable risks to gaming. So the proposed to amended 205 CMR 152 creates a unified exclusion list where misconduct in either arena leads to exclusion from both from an administrative standpoint, this has the advantage that the IEB continues using standard processes, which are also familiar to gaming licensees. Most of the proposed edits you will see throughout the regulation today simply carry out this overall recommendation where the original regulation refers to gaming or gaming facilities. We recommend adding references to sports wagering or sports wagering areas or sports wagering facilities. The reason that we are bringing this to you today and that it's important that an amended regulation be be approved today is that we would like to have this in place before the category three launch so that the operators are required to exclude people on the exclusion list from mobile sports wagering. Up until this point, anyone on the gaming exclusion list would have been excluded from sports wagering because the only sports wagering taking place in the Commonwealth was at the casinos that these people are physically excluded from. That will change on Friday. The operators have been alerted that this regulation that this proposed amended regulation is in the pipeline and we are not concerned about their ability to comply with its substantive requirements. The regulation does impose one administrative duty that we are not sure they can comply with by Friday and we will be recommending a brief waiver of that administrative requirement. And I'll explain what that is when we get there in the rank. So when we go through the regulation, my plan is to primarily review how each section of the regulation fits into the overall regulatory scheme and I will call out a few sports wagering related tweaks that deserve close attention. And of course, as always, I'm happy to pause on any particular event. This seems like a good moment to pause and ask whether there are any questions at a high level before we dive into the reg. Questions, commissioners? You can go right ahead. All right. The reg begins on page five of your packet. We'll start with section 152.01, scope and authority. As you can see, we added references to the key provisions from chapter 23 again. Section two, maintenance and distribution of the list, describes what information about each individual must appear on the list and requires the bureau to notify each operator when a new individual is placed on the list. On the next page, section three, criteria for exclusion, explains why someone must may be placed on the list. Originally, this this list was mostly taken from chapter 23K. The proposed edits ensure that sports wagering is covered and they also capture a slightly wider universe of other wagering-related regulations outside the Commonwealth. Based on discussions we had yesterday, I would also like to propose additional language in 152.032D, which is towards the top of page seven of your packets. After the word jurisdiction, I would recommend the following language, including without implied limitation, attempting to corrupt a betting outcome of a sporting event. The purpose of this language is to make it unambiguous that attempting to interfere with a game is misconduct that would be misconduct that would lead to exclusion from sports wage during in-gaming, and the language corruptive betting outcome of sporting event appears in chapter 23N. Could you please repeat that language again? Of course. After the word jurisdiction, the language would be including without implied limitation, attempting to corrupt a betting outcome of a sporting event. Can I ask you elsewhere? If they are disrupting the outcome of the event itself as opposed to the betting outcome, what is the difference? Somebody can disrupt a sporting event for reasons that have nothing to do with, that have no nexus to sports wage ring. I would want some language that implies that the misconduct has to be related to sports wage ring. Of course, some ways in which somebody could attempt to corrupt an outcome of a sporting event that don't relate to sports wage ring might also be covered under conviction of criminal offenses or notorious or unsavory reputation. But somebody who gets into a fight with an athlete in a bar might, if it happens the night before a game, it might be corrupting an outcome of a sporting event, but it wouldn't have no nexus to sports wage ring. I was thinking more you bribe an official or a player, that sort of thing. While you might have an underlying criminal offense, is there other ways that might happen that aren't included in that language, but if you're confident it's covered by the language. Is there anything we can insert that language? Because that's new, right? It's added to D, right? Yes. It developed over the course of discussions yesterday, which is why it does not appear in the packet. I understand it was new, but I'm just wondering, I didn't write it down while I have to say I didn't get it down. Now it's by memory and my memory isn't great. Can you repeat it again, please? Including without implied interpretation, attempting to corrupt a betting outcome of a sporting event. Should it say attempting or corrupting? Because are we impliedly not barring the completed act, but only the attempt if we say that? I think a success, succeeding includes an attempt. Is it a criminal context? The attempt would be distinct from a successful act. I'm happy to say attempting to corrupt or corrupting. I think it's safer that way. I think this Commissioner O'Brien took me a second to get the relevant provision and statute up, but for context, the two acts that the two primary acts that the statute uses as examples of conduct that corrupts a betting outcome of a sporting event are abnormal betting activity and match fixing. So I am confident that attempting to bribe an official or a player or threatening is covered. What I left out of these from the statutory language is a limiter for purposes of financial gain. It's conceivable that you could attempt to corrupt sportsway during outcomes for reasons that would have nothing to do with your own personal financial gain. You could want to mess somebody else's bet up, for example. So it is a slightly more expansive than it is a we do have slightly broader coverage for involuntary exclusion. So I hate to ask you to do this, but could you read it one more time, kind of where we landed? Of course. Is it including without elimination attempting to corrupt or corrupting a betting outcome? Of a sporting event. Of a sporting event. Well, I'm going to ask this question and I'm playing catch up here. It's the outcome of a sporting event, right? That's the word she used, outcome of a sporting event. A betting outcome. A betting outcome of a sporting event. Do I have to worry, is that about is that just the outcome of the of a, because I don't know what sporting event is, is that the outcome of the game or could it be the outcome of a play within the game? It could be the outcome of a play within the game if betting is offered on that play. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, are you ready for me to move on? I think I was moving on something. Thank you, Paul. Thank you so much. Section four establishes the administrative procedure by which someone is placed on the list to begin with the Bureau investigates if there's a decision made to place that person on the list, the Bureau prepares in order to that effect and serves it on the individual. The individual may request a hearing before a hearing officer and appeal an adverse decision before a hearing officer to the commission. There are two edits of substance to this section. The first one in paragraph one expands the list of whom the entities from whom the Bureau takes referrals for investigations to include sports wager operators, sports governing bodies and players associations. The second in paragraph 2a expands the exclusion from casinos to be an exclusion from casinos and from sports wagering, and you will see that theme repeatedly through the rest of this regulation. Section five, on the next page placement on the exclusion list pursuant to chapter 23k, section 45i is a bit different from everything else that we've been discussing. So rather than addressing integrity, this section deals with problem gambling. Chapter 23k enables you to go to court if you have a family member who is a problem gambler and seek an order barring that person from gambling in casinos. There is no similar provision in chapter 23n, but the commission has the power to adopt regulations to combat problem sports wagering. In our view, that power permits the commission to exclude someone who has been adjudicated a problem gambler under chapter 23k from sports wagering as well. Section six addresses licensees and operators duties. Throughout this section, once again, all the changes are meant to ensure that this regulation covers sports wagering operators, their physical facilities and their mobile applications. So going paragraph by paragraph, the duties that this section imposes on operators are one, monitoring the exclusion list. Two, to the extent that they operate physical facilities, actually excluding individuals on the exclusion list from those facilities and cooperating with the GEU to that end. Three, to the extent that they operate mobile platforms, keeping individuals on the exclusion list off of their mobile platforms. Four, informing the commission of individuals whom they should be, believe should be excluded. Five, maintaining a written compliance policy that itself meets certain standards. And section six is not a separate duty. It simply sets out grounds for discipline. Section five is the administrative requirement that we are going to ask be waived for a brief period. It is the requirement to maintain a written policy about how to comply and how to keep excluded individuals out is distinct from the requirements to actually comply and keeping individuals out. And we don't see a need for the operators to turn around these written plans within the next 36 hours or for executive director wells to approve these written plans within the next 36 hours, given everything else that's going on would go live. Again, we are confident based on our discussions with the operators that they are prepared to comply with the substantive requirements of the regulations. So after the vote on this regulation, we will be asking for a one week waiver of this compliance provision, which will give operators enough time to either get their plans in or request or request a further waiver as needed, which they will need to come to the commission at that point. So, Paul, this when I was talking with you yesterday, I had some concerns about the waiver and by the end of it I was confident with what was in place but could you elaborate a little bit more on why to some extent the approval of this plan is ministerial because it's covered in other regs. I think it should be made a little bit clearer on the record that this is effectively already in place because of internal controls and other regs which is why the waiver is more ministerial than anything else. Of course. 205 CR 238 I believe it is subsection it is either subsection 32 or 33. As amended last week add language requiring operators internal controls to exclude people on the involuntary exclusion list from sports wagering. In addition, as I said waving this paragraph five for a brief period does not wave paragraphs one through four all of which substantively require these operators to keep people out of their sports wagering operations. The casinos have long been complying with this regulation and this is for any of the operators that are going live on Friday we are not the first states to require involuntary exclusions that they will be operating in and they are aware that this list is coming and we've asked them to get ready. We've asked them to get ready to be excluding individuals on the existing exclusion list as of Friday. We're comfortable with waving the administrative requirement that they submit a plan which deals which overlaps with the substantive requirements which are covered elsewhere and otherwise imposes marketing and training requirements that are not as urgent. That practicality decides the body is basically doable by the time they launch. We have every expectation that is going to be in effect by the time they launch anyway. Right. I think Commissioner Bryan could I just clarify they must exclude. It's just that we only be living in the requirement that they have a plan to correct. I just wanted that clear from the record and so this is almost like another layer that we have in here. We're giving a ministerial waiver but the practicality is they have to do it and they have the plan in their internal control. This is almost like a belt and suspenders reg. They have to comply but they don't have to have a written plan. That's the thing. The only thing they don't have to have is that. The plan is already in their internal control. That's my point. They have to do it for different reasons. That's right. They have to comply. One thing I want to just note and I had this conversation yesterday as well. Unlike the involuntary self-exclusion the voluntary self-exclusion where the sports wager may voluntarily self-exclude from engaging on a sports wagering app they could still go to the casino. In this case the involuntary applies to both and that's an important distinction. It applies to all gaming in Massachusetts. Director Lillios is that fair? Did I say that correct? That's right chair and I think the rationale for that is that voluntary exclusion list requires the individual to make a decision about themselves and what is makes them vulnerable whereas the criteria for the involuntary list apply equally to wagering in Massachusetts and risks to wagering regardless of whether it's on the gaming side the sports wagering side in person or electronic. Very good, very helpful. Just a reminder on the voluntary for me. Thank you. Commissioner do you have other questions? Because Commissioner O'Brien brought up the practical reality of the waiver that we're going to be asked to provide. I have a question. I think the waiver makes sense and the reason stated. My only question is whether that week that's being proposed is enough time for Karen and the rest of the team to review because it's also a requirement of that same section 5. Did we commit to a week? We didn't. Just as long as we're factoring in any time that Karen needs to actually turn these around. I don't want to speak for Karen here. We thought we could bundle it up carefully for her and so I think it's doable and you're right that Commissioner O'Brien about the ministerial aspect of it so that will be helpful in fairness the operators have not had the reg that hopefully you will vote on today so that will tie it up for us. But it's clear that they're obligated if you vote to approve this reg that they would be obligated to keep folks on the list out. There are I believe 58 individuals on that list now. I think we certainly an extra week, two weeks if you're comfortable with that I'm sure could be put to good use. I'm fine with two weeks. Commissioner Maynard, you're leaning in? I'm fine with that. Thank you. How about 10 days to split the difference? How about 10 days to split the difference? That's a Saturday so maybe we have to do 20. I think we'll roll it over to the clear two. Do the 20th. Do the Monday. Was that the 20th? They have to get it to you by the 20th? I guess that's my question. I want to make sure I understand I'm just pulling my calendar up the due date that I have to approve it by so does it need to be approved by the 20th or do they have to submit by the 20th? I think we were contemplating that it would be that they submit. I hope you know we were expecting the executive job period and turned it around the same exact time program. I was thinking that it would be time to submit to the commission if that makes sense. Paul, correct me if I'm wrong or anybody else if I'm wrong. Could it be the terms of the waiver make that clear too? I think we can decide that. Let's do this. Let's figure out a date that will be because what we really are interested in is when the waiver will be lifted. That would be when the executive director signs off. How much time do you think that requires? We want to give the operators enough time to get the plan down. They're getting the reg. Then we need enough time for IEP to review. What do you think? Karen, I'd like to have the date to submit to the commission. I don't think that's enough time for the operators. You know, Heather, if you feel differently, I know you've been in touch with the operators on this issue. Samantha, I just want to make sure that you have the time to submit to the commission. I don't think that's enough time to submit to the commission. I don't think that's enough time to submit to the commission. I don't think that's enough time to submit to the commission. I don't think that's enough time for the operator to approve it. Samantha, I just want to let you know that you're not muted. Thank you. The reg just says submit. We're granting a waiver to 1. 32. 0. 6. 5. The waiver is for the time that we're doing the waiver on is the requirement to submit. Yes. Okay. So we don't have to worry about. We have to find a thing to think about, isn't it? I mean, I would. Yeah. Wouldn't we want to ensure that they've been approved before they actually implement the plan? That's why I was asking about. I think the reg is. Yeah, the reg is written. Yeah, it says if approved notice shall be provided to the commission and plan shall be implemented. So notice is given to us prior to implementation. It sounds like, But it wouldn't be enough for me to know that the operators have submitted their plan. I would also want to know that. The executive director has approved the plan for the operators just to. Or, or she said, I think. We're not approved. If approved, the if approved seems to. If approved, it sounds as though that's the executive director's approval. I think the bag might just be. It sounds like. Commoners. How can you help us? Maybe this is a good time to just tweak it. What do you think? I'm. I'm not sure I want to tweak this. I'm not sure. Tweaking the sequencing in this regulation. I'm not sure. Why would the meeting is the easier path? We can certainly bring something back with more clarity. Can I ask the question? Could we. What if the board review for executive director was. Well, I would not. I would not want to write the executive director shall approve the plan. I would read. I would, I would want it to be something more like shall review the plan for compliance. And determine whether to approve the plan. I would not approve it. You're right. So, but the idea is. We're hearing commissioner just wondering about timing here. Are we. Commissioner Skinner's raised the point. Not. You know, seems weird to just. Wave it for submission. If we're so concerned about the plan. We just do it. Fine. Just have it submitted. What do we want to next step? I think if. Director Wells and director Lillias and I, and I do not. I know how much is on them right now. I do not want to speak to their capacity. If they are, if they are comfortable with. A given timeline for approval. I think. There's nothing wrong with granting. Granting. A waiver that has two independent elements. One is a submission date and one is an approval date. Okay. Because the next, the third line does say, if approved. So there's somewhere there's an assumption that the executive director is reviewing. For compliance. So if approved. It's more than an assumption is the language says. Yes, it is. I think he's saying you don't want to just, because I suggested, you know, replacing review with approved, but then it sounds like she's just rubber stamping it. So we don't want that. So if approved. So can we. Can we say. It's two weeks sufficient for the third line to trigger. I mean, I opposed the original question to Karen. And I don't know that Karen has spoken yet in terms of, from her perspective. She's just wondering if it's for approval or submission. I think that's what her question was right. Karen, go ahead. I just want to be sure. The other thing I'm looking at is that. We have a commission meeting scheduled for the 23rd. So my suggestion is that we have the waiver go through the close of business on the 23rd. So that way. If there's a need for an extension of the waiver, we could do that at the commission meeting. But let's plan that I would have. You know, Honor before the 23rd, and then I can report out at the commission meeting on the third. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think the 23rd works. And I'm. And Karen, are you reading that the regulation. Requires you to review. Yeah. Compliance and that the next line, it's your approval. Yeah. I think so. Right. That is how. We've been reading the regulation. That's what I gathered. So, so you would come and let us know if there's an approval process. And if there is something in the interim, you'd have them tweak their plan and come back so that. Hopefully everybody's in compliance by the 23rd. Does that make sense commissioners? Are we good with that? Okay. So. Anything else on. If we could just go back up with respect to the changes that are being proposed, any concerns. On this particular section, never mind the waiver issue. On. One through four. And again, to be clear, because it's such an important provision, this does not wave. The obligation for the, any operator. To keep. To restrict. Anyone on this list of 58 names from engaging. In. Sports online sports wagering. Or retail sports wagering. And of course casino play. And I think all five of us would say this is a very. Critical. Critical provision. So the waiver should not be confused in any way. I think. All of us have stressed how important it is to make sure that those who may not wager. We're not eligible wager cannot wager high commissioner Hill. Just agreeing with you, madam chair. Well, excellent. Thank you. Yeah. So that's the bottom line. All right. So are we good with the. The reg as it is then. This would be a chance to clarify if you want any clarifying. Yeah. Okay. Madam chair and the Paul and the other attorneys that were on the call with me yesterday. We had a conversation about. Addressing conduct that some of the players association reps mentioned in terms of. Threatening conduct to either the players, their families.  Can you remind me what section we were talking about? Yes, that was in section three criteria for exclusion. That's all three. That's all three runs from pages six to seven of the packet. And which number all three subsection. There are, there are several provisions of that conduct could come under our recommended additional language that we discussed earlier, including without implied limitation attempting to corrupt or corrupting a betting outcome of a sporting event. Could you just say again, the subsection. That was D. Yeah. Two D or one. Yes, there it is. Okay. And, and where else. So. Was there another, whether we needed any more specific language in terms of people are committing threats to players, their families. Coaches reps, that sort of thing. I wanted to make sure that that kind of conduct. That people were on notice that that kind of conduct. Could result in exclusion. I think I just wanted to have a conversation with us. I think that's what all language that we talked about earlier was contemplating his addition to point on three, two D. So corrupting would be even. Making a threat to a player, players family, that sort of thing. I mean, if you feel that that language covers it, I just wanted to make sure there was language in there that covered that kind of scenario. I read, I read the use the phrase corrupt, a betting outcome of a sporting event in the statute to cover any attempt to improperly affect. The outcome of a sporting event and that would include, that would include threats that would include bribes. That would include actually, actually doing the physical harm that one that one has threatened. The threat to physical harm. So I guess my hypotheticals, what if it came after the event? What if the threats to the player, the player's family, the rep, whatever came after the outcome, would it still be covered under our statute under the strike? Said outcome of the sporting event, if I remember correctly. So I asked. On one side, you're asking on the other, which is a really important question. Because it, I mean, it might be intended to corrupt going forward, but it could, right. It could be, or it could just be, can it be linked to. Not having any influence or is that outside our. Yeah. And then we talked about harassment, et cetera. Do you need two or more acts as opposed to a single act as, you know. If I, if I can jump in a minute on this. So that's a, you know, I was thinking about that as well. Commissioner O'Brien about the timing of it, right? Because if it precedes the event and there's an incident that can be linked to, you know, trying to affect the outcome. These matters, even on the, in the casino context that we've been dealing with over these years, they're intensely facts specific. So, you know, I can't say. Definitively. We've been using. To your question, but it would be a very spec, fact specific inquiry that we would, that the IEB would perform. One area of guidance that we have gotten from the commission in the past. Has been where there are other governmental agencies that may have a role in the matter. This tool of the exclusion list. minors in the cars, for instance. There's been a directive from the commission that, you know, we have a Department of Children and Families, we have our state police, G.E.U., who are mandated reporters, you know, to some extent there's reliance on that. To the extent, which is not to say that we don't exclude individuals from unattended minors, we do. We also, there's a statutory requirement that security inspect the garages specifically to look on unattended minors. So we'll rely on these other kinds of activities and agencies.  And there are elements of crime. And there are, you know, law enforcement agencies that have an obligation to review incidents like that, that we could refer to law enforcement agency. So I just wanted to give that context to this, that the exclusion list is a very useful tool to the extent that we might be applying it to retroactive conduct for a punitive piece. I'd suggest, you know, that may not be the right use of the tool, but the tool that we're largely trying to utilize is to maintain integrity of gaming, maintain safety of individuals. So if we look at an incident and safety is an issue, that will be something that we look at carefully, right? But Laura, this entire subsection is past conduct. Like O3 is all based on past conduct. And so I, you know, if the consensus is that we feel the language sufficiently addresses it and we're willing to come back, if we find a situation where it doesn't, you know, we can move on, but O3 is all past conduct.  This is now going to be across social media potentially, which is a whole other beast that raises jurisdictional problems for law enforcement, that sort of thing. So I want to put it out there. That was the biggest takeaway I took from the Players Association meeting. So if we are comfortable that we have sufficient protections in, I'm fine. I just want to be all on the same page that if we find we're not, that this is something we circle back to in the near future. I think that we have the hook in there for threatening type conduct. It's always, you know, using these are past conduct. It's always using past conduct to predict future conduct, right? Right. Or act as a deterrent, right? It would still be a very fact-specific inquiry that we would have to utilize. Right. With that said, I think initially the question was, Commissioner Bryant, is the language corruption sufficient to capture all types of actions that the Players Association raised with us? With respect to family members? With respect to officials? With respect to the athletes themselves? And I'm hearing Paul, that you're comfortable with that. The only thing with this regular, it will never show we've had this discussion, you know, in 10 years, unless you come back to our meeting. And so well, I wonder if there's a way. The safety of the patient's employees or others. I mean, I'm just wondering if there's any place to capture family, players, and circulate that. I don't know if this helps, but in looking at 1e, I mean, that specifically discusses, you know, presenting the potential of injuries, threat to the interests of the common could you tell me the exact section, please, because I'm having trouble following the 1d industry. Yeah. 031. 031d. Yeah, 1e. This is the section we were talking about yesterday. Yeah. Is whether the Commonwealth's interest includes that. And then I would like to say it does. Then we go down. We do mention employees and the players, but in a different position. I just wonder if we should be just last night. Yeah, it says presents the potential of injurious threat to the interests of the Commonwealth in a gaming establishment, a sportsway during area, a sportsway during facility or sportsway during platform. I was wondering if there's any language that goes beyond that in terms of, you know, integrity or safety of the sporting event. And, you know, the players, their families, is there's some way to add language in there that makes it clear that that is part of the Commonwealth's. What we want to protect from potential injurious threats. Because those are very specific to, you know, building sub area within the building, you know, another facility building and then an online platform. So it would have to be interpreted as impacting those, impacting those areas, but I don't think we right. So I don't know if it's clear enough in there and to your point, this conversation might not be enough. So is there a language that's necessary to make that clear? I don't want to tweak the language gaming establishment because I think that is drawn from chapter 23 K. No, I'm thinking more adding to this. Well, I would also have no problem with replacing sportsway during area, sportsway during facility or sportsway during platform with in sporting or in the sportsway during industry or in sporting events or in the sportsway during industry. Do we add that as opposed to striking the language that you put in there already? What if we just said or the integrity and safety of sportsway during the Commonwealth? Well, I guess what I'm trying to when I'm trying to get at is are we interpreting wagering to include all of the players in the event itself? Right. So for the moment, what I would like to say is that I think any any any criminal act that relates to sportsway during is likely covered under one be violating or conspiring to violate laws relating to gaming or sportsway during. So I'm not I'm not worried about coverage for something that rises to the level of criminal harassment or criminal threats. Um, for if somebody threatens a player or somebody connected to a player for conduct that has already for game for conduct in a game that has already taken place. I'm comfortable that we have enough coverage to move forward there. Family members and officials, right, Paul? And if there is a nexus to sportsway during, I would say it is a law relating to sports. Okay, thank you for conduct that is intended to influence the outcome of a future game. I'm perfectly comfortable that the corrupt or corrupting eventing outcome language covers us. We can certainly workshop all of this in the coming weeks as this regulation comes back for final publication. Well, I'm wondering, do we reach out to the players association because I know they had been directed by the legislature to work with us in terms of the regs, you know, so I'm wondering if a reach out specifically on whether they have any suggested language that we could consider. We can do that. Yeah, I would hear in their feedback. Yeah. Okay, so that we hadn't gotten through the hole. We went back on that. It was we were out of provision where employee was mentioned. Well, we were, I think we were at the end of section to see to see mentions the patrons employees or others, Madam Chair, that's what you're looking for. Yes, so whether the individuals pose a clear threat to the safety of the patrons, employees or others on or near the premises of a gaming establishment. That's the patrons and employees of the gaming establishment patrons. And it's funny platform is not in there and that one that paragraph is meant to deal with physical right establishments to deal with I'm sorry physical establishments. That's what I figured the physical establishment but I'll tell you what I'm thinking about is the players so she can wear the individuals are at and I know we don't have control of the venues themselves, but they are threatening players or their family members who are actually at a sporting event or the officials at the sporting event. Mm hmm. He did say that and that commissioners you can help me out. Commissioner Maynard, do you want to remind us? No, no, that was my memory and Commissioner O'Brien's point. I'm not as eloquent as you are Commissioner O'Brien, but you know, even if the whistle stopped and the game's over, if someone shouts down a player's family member, I would want that all to be interpreted to come in and allow us to put that person on the exclusion list and so if if the language does that great, but that's that's how I interpret it what they said to and and as to affecting a future game like in a tournament or something, I think that would come come right back in as written as you said. So the commission really wants to focus and make sure that nobody's put in harm's way and so that's and of course Paul's going to say well we don't have really jurisdiction over every person at a sporting event, only those who are engaging in sports wagering and that's hard to know in real life. So I think we you know we have limits on our our own jurisdiction, but to the extent we can think about that creatively. Madam Chair, that would be to place them on the exclusion list, right? Like I that's good. That's a good so there we go. Can we do that? And is it any patron? Are we okay with that? If it's just the Commissioner Hill, I'm thinking of you Commissioner Skinner, any you know IRA fan? Madam Chair, yes if I can just go back in time to the letter that was written to us. Thank you. There's actually specific language that I think would be helpful. Of course I would need help on where we would put the language, but it says if the commission determines reports of violence, threats or other acts of intimidation against players, coaches, officials or their families to be credible or others prohibited conduct as defined in CMR blah blah blah blah, said determination shall constitute sufficient cause for exclusion from a sporting event pursuant to provisions section 11b. So I think that at least gives us a little bit of a starting point. So they actually say exclusion from a sporting event versus exclusion from the sports wagering. And we we could massage the language to. We could do that. Yeah, but I mean the language is a good starting point. Yeah. As soon as where would be. I don't know, I'm just going to you've got your off to if you want to, I didn't know if we could really do it. That's what the players association asked for. Yeah, I'm reminded of my comments at the time. I was a little skeptical as to whether or not the commission had the authority to exclude a patron from the the sporting arena. But but I do think there is wide authority in excluding an individual from sports wagering in Massachusetts for any of the reasons that have already been outlined in response to, you know, not only the commission and the Commonwealth's interests, but the interests of the players association. I think 15204 opens the door for us to do that. To your point, Madam Chair, would we know about any incidents occurring in an arena in Massachusetts? We wouldn't necessarily, but this invite players association to submit a request for an investigation. Maybe that's not the right terminology, but to notify the commission of such an issue or incident and IEB has discretion to investigate that in its own on its own accord and potentially in conjunction with the players association. So I think 15204 kind of, you know, spells out spells that out that process, what that process might look like a little bit. So a lot of input, Paul, but it really was a very important round table. And I think I don't know if we talked so much at that time about the volunteering self-expulsion list, but we knew that we wanted to be responsible. Here we are. So we would welcome any referrals from the players association, which is why we made a point of adding that 15204 one. I think everyone is correct that we do want to know about credible serious threats to players or anyone connected to players, but the practical realities mean that some of this conduct is going to have to be brought to us as opposed to being something that can be proactively sought out and identified. I really do think that the credible, the sufficiently credible threats are going to come under 15203 one B, violating laws relating to sports wagering. And anything that's any threats that are forward looking will be covered under the language that we proposed adding earlier. And beyond that, we really would welcome further feedback. I would be happy to take a look at the language supplied by the players association. We would welcome further feedback from all stakeholders and can tweak this as we move towards final promulgation. So Paul, can I throw another thing for you to consider, which would be when you're looking at 152.032C, whether you also add or a sporting event, because that would then be enable IEB to consider conduct that you talked about, screaming at someone's family members as they're leaving related, you know, it's not that we necessarily have to proactively police it so much as it specifically says IEB can take that into consideration. I'll say that the reason that I didn't use O3 to see as my jumping off point for the for the corrupting language that I proposed is that I thought poses a clear threat to safety was probably a higher bar than the commission wanted to impose for some of this threatening conduct, because the real the real question is how it's perceived by the recipient, not what the not how the commission not how the commission or the IEB perceives the clarity of the threat, but I can certainly take a look at incorporating something into O2C. So what I'm thinking of is because I see a disconnect between past events and conduct and so I'm wondering if having it in multiple places makes it clear what the conduct is that's appropriately considered by IEB. If you're telling me you think that it somehow diminishes the ability to use it and the corrupt practices, the conduct part done, but then I you know I get that, but it would seem to me that putting it in C might not diminish, but would just add to IEB's discretion. Right, I'm concerned. I don't want to take over the time meeting. Talk to me. Talk to what? I don't have other other plans, commissioners. I have a hard stop at 215. Why don't we have why don't we say that this is coming back? Paul's heard from us, but before we go, commissioners, commissioners, commissioner Hill on the place association letter. Thank you for bringing it up onto your computer. Do you still have it because it was a second proposal, but I don't think it's applicable here. I can't remember. Um, they had also proposed language that prohibited conduct includes any statement, action, and other communication intended to influence, manipulate, or control a betting outcome of a sporting contest or of any individual occurrence or performance in a sporting contest in exchange for financial gain or to avoid financial and physical harm. Prohibited conduct includes statements, actions, and communications made to a coverage person by a third party such as a family member, but through social media and prohibited conduct does not include statement actions or communications made for sanctioned by team or sports governing body. That was the second proposal they used for what prohibited conduct would be. I think the place association requests are on maybe legal list to return to that's a general provision that's actually kind of caught here. Generally, right, Paul, but we should think about whether we need to incorporate that in a different reg as well. And I'm turning to Todd, but we don't think we need to put anyone on the spot on that, but I think this should be on the continuing list of matters for us to be thinking about. Okay, Katelyn, I'm turning. I was just gonna say absolutely we can take and we have looked that letter as we've been moving through, but I think totally fair to take another look and see if their comments could be incorporated into an existing reg or or a new reg would make sense. Oh yeah, okay, but I do hear that's not so different than I think we're if Paul's right that that corruption language is so general that it's going to capture those kinds of general rats that are made to family members and to raps. That's that works for me, but you're going to take a look at it. We'll circle back. When will this come back to us again? We don't have the exact date, but this will be on the if it's promulgated by emergency today, it will be filed tomorrow and then it's the 60 to 90 days for it to come back and be finally in effect. So we've got some protection that we know of clearly based on today's discussion should we so don't. Okay, anything else as we go through? We should probably go through the rest, right? Yes, I believe we left off at the end of section six. So we would pick back up on page 10 with section seven. There are no substantive changes here. This is the this sets out administrative process for an individual to be to petition to be removed from the exclusion list. Section eight of forfeiture of winnings ensures that individuals on the exclusion list who nonetheless manage to place bets or wager in casinos do not collect their winnings or recover their losses. Originally, all such winnings went to the gaming revenue fund. Now winnings go either to the gaming revenue fund or the sports wagering fund, depending on how they were won. Finally, section nine sanctions against a gamer sports wagering licensee paragraph one of this section establishes the substantive standard for a violation of 152. You'll see a number of the changes that you would expect to ensure that this section covers prohibited sports wagering as well as gaming paragraphs two to four set out a procedure for disciplining game and licensees rather than adapting that set those paragraphs for sports wagering licensees or rewriting the procedural parts of the standard altogether. We recommend simply adding a new paragraph five and you will see on page 13 of your packet that simply refers to 205 CMR 232 the umbrella sports wagering discipline regulation for the procedures to be followed in disciplining a sports wagering operator. That is it. Questions. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan, for bringing up the players association piece, particularly important. Other comments or questions for Paul and the legal team? I'm hearing none. So, we do have to think about the waiver and we have to think about putting this into emergency effect now. I have any motion. Madam chair, I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 152 as included in the commissioner's packet and further discussed and edited here. There was a small tweak and I move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process further move staff be authorized to modify chapter section numbers or titles to file additional regulations sections as reserved or make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Again, any questions or edits on that motion? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Good work. So, 5-0 on that. Now with respect to the waiver. No. Madam chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023 the commission issue of waiver to all licensed sports wagering operators from the requirements of 205 CMR 152.065 through close of business on March 23rd 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general law chapter 23M. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. All right. Any questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Yes. So, 5-0 on that waiver. And thank you for all the work on that. Thank you. Thank you. If we can just pause for a second. I should have on the beginning of the meeting really called to order. Just to remind you today remains March 8th Wednesday. And it is public meeting number 441. So, for the records. Thank you. So, now we're going to turn to the next item on the agenda. So, we have Council Grossman. We have 203 CMR 138 to consider. And on that packet. I think I'm moving toward page 16. And for the record, it's 16 of 1089. Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. I can take this one for you today. I just have a procedural matter for you here. I'm sure you recall that last Thursday on March 2nd you voted to finalize a set of five regulations just to remind you what those are and they are in your packet. It was 205 CMR 138 uniform standards of accounting procedures and internal controls. 205 CMR 238 additional uniform standards of accounting procedures and internal controls for sports wagering. 247 uniform standards of sports wagering. 248 sports wagering account management. And 254 temporary prohibitions from sports wagering. So, those five regulations had been initially filed by emergency several months ago and they had gone through the formal promulgation process, including a public comment period and public hearing. And we had, of course, worked through those comments and adopted some and your vote last week was the conclusion of that process to finalize the promulgation process. So, just a little bit of background here. Regulations are published by the Secretary of State in the mass register on a biweekly schedule. While emergency regulations go into effect immediately upon filing, final regulations don't go into effect until they are published in the register. And so because of where we fell in that biweekly publication timeline, we realized that if we had filed these final regulations last week, they wouldn't have become effective until March 17th, which means that the initial emergencies that were filed in December would have been the versions in effect upon launch in that that week timeframe between the 10th and the 17th. So, we're here today just again on a procedural issue just to have the Commission approve those regulations for an emergency filing, which means that we would file those by emergency tomorrow. They would go into effect immediately and they would replace those previous emergency filings from December. And then we would also be seeking approval, which essentially would be the same approval we made last week to file the final versions in the coming weeks that would complete the formal promulgation process. And again, really just a formality to ensure that the updated regulations that you worked so tirelessly on would be in place on the 10th for launch. First off, thank you, Carrie, for reminding us of the complexities of the regulatory scheme and framework that, you know, the team has been working on since we were given this assignment August 1st, 2022 to stand up. It's wagering. The framework is complex and you've navigated beautifully. And so today, I think everyone's clear as to why we need to take action today to ensure that we recover during this interim period. This has been, what's the number of regulations, Carrie? Oh my gosh. I had counted a while ago the individual sections and it was, when I last counted, I think it was close to 200. So it must be more now. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's probably creeped up close to 20s anyway. Any questions, commissioners for Carrie or Todd? Okay. You're going to need a vote for us. Do we have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission authorized staff to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency for the following regulations as included in the commissioners packet and as discussed and approved on March 2nd, 2023 and to thereafter take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process for 205-CMR-138, 205-CMR-238, 205-CMR-247, 205-CMR-248, and 205-CMR-254. Thank you commissioners. Was it 254 or 252? 254. 254. Okay. Any other questions? Nope, second. Commissioner Maynard second and so no problem. We got the question was answered. Any other questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five zero. So I'll set on that work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Carrie. Have a good rest of the day. I don't know if you're sticking around for the moment. Councilors or not? I'll be watching. Yes. Thank you so much. I may call on you too, Carrie. Let's see. Madam Chair. Yes. Can I ask for a five-minute break, please? I was going to, I was just going to make the inquiry. So we do have a good chunk of business. It's 1154. We could come back around noon. Are we just having a short break now or people want a longer break? So I actually have a hard stop at 215-220 myself. So I don't ever make sense to do like a 15-20 minute break to eat something now. I throw that out there for consideration. And then have a good two hours. Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, where I have to hop off. That's fine. Does that sound good to you, Commissioner Skinner? Is that what you said? Okay. Excellent. Commissioner Maynard. All right. So Commissioner Hale, good idea. It is for the public. It's right now 1155. We'll reconvene 1215. Okay. Thanks so much and great work. What's that, Dave? All set. Thanks, Dave. So we are returning to convening of a mesheskin commission meeting, March 8th. We're holding this meeting virtually so well. Good afternoon, Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Hello, I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Second. You had it. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, and good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. I'm here. Okay. We're all set to go then. Again, public meeting number 441. And we are turning to item three on the agenda. And I'm going to turn it to Director Sports Wadring, Bruce Band, who will introduce his team. Trying to get unmuted there. Okay. Do you want to make the introduction, Bruce? Yes. On this for the house rules, Sterile Carpenter will be the operations manager, will be carrying out through the house rules on this, Sterile. Thank you, Bruce. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. Good afternoon. Today we're bringing to you the house rules from the six licensees that will be hopefully starting on March 10th. And with that, I'd like to introduce some of the subjects in which we went over. So pursuant to 205CMR 247, subsection two, subsection one. The sports wagering operator shall adopt comprehensive house rules for sports wagering. The sports wagering operator shall not conduct sports wagering until the commission has approved the house rules. And the sports wagering operator shall not conduct sports wagering in a manner inconsistent with approved house rules. The category three tethered and untethered licensees of the Commonwealth have submitted their house rules for approval by the commission. And I have reviewed each of the submissions for compliance with the regulations governing the required content of house rules, which is set forth in 205CMR 247, subsection two, subsection three. As listed in the memo sent to the commissioners, there are sections A through P in which the house rules need to address. And they were all reviewed by the sports division for compliance. And most all have complied with the areas. But there are several sections in which the house rules, language in which we want to bring to the commissioners' attention. So with that said, I would like to skip down to our important observations and that an operator has listed a request for rounding change from payoffs up or down. The sports division, I'm sorry. Could I interrupt just briefly? Absolutely. We have a really large packet today. And I know that you have a memorandum for us, but I want to see what page you're going to direct us to first. Do you have it? I've got It's 171, Madam Chair. Thank you. I am scrolling through. I appreciate it. Let me see if my, yeah, my, let's just give me a second to scroll through for some reason. On some reason, I'm not able to change the page or find it. So I'm just going through. Which is a challenge for me of working. There we go. I'm much closer now. All right. I've got the rounding. Excellent. Thank you. So the sports division expressed great concern over this request by the operator and would like to respond with a denial of the following procedure unless they wish to always round up in the patron's favor. Of course, it is up to the commission to approve all house rules. But in this house rule, they are asking that for any customer that would receive one cent or two cent in their payout that they would be rounding down to zero cents. And so on, three and four cents, they would round up to five, six and seven round down to five, and then eight and nine round up to 10. If they wish to continue to do the rounding and want to always round up in the favor of the patrons, we don't see a problem with that. But for not providing the accurate amount of money to the patron and rounding down, we would not recommend that be accepted by the commission. I'll pause. Yeah, let's pause there and have a discussion, sterl commissioners. So this is a request. I'm not familiar in the game world, Commissioner Brown. You remember this probably with respect to the casino and the coins. And I think that might be, sterl, a little bit of your memory as you were assessing this, thinking about at least the commission in its earlier composition was concerned about the idea of rounding down. So commissioners, let's turn to Commissioner Hill. So in my opinion, I would not agree with what's being proposed under their house rules of rounding down. If I had my way, we wouldn't be rounding at all. But if we are going to be allowing it, we're going to be rounding up only, not rounding down. So my hope is that we can work with this provider and let them know that we will not be rounding down. I hope that's how we feel as a commission, but certainly how I feel individually. Okay, Commissioner Skinner. I agree with Commissioner Hill. The patron is entitled to every cent of their winnings. Commissioner Maynard. I, you know, from the beginning of this process, as you said, August 1st, I've looked at this as a, in my head, as a patron centered process and a patron expects every penny that they put in to come out. And so that's, I agree with Commissioner Skinner and I agree with Commissioner Hill. Okay. And I'm guessing Commissioner Bryan, what your thoughts are? Yeah, I have no problem if they want to do it to the penny. If it's too cumbersome and they need to change the practice for expediency, it has to be rounded up in the patron's favor. I agree with that entirely. I am in old schools. If they're old a penny, they get that penny. And that penny is worth a lot when you start saving them up. So I think you've got the answer on that one, Sterl. I think in terms of Commissioner Bryan's, does anybody object if they round up? Is there any policy concern we have there? Commissioner Skinner? No, sorry. Yeah, I don't have any concern with the operator rounding up in the patron's favor. Agreed. Okay, Commissioner, you're in agreement too? Okay. Okay, there. Okay, we will reach out to that operator and inform them of the decision. Second point. So in your submission, it was noted in the house rules of each individual operators a discussion on Parley related rules. I outline this section because the detail between two sentences from one operator to 168 times being seen in one submission alone gives us the range of how detailed to how simplified the Parley related rules can be. So I, as the reviewer, understood all of the submissions Parley related rules. With that said, if it was noted by any commissioner, if they needed to expand on any Parley related rules, or if there is some way that they want to have any of them addressed, you guys can make those concerns known today. But that was just a, it was a recurring theme. And this was just one of those sections where the answer to a question on the regulation was either very brief, all the way to very extensive between operators. Commissioners, I think operators have taken different approaches. What do you think, Commissioner Hill? I think Commissioner O'Brien wanted to go behind first. I just had a quick question. When I was getting briefed on this, Joel, you had mentioned that everyone uses the term round robin, except for Fandall, because they do the same kind of bit, but they just don't call it that. So my only concern with that is confusion on the part of the consumer. If everybody else is calling that type of vet around Robin, do we want Fandall to use the same terminology, or is that kind of a confusion because their app doesn't call it that? Good point, though. Yes, exactly. They have provided that when I asked, specifically not addressing the round robin that they do, but they consider it just a tiered Parley. So that's a good question. Maybe Fandall would be able to provide us some clarity or or do we say aka, otherwise known as a round robin? I don't know. I might be creating more confusion, but. Commissioner O'Brien, can I add to this a little bit? Yes, Commissioner Hill. So as someone who used to vet, I know what a round robin is, and I think most of the consumers who are betters know what the round robin is. I saw that as well as I was going through the rules, and I actually didn't see any issue with any of the language of any of the else rules were put forth around robin is used quite frequently actually in the vetting world. So I don't think a consumer would be mixed up. That's just one person's opinion. Sterle, I don't know if you feel the same. We have someone who's chimed in and Andrew, I'm forgetting your full last name, so you're going to have to help me. Yes. Thank you. Andrew Winchell from Fandle. Yeah, I think just a little point of clarity is I think there might have been some confusion on our end about that issue where we didn't, yes, specifically reference the term round robin. We expect them to settle in the same way that our other parlays do settle. So that's why we don't have specific house rules related to them. But if it was the request of the commission to include a line to reference the existence of round robins in our house rules and just to say that they settle in the same way that our standard parlays settle, that would that would not be an issue for us. Commissioner Bryan, does that kind of answer? Yeah, I think that might help because then if anybody is not as sophisticated as Commissioner Hill or others on this call that if that's the term they were looking for, then at least they could look in and say, okay, it's going to be dealt with that. I think that would solve it for me. So just as a procedural matter, this sounds like an edit to the proposed rule. So I'd like, I don't know, Todd, I'm going to ask that you keep track of this because we are going to be voting on these house rules at the end. So it sounds as though there's a Mr. Winchell is offering a slight edit to clarify this. And I presume house rules, I don't know what the process is going forward, but they're always going to be subject to amendment and then our ultimate approval. But I'd like to get this one done for today. So what language would be suggested? The a k a round robin for the tier two. Is that sufficient, Mr. Winchell? He indicated they could put another definition sort of round robin. And I think if you want to repeat the line. Yeah, I think the line would be something. I'm looking at our section on parlays right now. We were dead, probably just another bullet saying, you know, Fandall offers round robins which are settled in the same format as parlays as the rest of the parlays. Commissioners and sterl. What do you think of that addition, sterl? Do you think that helps clarify? I think I think it would clarify to the customer that there are that option and there are round robins, even though Fandall calls them a parlay, yes. Okay. So, Todd, you noted that one for us, please. Thanks so much. Okay. Now I'm going to turn back. Commissioner Hill, did you have another point other than the round robin that commissioners will provide? I was just also suggesting I went through the rules and I was happy with the language of all of the parlay language of all the rules. Excellent. Anybody else have any observation, Commissioner Skinner? I had a question. When we promulgated the regulation and required the parlay wage or related rules to be included in the house rules, what is it that we contemplated? And with the range of detail provided from operator to operator, sterl, I guess I'll direct this question to you. I mean, is there any information that's glaringly omitted from one operator over the others that would be necessary for the patient to understand what to effect if there is a concern around their parlay wager? So, not glaringly omitted by any operator. I just wanted to bring to your attention the differences in which each operator answers the parlay. So, somebody placing a wager on DraftKings might have a ton of information on parlays, whereas somebody in another operator might have just several lines discussing parlays. There is no set language for them per se. So, I had to review each one of them and they do answer the question of parlay wagering rules. So, yes, I feel their rules are able to be approved for this section. I just wanted to bring it to the point that some operators go into great detail for their patrons on every single scenario in which a parlay can be changed, voided, all the different rules. So, yes. And Commissioner O'Brien highlighted a particular area that was confusing for her. Did you find, and I'm guessing the answer is no, based on your prior response, your response to my prior question, rather, did you find any issues that you thought needed further clarification in what was provided, even if it wasn't in such great detail? The things that might strike you as just needing further mention or elaborating, needing to be elaborated on a little bit more clearly. Yeah. So, the problem being, as I'm very familiar with all the wagers, so, I would ask others, you know, is it okay if they would just explain them brevity, right? And in which case, I believe that they are all addressed, although might have questions, all operators can then also take questions by their patrons, right? So, if further down the line, we feel that there are many patrons asking us questions on a certain operator not going into enough detail for them, the subject could always be revisited. But at this point, I do not see a problem with the rules now. Okay. And that's a good segue into my next question. It's not just limited to the house rules, excuse me, the Parley wager section in your memo, just across the board for things that you haven't even identified for the commission in your memo. What is the process whereby, you know, should the commission receive a complaint, IAB receive a complaint, or a concern from a patron? What's the pathway to getting that matter some attention and, you know, if necessary, a revision of the house rules for any operator? So, a great point there. What I would say is we, as the sports division requested exact language, and actually forwarded the exact language for all of our licensees to use in regards to sections I and J. And in section I is methods in contacting a sports wagering operator for questions and complaints, but also that section says how complaints are resolved and how the patron may submit a complaint to the commission. We gave specific areas in which we can be contacted. We can be contacted via mail, via email, via hotline, and all of those, the entire language has been submitted to the licensees and placed in everyone's house rules. So, if anyone has a question, they know how to get it to us, and I will be immediately addressing every single request that comes in with any problem. So, if there is a problem that we have not foreseen, we will be hearing about it, and the commission is the right to ask for revisions to the house rules at any given time. In that process, you just described that the sports wagering division undertakes, is that limited to the review of complaints coming directly from a patron? In other words, is there an opportunity for audit of any complaints that go from a patron to the operator but don't necessarily rise to the level of having the patron file a complaint directly with the commission? And I ask that because I think it would be important for the commission to be informed as to the frequency of a certain kind of complaint so that we can then reevaluate our steps and requirements, whether it pertains to house rules or anything else, quite frankly. Absolutely, and yes, correct. They have a reporting. It's in our reporting. Now, I apologize. I've seen so many regulations. This one, I cannot remember the number in sight, but there is that they must give us a report on all of the claims that have been made.  Excellent. Thank you, Sterl. Thank you. Anything further on Paralyze? Looking good. I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Skinner's question, Sterl, which is you go from two sentences to 168 references and you said, you know, you understood it. You've got some level of sophistication. Is there anything in that 168 references that you feel really shouldn't in abundance of caution be added to the licensees house rule that only has two lines? So a little background on that is that the licensee that had two lines, right, also is not in front of us today. They are very limited and only offering three events. So when I say the- Oh, there'll be a limit to their Paralyze, too, then, by extension. Exactly. And so the one that had the Paralyze references, it's- I found it fantastic that they could reference in that Paralyze with multiple different sports can go on at one time and then they go into whether it's a Paralyze that is just on results or whether that's in-game Paralyze as well as that, right? So the detail creates the amount of information, right? So it's not necessary given their offerings. Correct. Got it. Okay, thank you. Great. Anything further on Paralyze, Cheryl? Okay. So the next topic that I wanted to bring up is the addressing of obvious errors by a operator. So language that we have seen in which I would want to just bring to the attention to the commission is I will use one operator's definition of obvious errors. Licency makes every effort to ensure that we do not make an error in prices offered or wagers accepted. However, if a result of a mechanical, technical, or human error, licensee offers or a patron places a wager in obvious error, the licensee reserves the right to either settle winning wagers at the corrected price or is reasonably determined by the licensee or void any wager placed in obvious error. An obvious error includes but is not limited to the following. Errors offered or placed on events after the outcome is already known. Wagers offered or placed on markets where incorrect participants are listed. Wagers offered or placed on markets where participants are incorrectly designated or listed in incorrect order, i.e., home team is listed as the way. Wagers offered or placed at odds that are materially different than those available in the general betting market for a given event at the time the wager was placed. Wagers offered or placed at odds which reflect an incorrect score situation or wagers offered or placed at odds being clearly incorrect given the probability of the event occurring or not occurring at the time the wager was placed. We bring this to your attention because it is in the regulations. It is in 238.35 and it is in the House rules to address obvious errors to the patrons. We notice that language is very similar to this in a multitude of our licensees in one way or the other they all address obvious errors. This though it was brought to the attention because we want to make sure here in the Commonwealth that the patron has their consumer rights and are making sure that one is not being ignored or discarded. So I will pause there and I might ask the Commission to discuss what they believe is an obvious error or however they would like to tackle this subject that was presented. Can I ask a point of clarification and forgive me I woke up thinking about this and I haven't gone back through all the documents in our regs itself as we think about obvious errors or if it's not in our regs themselves do any of the sports wagering operators presume that they can void a bet without permission approval? So there are several areas in which obvious errors are addressed in our rules and several areas that are addressed like without question an event that has incorrect people that are in it and are all completely wrong and people have wagered upon it and it would be unfair to both parties they are they are required by reg to void the wager but there are and they can do that excuse me sir they can do that without our approval correct they would be following the reg is yeah go ahead how do you feel about that sir I understand there's like the spectrum of obvious and yes in somewhere there's something obvious but I wonder about ever proving a void so a great deal a great deal of voiding and cancelling of wagers a lot of times will require to be done at a very expedited rate right like once an error is known you do not want to have your customers believing that there is a that there is something that they're in action when they are not right when they believe the worst the worst thing I could possibly think of is if a customer believing that they have a winner right and then after they they believe they've won they go to cash it and then it's like oh wait it's voided and they didn't you know it seemed like it happened just instantaneously because they won now that said there are several areas in our regulations also that asked them to define the obvious wagers so in both 247 and obvious errors right obvious errors yes okay so for that time the time frame is is is is very important for them to be able to void wagers and not have people hanging on or especially if an error is found offering a million to one odds on something that is we know to be an error have to remove it right so we have to get into the what an obvious error is but there I am I'm wondering are there other jurisdictions that that that's never allowed for a that to be voided without commission approval I can jump in here thank you for one second so the the reg that we the portion of the reg that we'd be looking at is 238.35 as still pointed out and there are basically there's a two-tiered system for the cancelling of wagers the first tier is where an operator can cancel a wager without permission from the commission and it sets out circumstances in which that can be done a lot of them are very clear the location of a game has changed a particular player isn't going to play in that game so it's there's not a lot of discretion there it's a very clear thing no discretion and so I think and I'm happy to share the language but when it talks about obvious errors I think it will be up to the commission to decide how much discretion is there and we can talk about that and then the second the second provision of section 35 is where you know in all other events before a wager can be cancelled the operator has to come to the commission for approval and explain why they wanted to cancel it etc and there's a process for that so that's the difference but that is the provision of the statute that you'd want to focus on in that in thinking about what an obvious error is now I'm just going to give you some more background everyone as we think about obvious errors and and the discretion the exercise of discretion is our friend Dave we bought called today on something else and I told him off we're doing house rules and I'm concerned about this issue and his words were no boarding of that without your approval so just keep that in mind now he may not have known about these you know the vag where we have the obvious but he gave us um so from a a good regular extent I may mention you today during our meeting so let's just keep that in mind um and I know we have um operators here and and and uh they know Dave very well so and of course Bruce still you know him well so um nice I just had a new new subset question sterl some are nice two by two as of yesterday so now we have to think about obvious errors and that's what commissioners yeah so this was my this is the biggest uh conundrum for me in these house rules and even when I'm reading to 3835 and I go down and I look at things like the reference in uh I think it's 238 35 let's put it out because um I am was grabbing it right before I don't think I have a hard cup I don't know if somebody has the no can share I don't have a hard cup if you give me one moment I have it I can share okay excellent yeah so I can really think of it and tell you can sexually it's good here if you could just make it a little bit bigger just hold on commissioner skinner just um commissioner brian just not enough a little bit bigger please sure oh wonderful um so which section uh so I think it's one eye and it talks about obvious error and then there's four enumerated circumstances and I noticed in there it said human error in the placement of the wager and I know I conceived that as more human error in the part of the patron and canceling it in a circumstance where the bed hadn't gone through and the rules allowed them to do it but it seems like some of the definitions of obvious error in the proposed house rules um I was I'm not really thrilled with because it seems like there's just a lot of discretion in the part of the operator to cancel when they make a mistake on something and I have concerns about that definition of obvious error and how it interplays with other consumer protection statutes like 93a and I had asked this question basically as soon as I got the memo on this and I know Todd um you and I spoke briefly and have been looking into this because I have two layers on this one is sort of the there is the either illegal or factually impossible bet and to me those are obvious errors you to your point still you place the bet after the the conclusion and the results are known that's an obvious error it's an it's an illegal bet um uh college basketball game is bet on in the commonwealth of massachusetts on a commonwealth team that's an obvious error it never should have been allowed those to me are obvious errors you know this concept of materially different to what's out in the market at the given time whatever that's and that's kind of subjective and I think about other circumstances with other people in commerce where if you make an offer by mistake you're bound by the offer if a consumer accepts it so 93a covers it the federal statue that covers it and I think the ag's letter they submitted to us yesterday they flagged this so I I want to have a detailed discussion about what obvious error means I'd also like to have some language in there that makes clear that no matter the definitions in here um protections that might be available to consumers under 93a in the federal statue are still available because I want to make sure that this is all being done in a way that's fair all the way across the board so I thought of obvious error as like a factual impossibility or illegal not geez you know you should have known that was a crazy odd you know whatever well that might be expecting and demanding a level of sophistication on the part of the consumer that I don't necessarily think is appropriate so that's where I'm coming from in the definition of obvious errors so I'm sure Brian helped me out because this is our reg in front of us and they're working off from that reg um where are we going with this well this so that's what I mean when you look at I incorrect odds and human error in the placement of the wager I'm looking at that now and I have concerns about that so the way because this seems to be you know incorrect odds well says who all of a sudden you guys change your mind on the odds I mean I'm concerned about the level of discretion that's in one and two and to the extent that that's the reg right now I'm looking for sort of language that makes me feel more comfortable protecting the consumer Caitlin because I did I don't talk if you want to chime in because I did ask Todd is whether we were running a foul of anything else well that was where I started my questioning to just see where we were on on because I I woke up thinking about it and then had that quick conversation right before the meeting so I don't have anything further to offer from what New Jersey does on language I didn't I didn't get a chance to do that commissioner Caitlin and Todd the wager you know what we're looking for is the the degree of discretion that the operator can exercise because what they consider obvious error to be how do we reconcile this and help stirrel out in terms of assessing these rules and giving us guidance one of the things that I found to be helpful in my review was to look at the actual language in the various house rules because I think what you'll start to see is that they tend to identify you know six or seven areas that are considered to be under their construct obvious errors and I think some of them you we might agree are obvious errors consistent with what commissioner brian just said there are others that are less than clear and those are the ones that I think can be refined and so I think it might be difficult to just speak generally about what we consider obvious errors to be and it might be helpful to look more specifically at the proposals and make individual judgments as to what let's go through each let's go through each house rule on this right commissioners let's just get going on it we have six today should we look at them the provisions commissioners do we all agree home up yeah I don't know if anybody else had any thoughts before we did that but well I mean we can do it and have our thoughts at the same time I think I think I think um yeah and Caitlyn unless you have I want to just also turn to you do you agree with Todd we should just look at the language I wonder too if they need to be overarching guidance as well ultimately yeah so this is what I'm thinking and of course I agree with Todd that it makes sense you what the commission is here to do today is to approve or disapprove the house rules and so going through each house rule is completely within your purview and appropriate what we can then do is from this conversation take those that guidance and parameters into account and we can come back with proposed revisions to 238 that would encompass sort of what we're talking about here today so what would be a two-step process okay excellent and so when I say the house rules I know that you've got the notation sterile of which apply to just obvious errors and there's going to be multiple sections let's do um but sterile you were up and I've got Joe raising a sand but beforehand sterile just to complete my thought I was thinking we would do it in alphabetical order and you would basically scroll down to the language but let's turn to Joe I just want to bring to the commission's attention that within 238.353 that the uh it's three no wait sorry eight uh a patron can request to the commission to review any wager declared cancel avoided by the operator that is all yep I was going to bring that up just just keep that in mind in this discussion okay yeah and that's I also wanted to keep in mind I don't want that to be deemed the exclusive remedy that I don't want consumers to think that's their only remedy if they feel that they've been subject to some unfair deceptive practice thank you so thanks thanks Joe thanks sterile thank you Joe um if you would like I have them all um cued up in their sections of obvious errors if you would like I can go through each one unless you still have some discussions from the other commissioners that weren't that didn't say anything is it okay to start oh yes okay I'll share my screen thanks sterile yep I think this is the best way right commissioners you're all okay I see commissioner scanner thanks I appreciate it commissioner hell you're all set with this approach too okay good please let me know if you can see my screen I was having problems yesterday can everyone see my screen if you if you are able to make it just a tad bigger you may not be able to absolutely is that okay yep that's better okay so this is the definition from betmgm this is the one that I read to you all hey sterile I am here from betmgm case are any questions on this section thank you Alex thanks Alex um I want to take just this time while you're reading to thank all the licensees for their responses to all my questions that I had on the house rules I greatly appreciate all of the communication and the quick responses Alex what did you think about rector rebox advice to us um yes certainly that is the rule in um in new jersey uh in the jurisdictions we operate in I would 75 25 percentage wise I would say so just a rough estimate as to this 75 I would say do allow for avoiding for obvious error without seeking prior approval from the regulator there are jurisdictions that do require prior approval um New Jersey New York um there are a few others um I have an internal list of that um but there are also many jurisdictions that do allow us to avoid for obvious error without seeking prior approval um and a common practice would be for us to notify the regulator so that they're aware of the voids in case any patron had an issue with the practice and so when you're dealing with those jurisdictions like New Jersey and New York does it really cause delays it um certainly we follow the process in whatever jurisdiction we're in there is a significantly longer process in states that do require prior approval uh but we will follow that process if required uh and I will just say in terms of the language that we we have here this language has been accepted in all jurisdictions where we operate in terms of our definition but certainly understand there's specific considerations for each jurisdiction that you have to take into account well I must say he went wider than I expected but I do value his judgment so much um so that's why I wrote down the note it was pretty emphatic um so let's see so the fourth and the sixth bullet down and the first cluster in the first section of bullets is the ones I have the I'll be honest with you Madam Chair knowing that New Jersey and New York do it that way in particularly as we're in the infancy of this as regulators my preference would be it doesn't happen unless we say okay uh and that would require a reg change I realize but that would be my first choice um as for how this is written now the fourth and the sixth are the ones that are most troublesome to me um this sort of seems subjective sort of the the materially different from those available in the general market any given event time um clearly incorrect given the probability of it and and Stroh maybe you can educate me on this and it's not as much of an issue as I think number six but those to me just seem like rather subjective exceptions to canceling which um I have a lot of concerns about um I agree with you um I agree that they could be subjective we would hope that we would hold our licensees to a high standard but we also want to assure that all of our patrons are protected in all their rights that said I agree with you with those two could be uh have an area of weakness as well as five so um the wages the wages offered at place of odds where are reflected of an incorrect score situation I just want to give the example that you might see in another um operators is a team is winning three to one in a scenario with two minutes left in a hockey game and they're winning three to one and the operator accidentally offers the underdog odds to the current um winning team so they would void that wager if that happens or change the odds to reflect the proper pricing for that that said if they made that error and by some miracle that team that was the underdog then comes back and wins four to three are they refunding or correcting their the mistake made by the operator that's the only kinds of things where you would have to take into account where you could see it being um possibly looked at at a negatively uh if I could real quick I don't mean to uh step beyond my role here uh I will say that at least speaking for bedroom gym we truly do not um like applying this provision we consider it a poor customer experience for sure to have this um happen and uh we require review from our compliance team before ever executing um this provision of the house rules so we do take it quite seriously that we aren't um abusing the definition in any way that would negatively affect the customer beyond um what we view would do is truly obvious from the perspective of a patron placing the wager that there was an error in um in the terms of the bet that they placed so I just wanted to put that up there that's really helpful Alex and and and you shouldn't feel apologetic it's very good that you're here today and we appreciate that so thank you for chiming right in commissioners questions for either Alex or sterile maybe what we should do is maybe put this in the parking lot and then go to the next just so we can do a comparison okay and that's just a particular question on the mgm okay let's go on to the next one thanks yep I'm I'm I'm just loading it my computer of course my computer is slow at this very moment it's it's saying I'm that's girl low resources so I don't know what that is he did it sterile looked like he was turning right to Karen uh executive director wells low resources if I could read um a virtual platform that was very fun um I have doesn't we don't normally have a loading problem so but these are long documents so this is uh if I go out of alphabetical order I apologize this is Caesar's okay Caesar's lists the their errors in this way yeah Adam chair through you so could you um make it bigger I'm sorry no absolutely just please state when you can't read it and I will try to increase the font size so it starts with number 13 do you see that on page five right yeah and then we'll have to scroll down and once we look at it yeah just let me know I mean the first three out of the gates on this are probably or two reiterate four and six and then number three this you know gee we made a mistake and therefore we're going to cancel um I don't know of other people that put pricing out there and stuff and have a consumer accept and then get to say soup sorry so that that's and that's what I think 93 that was my big question on 93 as I just don't know how that's possible so just to let the commissioners know um Kenneth is here from Caesar's if you have any questions for him as well commissioners thoughts on this oh my other issue honestly is right out of the gates they basically say this isn't the exhaustive list which you know if they're supposed to specify then so maybe we should just let's let's um let's put down the screen again commissioners let me take your temperature um sterile thank you I mean I think what we're what we're seeing is that there's different exercises of discretion and that's really what this is about I see um Craig um I don't know you're not saying that I see you shaking your head where are you from Craig good morning madam chair commissioners or afternoon I should say uh I'm the train director for Caesar's uh haven't asked for any questions um obviously in sports betting there could be a comprehensive list of different uh ways an error can be interpreted um we always work with the regulator in instances where if we feel the error is significant and there's no subjectivity to it we would work with the regulator part of wages and then give all the relevant information to to yourselves for you to make a decision therefore thank you that's very helpful so commissioner mayner thank you madam chair um after hearing commissioner brian and you your conversation with our friends in new jersey I think as early as we are like we said the other day with the with the issues that come up we're in its infancy I think that I would be more comfortable looking at these um before they're voided um period and you know as we go on um I think naturally the commission will start to draw lines and those lines can be incorporated and adopted into the regulations moving forward but I tend to think that the safest route I do not feel comfortable drawing lines here today on the fly for each operator so I would want to draw these lines as as they come come to us and sterl and I in our two by two um engage in a a number of of different hypotheticals going from the one he gave today to what if an operator really does accidentally put a million to one odds on something for a millisecond you know and someone someone gets it and um I think we can draw these lines as as we go but that would be my preference I think sure um brian yeah I mean I you came out of the gates with how new jersey does it and the recommendation and quite frankly after my briefings that's that's how I entered this conversation is I think it's the better practice particularly right now when we are this market is launching for the first time in the commonwealth's commissioner hill and commissioner skinner so I share commissioner brian's concerns just you know I want to make that clear um I I have the opportunity also as I know many of you did to sit down with sterl and and this was you know one of the the most concerning uh issues so I um just appreciate uh commissioner brian raising the issue and speaking really you know point for point on on why you know we need to be paying more attention to this um I am like commissioner brian and commissioner maynard and I think I heard commissioner commissioner hill um voice his agreement is that um I I would rather you know just given the time constraints that we are under and I hate to say that right we don't want to interfere with launch on friday but I don't think that there is the time uh allotted for us to go through these and sort of make decisions on the fly um with respect to what's already contained in the house rule so I would like to see um that all of the voids and cancellations come before the commission uh for for approval and I'm really pleased that we won't be the we wouldn't be the first jurisdiction to do that well we do have time if we want it so I just want to point that out right I understand that but that would require a postponement of friday's launch and I don't think there's much of an appetite for that right okay okay um anything else so um I started with the reg because the reg does contemplate in the and that the sports wagering operators could exercise some discretion that's why I went back to the beginning um we have already had the situation where we passed regulations where there's unforeseen consequences um the sports wagering operators have done the right job by submitting the house rules according to the reg um I just before I go on I see that uh uh Steven um wama wama thank you um has come in I want to give you the opportunity to speak can you just remind me um you're representing yes hello I I'm steven bonewell the trading director for draft kings um and I just wanted to to say a couple of words on this subject if that's okay yes absolutely um I fully understand the commission's concern around some of the uh the discretion on subjectivity to these rules um I want to point out that it's drafting's position to be very pro-customer it's these rules are there for extreme circumstances and we are happy to um run anything by the commission that we that that the commission deems to be subjective and we would be looking more to ask permission to pay in the customer's favor rather than avoiding the bets that that's our general position um the rules are there more to protect us in case of something totally um extraordinary like the million to one chance so I think I probably speak for for most of the operators here where this this is something that we want to to only use in in extreme situations and that we're more than happy to um discuss any voiding with the commission before doing so yeah I would director I'm so sorry go right ahead Alex I would yeah I would I would echo that on behalf of bedroom jams I said we're happy to participate in that process if it's established um it the only thing is what sterile mentioned with with the timing but obviously getting it right and getting the right outcome for the customer is paramount over the timing and there's there's things that can be done place the best on hold during the penance of a of a review or whatever we would agree to at the time so yeah I just wanted to echo that since I gave both positions when I first spoke and Caesars would agree with that as well and also at point to the house rules that after the definitions say that we would it's subject to the approval of working with the regulator uh as well on a adjustment so it's the same approach you park the bed we work with you um there's never intent to to be unilateral in terms of approach so we we are in the same position so we didn't scroll down far enough is that right we didn't get to the the good like executive director viles so madam chair I just had a question for legal I'm wondering when I'm hearing from the commission is at least out of the gate it would be probably beneficial to the commonwealth to have the commission oversee anytime the companies do not want to pay out of bed because of some kind of error and I'm wondering uh Todd and team if that could be a condition of the uh operation certificates say initially say the first 90 days or first you know six months that they all come before the commission and that would give the commission some time to evaluate this and look at the reg and make any changes if necessary just I'm curious if that is a potential option I think that's an option I think um one of the other options would just be to grant essentially a waiver of variants from the provisions that allow the operators to uh void or cancel wagers and we can pinpoint those and just in its place insert but would essentially be a temporary rule that's essentially provides that no wager shall be canceled or voided without notice to an approval of the commission and I think that seems to be um agreeable on the part of at least all the operators who have uh voiced any opinion here so far um and it's entirely consistent with the rules with the exception of the fact that the operators had some discretion so there's two places where it appears it appears not just in the house rules section but also in the internal controls uh provisions so um if the commission is so inclined there are two places I think that you would need to grant a waiver or variance from in the first we've talked about both of them but the first is in 247 it's 247.07 paragraph 10 that's a provision that says that the operator may in its discretion cancel an accepted sports wager for an obvious error an obvious error must be defined in the system of internal controls so I think that's an area where we need to insert the rule that says no wager may be canceled or voided without notice to an approval of the commission the second place is the one we were also just talking about and that's in the internal control section it's section 238.35 it's entitled canceled or voided wagers and you talked about this recently and I would suggest that this is a list of instances in which operators were directed to cancel wagers without notice to the commission it includes the obvious errors provision that sterl and and everyone were just looking at so I would suggest that what it sounds like the commission would like to do at the moment is just grant a waiver from 238.35 in its entirety to provide that no wager may be canceled or voided without notice to an approval of the commission and I think if you do that in those two cases and Caitlin and others I'll invite you to jump in if there are other provisions that I missed I think that covers the waterfront here as far as ensuring that the operators seek the commission's approval prior to canceling wagers I ask a question for clarification. Madam chair members of the commission thank you for having this conversation about house rules can I just clarify because we've seen circumstances where before an event occurs patron might come to us and say I accidentally placed a wager I meant to do it on another event we might out of courtesy cancel a wager for a customer before an event takes place we've distinguished cancellation as pre-event void as post-event and so I just wanted to clarify whether we would need to seek approval for those cases where we're accommodating a customer's request for cancellation not a void void post-event would always have the regulatory approval good good distinction miss roberts what do you think commissioners I don't know if our regs reflect that but I was getting a have we defined cancellation versus void not in that way that's so that would be something we would need to do and with nodding your head some to the operators present is that the practice that you generally do sort of the cancellation versus void after that sort or are there times where you do in other jurisdictions have to get approval for even before I think there's another element to the cancellation that we would need to keep in mind here which is the non-discretionary cancellations pursuant to the house rules which would be something that's outside the control of the operators such as a player prop on a player that doesn't participate in an event or a weather delay or rain out which are all set forth in the house rules and there's no judgment or discretion in those if LeBron James doesn't play in a game and a player's wagered on a LeBron James outcome we cancel those pursuant to the house rules so that would be another way that cancellation and void is distinguished which is set out in the same section of that of the house rules those aren't errors those are just non-discretionary cancellations yeah actually just the Coleman I think if Keith like to be to the reg that actually addresses that Commissioner Brian can you repeat we just I want to make sure we have one at a time thank you there's another reg that addresses just the scenario that he was talking about I think Caitlin was just about to get to that before we had some other comments thank you Commissioner um so yes a couple of things procedurally so I agree with Todd that the Commission could waive the two provisions that he spoke about for the time being um while this all gets cleared up that would be fine um but sort of talking about a little bit what Alex was speaking about there um there's a provision in<PHONE_NUMBER> and that requires that the operators that offer an unauthorized or prohibited sporting event or wager category immediately cancel and refund those wagers and so that's something that we would want to make sure that we don't waive um and that would be the instance of a a collegiate a collegiate game with the Massachusetts team that's not in a tournament is offered that that would need to be canceled right away so we want to be careful um Alex may have been talking about a slightly broader category but that one in particular we'd want to make sure we don't waive I also think procedurally you probably would want to condition the house rules and you could be very clear in your condition on the house rules of what you know what is allowed and what is not with regard to um approval for canceling or avoiding waivers and I will also note that in our promulgation we have not been distinguishing between the words cancel and void um and so I just want to be clear that others you know operators may be interpreting that differently but we are considering them to be the same thing so I wouldn't would just be careful about that yeah so simply defining them in that way may cause other issues for us correct got it okay um yeah so I understand the distinction between the cancellation and the void uh voting of wagers um are there any other scenarios that we haven't covered um so we talked about the scenario where it's in favor of the patron because they made an error um they contact you in advance of the event um and as a courtesy you might cancel it we talked about um you know the non-despressionary cancellations is there a scenario where uh any of you as as operator um would be canceling a wager you know sort of that that you know is beneficial for you I mean just I I have yeah excuse me it's on alexer says hand is up thank you so much thank you for uh for the time I appreciate allowing us to make some comments so I think just on the first part I wanted to say that you know wager sorry void and cancellation lead to the same outcome which is the state that goes back to the customer so I agree I think like I would I don't want to like create different uh you know names for them because the outcome is the same I want to call out the scenario that other operators might have uh where a void happen it's and it's not discretionary for example with a player prop a specific player to score a specific you know a field goal on on an NBA game in a specific quarter and that player maybe is not playing the last quarter so at that point you would void the the bet because basically the player does not have an attempt to score a uh uh a goal and there is no way to grade the wager as a winner or a loser we could grade as a loser but because he didn't play we would void it so that would be something that would happen automatically that strikes to me to fall into the category of an impossible bet would you say please commission it an impossible bet because there is no factual way for that bet to actually come to fruition if the facts on the ground are impossible so to me that's a category unto itself that I can see why you would want to do um so 24070311 with the unauthorized or prohibited and sort of the factually impossible bets to me need to be canceled or voided whatever term you want to use it's those discretionary ones and I think we've been to Caitlyn's but I think we want to keep that language in the reg what we want to make sure is anything beyond that has to come to us before action is taken I appreciate that I think we're all aligned the other situation could be that could be that the result is graded in the wrong way and we would need to re-result basically at that point could be like avoid and then uh uh re-result with the correct result of the bet so I think that's also a situation where voids or resettlement could come into fruition I might need a first I need just two minutes my apologies thank you so much thank you everyone my apologies just navigating that thank you okay um so Alex you were just finishing up commissioner brian you were responding I said I would probably need a for instance on that last one I didn't quite understand the scenario that he was describing yeah again someone you know basically the bet is graded as a as a win and that was a you know a wrong result and then it's really as as a loss or the other way around and I think again goes which operator could decide if they want to re-grade the winning bet as a losing bet usually uh if a bet was graded as loss but it's actually a winner operators will will address those because it's in the best interest of the player to receive their winnings and how would that happen though how would you accidentally grade something the wrong way like that it's it wouldn't be like us but I think uh other operators can give an example like the feed provider can provide the wrong uh result like a player for example and I think you saw the example with Janice the other week where there was some debates about his uh player props with the triple double where you know it took MBA basically to clarify what happened in that game okay turn to Joe I Alex said it right when I was about to say so like the the data providers have an actual technical feed heading into sportsbook platforms you know that data does come from a source it can be a simple like was that an actual assist or one one that's actually frequently debated is um uh sacks on the NFL end if a defensive player tackles the quarterback there might be another defensive player there and it could that could be considered in half a sack these are so much subjective on the individual league rules and and those and those get I mean it doesn't happen often but those can come through the platform um and differences and therefore uh the actual real statistical result needs to be uh rendered appropriately thank you sterl back to you you're asking for permission yes please so I think what we're hearing and please correct me if I'm wrong I think we understand what commissioner ryan is asking to see prior to them being void or canceled as Caitlin said we do not distinguish between a void or or a cancellation so we understand there is also language already in 238 35 that addresses certain types of the areas that were brought up here already so I believe for miss robert's question they have the ability to void a mistake made by a patron it states in 235 in the introduction 238 35 that for any transaction where a sports wagering operator may cancel a waiter wager with or without prior authorization of the commission the operator shall submit a system of internal controls for voiding a wager and subsequent allocation of patrons funds now in the beginning it says cancellation or otherwise validly placed wager by a sports operator shall be non-discretionary uh sports wagering operator shall only cancel avoid a wager without prior authorization from the commission under the following circumstances an event where after a patron has placed a sports wager I think this is her question the sports wagering event is canceled or postponed or rescheduled or in the case of a wager in which a portion of the sports wager in event shall be valid or event canceled or postponed or rescheduled the effective outcome of the affected portion will be determined uh I apologize that still isn't it but that they have the opportunity if the customer has made an error to cancel that person's wager by the um the the um internal controls that was placed now it says it has to be a supervisor but I am assuming they have supervisors available at the on their platform to approve those things I believe what we're trying to do as a whole as the commission is to just not have something be subjective and not look or or be um something where we we would come into question on the ability of why you would cancel that wager you know um if it was you know a very slight mistake or whatnot or to it seems just to the advantage of the operator which we've all heard from the operators they don't want to do that but we're just trying to make sure it's cut and dry and I'm sorry if that went long winded I was trying to grab the that there is there are areas in our rules in our regulations that address those types of areas so I'm going to turn to Allison I'm going to back to Caitlin because I know she's thinking about this um given the overriding concerns that have been raised by the commission and with Sterl's observation um is there a more tailored waiver that we should be thinking about for the time being Alex I'll be brief because I know there's a lot to cover uh I think that section uh if you go down where Sterl was talking about subsection j covers when a patron makes a request and I think this subsection this section is a whole 238.35 covers the scenarios that we've been talking about in in detail it would really from my view only be subsection I that the commission has expressed concern with where this they um the obvious error it's the obvious error section specifically um and if if that was given a waiver I think that would probably fit within the discussion here uh but that just just by um input there isn't it ironic that obvious error there's just nothing obvious about it right don't I spend a lot of don't I spend a lot of time working on this so I hope you let's go to josh and if I'm sorry josh has got his hand up so I'm going to turn to him good afternoon josh good afternoon nice to see you and it's josh an attorney here at Fandall and you know really appreciate the opportunity to join the conversation um I think I wanted to echo Alex's points in particular it sounds like the commission has some concerns about the discretion in the obvious error section um so if we wanted to maybe center this a little bit I believe this was Todd suggestion but I think his suggestion was focused on you know kind of a waiver of the ability for operators to void without approval for obvious error and leaving the rest of those abilities still intact let's pull up that section again Caitlin or somewhere whoever has it handy I have it if you want me to pull it thanks sterile thank you Caitlin looks at me like I hate it when she does that now I'm happy to do sometimes it's hard to look at it and talk um and I was and I was thanking Alex that was for some reason my computer jumped up but it is here that jay section that I was saying when an error occurred that in such a case the writer would have to call a supervisor to cancel a void that's that's what we're speaking to those types of errors so the section let's go up into the eye yeah the eye is right here yeah um yeah chair before we we walk through these um I thought maybe I could propose a couple of options and that might focus sort of the walk through um so two things one um these were approved we we could actually still change this right today if you actually wanted to change the right before filing we could do that today what I would suggest we do is um walk through the section 35 and the commission could decide this stays in this stays in this is in this is out it's about a page so it would be possible I think within the time limitations um the other proposal would be we file as is um legal could take a look at this overnight um and come back with proposed waiver tomorrow that reflected the conversation today because this is also on the agenda for tomorrow um I think it's two ways of getting to the same place um but whatever the commission would prefer um I know we have another conversation uh still just one sec we have another conversation about a couple more items so perhaps the second option makes best sense I see Commissioner O'Brien nodding yeah I'm under time constraints myself this afternoon so obviously my preference would be that and to do it in a clear-headed way and get through what we can get through that's on for topic discussion today and make sure what we're moving on tomorrow morning is so clearly thought out okay okay sterile yeah plus if we change those with that mess with their internal controls that would be unapproved by GLI as we speak so that's just the other thing we would likely have to just as with the house rules um there'd have to be a condition on it probably um might also have to be conditioned on the internal controls but but you're right you know Commissioner O'Brien and Chair Justine there's a lot of moving parts here so we want to make sure we get it right okay and so just to revisit I because I think Alex pointed it out um this is where we started and then the conversation expanded to the entire section but this is the obvious errors and so the idea could be a tailored a tailored waiver to just lift section I but I think Caitlyn I'd like to defer to you and the legal team to look at this entire rag and see where there's some implications with respect to the discussion today commissioners what do you think about that approach and then come back on tomorrow with with um at least yeah that right now on this and also Todd mentioned 247.0710 also mentions obvious errors and cancer so that has to be looked at too I see Alex thinking about that language right now Madam Chair I'm on board with the proposal I know you can't see probably now I can see you thank you for speaking when soon as you speak I can see thank you Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Maynard I think that we've all agreed to how we're going to settle the issue so it sounds like we're just figuring out how to button it down so I I agree whatever it takes to button it down and do it tomorrow finish that up and move on I think um you've gotten our policy discussion Commissioner Hill you okay with the all right so just to button that one up uh that small piece I think we'll have to amend the agenda for tomorrow just to include this it's actually on the agenda for today to look at these rigs which is why I put it uh the the house rules pieces on for tomorrow but I'm mentioning the regulations is this part of it though isn't this part of the house rules part of it yeah part of it is there's also internal control provisions so if we're going to amend the regulations we should probably notice well you know I have no problem amending our agenda I think we're probably covered just send the language over and Karen I'll take care of that right and Trudy so yeah yeah if you send it to I think we're probably covered um and but we want to be we want to be more so even more so than no problem um all right so girl I'm now I I know you get what page I need to be on but we're turning now to your next I think I was looking at some house rules as we went along so now back to your memo you were bringing our attention to methods of calculation I think next you are correct so we're at the methods of calculations um this topic was brought to you because there are again multiple ways in which the operators have placed the calculations of payouts just wanted to bring this as um to everyone's attention I want to just quickly share one operators method which is used by a lot of the operators um and it goes through the calculations of a money line the point spreads pay off odds parlays and teasers so I just wanted you guys to all know that the odds of a parlay is they state are calculated by the multiple odds of each leg of a parlay which we understand they can be multiple but these are this the general payouts we want to also stress to customers if they are um interested in detailed ones in which operators will go also through in their events and if they are any kinds of differences they should outline them in the events in which they are um wagering on right and so there's several so the the statement that I wanted to make clear and I'm going to stop sharing is how draft kings describes the payouts the calculations of payouts is that they use a decimal system and I am not positive on the statement but I believe that they all use a decimal system which is used primarily throughout Europe and that when the the operators are discussing how to figure out your money line they're doing it in in the the slang of the American um sports wagering that they're used to but that I believe is still used and calculated behind the scenes in a decimal way so when you were reading your draft kings one and they state that they do all payouts via decimal don't think of it as them being short and not being descriptive all of their payouts are done via the decimal system where they are uh placing odds as just that they're not doing nine to do to two odds on it on an event they're giving you 4.50 right times your money um we we are not discussing uh better here but that was just the other one that did something a little different and we had that question that we discussed yesterday out to them um so we're in discussions with them on how they provide their calculations as well is there any to that to that point just so it's not confusing why we wouldn't be discussing better it's only because we have a few sports wagering operators who will be coming back to us with their house rules because they're just launching a little bit later than Friday's launch date yes I'm sorry I didn't say that no I just want to there to be any mystery so there's four okay yep thank you but if there's any questions I'm online I think I'm better here so I'm happy to reply well thank you Alex thank you so much again all right so is everyone good with the methods of calculations okay so we all all wanted the last the last uh section to bring the attention to the commissioners was the procedures relating to pending wagers in which case all operators treat this differently so we just wanted to point it out it was in your packet of all the different ways in which they meet this requirement all looked at it in a different way a recurring theme especially with all our tethered and non tethered category three is that there are pending wagers but that most of them are are not considered pending wagers because they only they're not a winning wager until the the the governing body the rules make a game official I know we were being we were hearing from a couple of the operators how their provider might accidentally list a score an error they made it official but then that would be an error that was reversed here they they're just saying that there are no pending wagers in because once a game is official they then pay their customers there is almost instantaneous time in which they will pay their customers accounts all for all the different ways they settled it it was in your packet under each house rule does anybody have any questions on this section great um so in a review the sports wagering division has found language that we wanted to have corrected all of the category threes um were in process of doing their house rules so it was an easy fix for them I wanted to let you know that also all of our retail outlets if they needed to make a change have made that change and were submitted in the packet um and they have to do with the penalty so by statute we're not allowed to wager on penalties injuries player discipline or player review so early in our process we we had this change and then it was our understanding that several sports have penalty time penalty kicks penalty shots these are a significant part of these events and are an accepted part of a game or a match albeit hockey soccer and the belief that penalties such as the next play will be a penalty as in football off sides whatnot the next the player acts will have two or more penalties in a game would not be allowed by statute but the other differing things that we wanted to bring your attention and have clarification from the commissioners for all of our licensees is how a final score of a game could be decided by a penalty kit time or penalty kick or a penalty shot and in turn some of these um acts in these sporting events are the biggest part of that sporting event right so in a hockey game if somebody is pulled down and it's a penalty and they hold their hand up right they if the person had a chance of scoring against the goalie and he had no person in front of him right in turn creates a penalty shot in which they have one on one versus a goalie and could be a deciding factor in the game do they have the opportunity to use that since that is a penalty shot can they use that as a wager as in soccer there is red cards and yellow cards we believe that you could not could could not wager on how many yellow cards would be on a game if somebody would receive a yellow card but we also realize that that's part of the game and there might be penalty time tapped on so with that said we are asking for the commissioners to just discuss the spirit of this regulation on the shot the kick the the penalty run awarded in cricket or in any other types of sports just point of clarification it's stoppage time in in soccer not penalty so i think we're free we're free and clear on that one um and i don't know i mean whether it goes into all sports and you have you need different answers on all of them but it seems to me there's a distinction between as you said to you soccer's example yellow card red card versus um is this player going to make a shot that is you know on the pk line and a pk shot to me that's different than um so the game consequence following a penalty is different than betting on the penalty itself um that's conceptually where i'm coming from commissioner maynard you want to chime in i was in two by two with you and i know we had this discussion you're thinking i think yeah very similar lines as commissioner brian i think there's a world in which some fouls and penalties are part of the game right and then there's obviously what the legislation in my opinion was trying to tackle so my brain goes to a basketball commissioner brian that sure does commissioner hill too um you know obviously a foul in a basketball game is a part of the game right and i would never expect a free throw to come into play here right or points derived from a free throw or a foul then they're the technical fouls right and and fouls where you know players are injured you know and those are totally to me in the spirit of what the statute was trying to tackle and so i would make a distinction between you know uh fouls or errors that are part of the game or the competition and then those that kind of go outside the pill of the game in the competition and that's the way star old when we were talking yesterday that's that's just the way that i'm thinking about it commissioner skinner commissioner hill do you want to leave commissioner hill i agree with what commissioner maynard just said it's very similar to the conversation sterling i had a couple of days ago actually same yeah yeah i'm i'm the same um look i i sort of think of um there shouldn't be a bet that encourages um behavior that reads that will be a penalty behavior but that it's okay to have a wager on the outcome of someone who does have a penalty imposed on him or her so i think we we're all aligned on on this what do you need from us on that i know ultimately we have to um take action but i think that