In D.C., the house doesn't always win
A public-records request turned up more insights int Washington's beleaguered sportsbook.
I HOPE YOU HAD A CHANCE to read my story in last week’s Washington Post about the District-run sportsbook, GambetDC. It made the front page of Wednesday’s paper, a thrilling first for me.
My reporting revealed that in late June, the D.C. Lottery, which oversees GambetDC, announced a little-noticed rule change. In the interest of public “health, safety, and the welfare of District residents,” the sportsbook would begin severely limiting how much certain customers are allowed to wager at the 70 or so businesses around town with GambetDC kiosks. There’s strong reason to believe that the motivation for that change wasn’t a city-wide excessive gambling problem, but rather the betting of one man who spent countless hours this past spring and summer wagering on GambetDC kiosks at a tiny downtown poke restaurant. He was making a killing by exploiting GambetDC’s frequently inaccurate odds.
Months ago, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records related to GambetDC. The response finally came … two days after my story ran. Fortunately, The Post published a follow-up article today with some pretty remarkable revelations.
Among the hundreds of pages of documents I obtained was an internal report from Intralot, the Greek gaming company that operates GambetDC on behalf of the Lottery. It described the sportsbook’s performance in June, and noted a dubious first: That month, GambetDC paid out more money in winnings than it collected in wagers. The reason, the report said, was the betting of one man at Abunai Poke, who had won more than $400,000 since April.
The report, and other documents I obtained, offer further evidence that public “health” and “safety” were hardly the only reasons GambetDC changed its rules.
Here’s the follow up:
The U.S. is barreling toward a compulsive-gambling crisis. Across the country, it’s far too common for sportsbooks to take action against winning bettors in the name of public health, while egging on reckless betting habits that are legitimately dangerous. Another good example can be found in the proliferation of “in-game” betting, in which customers can wager on the outcome of practically every play. As you might imagine, this can be exceptionally profitable for sportsbooks, and exceptionally ruinous for customers. Sometimes, sportsbooks impose a “cool down” period on live bettors who are winning money, while continuing to accept relentless bets from customers who are bleeding cash.
In-game betting exacerbates every concern associated with sports gambling. This week, several top operators announced that for the first time ever in the U.S., people will be able to watch NFL games through a sportsbook app and place bets on the same screen. Obviously, for some people, the temptations to bet in excess will be overwhelming.
Heavy stuff! On a lighter note, here’s Wynnie resting. Thank you, again, for reading.
How many "consumer" advocates are there these days? Danny Funt is surely among the best and the brightest!