Winners Face Cents While Losers Get VIPs

A bettor in Michigan placed a wager on the NBA Cup and discovered the maximum allowed stake was 49 cents. This specific ticket, shared with CBS News by Michael Trevithick of Ann Arbor, illustrates the extreme end of a practice known as limiting. It represents a sharp reduction in betting capacity for customers who consistently beat the odds.

Sports betting companies apply these caps to manage their financial risk. A 2023 Securities and Exchange Commission filing by DraftKings stated the company restricts betting limits based on individual customer profiles and risk levels. The goal is to prevent skilled bettors from exploiting pricing errors or discrepancies in the market.

Meanwhile, the industry lavishes attention on customers who lose money. Last week, U.S. lawmakers wrote to major gambling platforms concerning the exploitation of vulnerable bettors. The letter noted that perks such as Super Bowl tickets and celebrity access distract users from their financial losses. These rewards encourage continued betting when a customer might otherwise stop.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission investigated this disparity in 2024. The regulator required gambling companies to provide data on how they limit bettors. The investigation found a clear trend: winning gamblers see their betting limits decrease, while losing gamblers see their limits increase. Only 0.64% of Massachusetts betting accounts were restricted during the review period.

Mike Manning, a professional bettor who uses mathematical models, experienced this shift directly after Massachusetts launched sports gambling in 2023. He signed up for every available app and won on nearly all of them. Platforms soon reduced his maximum stakes. On DraftKings, his limit dropped to $25 per bet. On BetMGM, his stakes fell from $1,000 to $5,000 per game down to just $5.

Manning described the treatment as predatory. He told CBS News that the industry exploits losing bettors while showing successful ones the door. Gadoon Kyrollos, another professional bettor, called it a ban or bankrupt model. FanDuel told Manning he was restricted due to an assessment of his wagering patterns and their impact on long-term risk. DraftKings cited internal risk management purposes for its actions.

Chris Swett, a former South Carolina attorney, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering to fund his gambling addiction. He stole about $2 million from his law firm to play on FanDuel. Swett said a VIP host incentivized him to bet more by offering free tickets and bonuses when he reported being tapped out. In a two-year span, he wagered $11 million and lost about $1 million. He now faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

FanDuel stated that it has made changes to its VIP program since Swett's tenure. The company added employee training and new technologies to identify problem gambling. A DraftKings spokesperson said it applies customer-specific limits to less than 0.15% of accounts. These limits are an enterprise risk control based on customer behavior, regardless of whether the customer is winning or losing.