NetEnt has released Dead or Alive 3: Wanted, the third instalment in its Western-themed slot series. The game is live now across NetEnt casino platforms, bringing back the Bounty Hunter character with upgraded graphics and new gameplay mechanics.

The Dead or Alive franchise has built a loyal following since the original launched over a decade ago. This latest release aims to modernise the experience while keeping the core elements that made the series popular: high volatility, Western atmosphere, and substantial win potential.

Game Specifications and Payout Structure

Dead or Alive 3 operates on a 5×5 grid with 96.03% RTP, standard for high-volatility slots in this category. The maximum payout stands at 66,666x your stake, though NetEnt pegs the odds of hitting that top prize at roughly 1 in 4.9 million spins.

Worth knowing before you chase it.

The game includes a feature buy option for players who prefer to skip straight to bonus rounds, plus a cinematic intro sequence featuring a burning frontier train. Proper production value, not just recycled assets.

Core Features and Multiplier System

The Wanted Wilds mechanic assigns random multipliers between 2x and 100x to wild symbols. Bounty Wilds then collect all multipliers from Wanted Wilds that land on the reels, potentially stacking significant value in a single spin.

Free spins trigger with three or more scatter symbols, awarding 10 spins initially with retrigger potential. The Super Scatter variant activates enhanced free spins. Land four or five scatters and you’ll bag instant multipliers of 50x and 2,500x respectively on your bet size.

The Elevate feature lets you purchase additional in-game boosts, giving you some control over volatility and feature frequency if you’re willing to pay for it.

Market Positioning

NetEnt is clearly banking on franchise recognition here. The Dead or Alive name carries weight with players who remember grinding the original for its brutal but rewarding free spins. Whether this third iteration captures that same magic, we’ll see, but the mechanics look solid on paper.

The 66,666x cap is competitive in today’s market. Not quite the headline number some newer releases are pushing, granted. NetEnt has played it safe with proven maths and recognisable branding rather than chasing maximum multiplier headlines.

Dead or Alive 3: Wanted is available now at NetEnt-powered casinos.

Missouri’s latest attempt to clear smoke from casino floors is running out of road. House Bill 1618, which would end the indoor smoking exemption enjoyed by all 13 of the state’s casinos since 1993, hasn’t even made it to committee despite bipartisan support. With the General Assembly set to adjourn on May 15, time is tight.

Bill Shows Early Promise, Then Goes Nowhere

Rep. Bruce Sassmann’s bill had a decent start. Two Republicans and four Democrats signed on as co-sponsors, suggesting this wasn’t going to be a partisan fight. The measure cleared two House floor readings in January.

Then it just stopped moving.

The problem? Missouri lawmakers have had plenty of other gambling issues to occupy them. Last week alone, new slot machine regulations scraped through the House as part of a crackdown on grey-market gaming. Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has been busy going after illegal video lottery terminals that have been operating in legal limbo for years.

When you’re trying to clean up an unregulated gambling sector whilst also debating fundamental changes to how casinos operate, something has to give. The smoking ban appears to be that something.

Kansas Effort Already Dead

Across the border, Kansas had two shots at banning casino smoking and missed both. Senate Bill 176 and its House companion, HB 2252, were meant to amend the state’s 2010 Clean Air Act to include the four state casinos.

Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects backed the House version, hoping worker health concerns would push it over the line. They didn’t. Both bills stalled in committee and failed to cross over to the opposite chamber before the February 19 deadline. The Kansas Legislature sits until April 10, but these measures are done.

Special Exemptions Under Pressure

Missouri casinos have operated under a carve-out in the 1993 Clean Indoor Air Law for over three decades. It’s the kind of exemption that made sense when smoking was commonplace in hospitality venues. These days, with most public spaces smoke-free, it stands out.

Whether that’s enough to overcome legislative gridlock in Jefferson City is another matter entirely. Look, the bill has support. But support without committee assignment doesn’t move legislation. Unless something changes quickly, Missouri casino workers and patrons will be dealing with secondhand smoke for at least another year.

Both states show how difficult it is to change long-standing casino operating practices, even when the measure has cross-party backing and worker advocacy behind it. The calendar matters as much as the votes, frankly.

Bet365 has quietly withdrawn its membership from the American Gaming Association, becoming the latest major operator to walk away from the US trade body. The Gibraltar-based firm joins DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics Betting & Gaming in cutting ties with the AGA over what appears to be a fundamental disagreement about prediction markets.

Prediction Markets at the Heart of the Split

The timing tells you everything you need to know. The AGA has taken an aggressive stance against prediction markets, even as its biggest members have been eyeing the sector as their next growth opportunity. DraftKings and FanDuel both surrendered their Nevada licences to launch dedicated prediction platforms. Fanatics followed suit. Now bet365 is out the door as well.

None of the companies have said explicitly why they’re leaving. They don’t need to.

When your trade association is actively campaigning against a business model you’re pursuing, the membership doesn’t make much sense anymore.

Is Bet365 Launching a Prediction Platform?

The obvious question is whether bet365 plans to enter the prediction market space itself. The company hasn’t registered with the National Futures Association yet, nor filed any visible applications. But then again, neither had the others before they made their moves.

Prediction markets represent a genuine commercial opportunity. Operators clearly see them as distinct from traditional sports betting rather than direct competition. Both DraftKings and FanDuel have stated they don’t expect major cannibalisation of their sportsbook operations.

Regulatory Pressure Mounting

While operators push forward, regulators are pushing back. State attorneys general, gaming regulators, and members of Congress have all taken aim at the prediction market sector in recent months. The AGA’s position aligns neatly with that regulatory scepticism.

The trade body now faces an uncomfortable reality. It’s haemorrhaging major operator members at precisely the moment the industry faces challenges on multiple fronts, from offshore competition to the sweepstakes casino model. Losing your biggest players over a policy disagreement weakens your voice when you need it most.

For bet365, the calculation appears straightforward. Whatever future plans the company has, they’re better pursued outside the AGA’s tent than inside it.

A Massachusetts congressman has imposed a blanket ban on his staff using prediction markets, marking what appears to be the first policy of its kind on Capitol Hill. Seth Moulton announced this week that employees across his office are prohibited from accessing platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket for trades on political outcomes, policy decisions, or global events.

The move comes as prediction markets expand rapidly beyond traditional political forecasting into territory that raises some serious ethical questions. When congressional aides can potentially profit from information they encounter in their day jobs, the line between market participation and insider trading gets uncomfortably blurred.

Concerns Over Insider Access

Moulton framed the decision as basic ethics, really. Congressional offices exist to serve constituents, not to wager on events they may directly influence. His concern is shared by growing numbers of observers who’ve watched suspicious trading patterns emerge around geopolitical developments in Venezuela and Iran.

The timing of certain trades has fueled speculation that participants are acting on privileged information rather than public knowledge.

Leading platforms have introduced measures to limit insider activity, including restrictions on participants who might influence outcomes. Critics question whether self-regulation goes far enough when the stakes involve government policy and classified information.

Regulatory Response Takes Shape

Congress has responded with a wave of proposals aimed at tightening rules around prediction markets. Some bills would ban wagering on classified operations outright. Others would prevent elected officials and federal employees from participating in any political markets. The approach varies, but the momentum is building.

Rather than wait for legislation to catch up, Moulton implemented his own solution. The policy gives him immediate control over a potential conflict while broader regulatory frameworks take shape. It also helps him sidestep a legal grey area where prediction markets operate as regulated financial instruments but often resemble traditional betting.

Different Animal to Sports Betting

The comparison to sports betting is instructive but incomplete. A punter placing a bet on a football match has no influence over the outcome. A congressional aide trading on legislation their boss is drafting occupies entirely different territory.

That overlap creates conflicts that pure sports wagering never encounters.

Even the appearance of conflict can undermine public trust in institutions that depend on it. Moulton’s position is straightforward: his office will not engage in trades that run counter to principles of clean government. Whether other offices follow suit may depend on how quickly Congress can decide where prediction markets fit and how they should interact with government officials.

The prediction market industry has grown into something substantial, offering contracts on an expanding range of events beyond elections. That growth has brought innovation and liquidity, granted. But it’s also created situations where the wrong participants trading on the wrong information could cause real damage to market integrity and public confidence.

Entain’s Bwin brand has copped a £60,000 fine in Denmark after regulators called out a promotion that promised “risk-free” bets but came with strings attached that made the offer anything but risk-free.

ElectraWorks Limited, Entain’s Danish subsidiary, ran the campaign offering punters wagers of up to 500 or 1,000 kroner without risk. Sounds straightforward enough.

Except it wasn’t.

The Devil in the Details

Here’s what actually happened: lose your bet and you’d get a free bet token instead of your stake back. Fair enough, you might think. But then it gets worse. Win with that free bet token and you only get paid the net winnings, not the full return. The original stake just vanishes.

One customer put down 1,000 kroner, lost it, got the free bet, won with it, and walked away with just 15 kroner. That’s less than two quid. Hardly risk-free by any reasonable definition.

The punter complained. ElectraWorks eventually pleaded guilty in court.

Years of Misleading Marketing

Danish regulators initially wanted to slap ElectraWorks with a 1 million kroner penalty. The campaign had run for several years and specifically targeted vulnerable groups, which made the violation more serious.

The fine was eventually halved to 500,000 kroner due to court delays, but the message was clear. Consumer ombudsman Torben Jensen put it plainly: when an operator says a bet is risk-free, it needs to be genuinely risk-free. No financial risk whatsoever.

The penalty was calculated based on what ElectraWorks actually spent running the dodgy promotion.

Why This Matters

This case highlights exactly why bonus terms need proper scrutiny. A “risk-free” bet should mean you get your stake back if you lose, full stop. Getting a restricted free bet token that only pays net winnings isn’t the same thing at all.

Players deserve honest advertising. When the terms don’t match the headline promise, that’s when regulators need to step in. Denmark’s consumer watchdog got this one right. The industry benefits when dodgy promotions get called out and operators are held to account for misleading claims.

Entain’s a major player with serious brands. They should know better than to run promotions where the small print contradicts the big promise.

DraftKings has rolled out DK Replay in Oregon, a novel betting product that lets punters wager on historical Major League Baseball plate appearances. The Oregon Lottery approved the launch, which went live yesterday through the DraftKings Sportsbook app.

How DK Replay Works

The product presents anonymized pitcher versus batter matchups from recent MLB seasons. Players see athletes rated bronze, silver, or gold based on their stats from the original game. You then bet on whether the next pitch will be a ball, strike, or put in play.

Once you’ve placed your wager or let the pitch clock run out, the outcome is revealed and the bet settles. After the full plate appearance concludes, DraftKings unveils the actual players involved and details from the original match.

It’s an interesting approach to filling the gaps between live sporting events, admittedly. Rather than simulated games or virtual sports, you’re betting on real historical data with the drama stripped out and repackaged as real-time action.

Oregon First, More Markets Possible

For now, DK Replay remains exclusive to Oregon customers. DraftKings has indicated it’s exploring expansion to additional markets, though no specific states or timelines have been confirmed.

Corey Gottlieb, the company’s chief product officer, positioned the launch as a way to keep baseball fans engaged year-round. The pitch-by-pitch format certainly adds granularity compared to traditional pregame betting.

Consumer Perspective

The value proposition here depends entirely on the odds and margins. Historical data removes uncertainty for the operator. They know every outcome already. That information advantage needs to be reflected in competitive pricing, or this becomes little more than an expensive novelty.

Players should scrutinize the hold percentage carefully. If DraftKings is offering genuinely fair odds on known outcomes, this could provide decent entertainment value. If the margins are inflated beyond typical sportsbook levels, you’d be better off waiting for live baseball to return.

The anonymization gimmick adds a layer of engagement, granted. But sharp bettors will quickly work out whether the bronze-silver-gold ratings provide enough information to make informed decisions. Without proper analysis tools, you’re essentially betting blind on historical events with the house holding all the cards.

DraftKings has confirmed the product includes their standard responsible gaming controls. Players can monitor spending and set limits.

Gambling.com Group has announced a significant leadership reshuffle that will see co-founder Charles Gillespie step back from his CEO position to become executive chair, with fellow co-founder Kevin McCrystle taking over as chief executive.

The changes take effect following the company’s upcoming annual general meeting. That marks the end of Gillespie’s two-decade run at the helm of one of the industry’s most prominent affiliate businesses.

Twenty Years at the Top

Gillespie’s tenure as CEO has been remarkable by any measure. He’s guided Gambling.com from concept to market leader and made history as the company became the first publicly traded online gambling affiliate in the United States.

That’s a proper achievement in an industry where longevity at the top is rare.

Michael Quartieri, the group’s lead independent director, called Gillespie “one of the longest-serving and most successful CEOs in the history of the online gambling industry.” High praise, but the numbers back it up. The company’s growth trajectory under Gillespie’s leadership speaks for itself.

McCrystle Steps Up

Kevin McCrystle isn’t exactly a fresh face. As co-founder and current chief operating officer, he’s been instrumental in building the business from day one. His promotion to CEO looks like a natural progression rather than a dramatic shake-up.

McCrystle acknowledged the responsibility in his statement, saying he’s “energized to take over the CEO role” and lead the company’s next phase. He stressed continuing with the founder-led values that have defined Gambling.com’s culture.

The timing aligns with the company’s strategic shifts. Gambling.com is expanding its sports data services, reinventing its marketing approach, and positioning itself for what Gillespie describes as an “AI led future.” That’s a lot of moving parts. Bringing fresh energy to the CEO role makes sense.

What This Means

This isn’t a case of the old guard being pushed out. Gillespie remains deeply involved as executive chair, and both founders will jointly present the Q1 2026 results in mid-May. It’s a measured transition that keeps institutional knowledge intact while allowing new leadership to drive operational decisions.

For an affiliate business navigating rapid industry change, regulatory complexity, and technological disruption, having both founders actively engaged but in refreshed roles could prove smart strategy. McCrystle gets operational control. Gillespie maintains strategic oversight. The company benefits from both perspectives.

Quartieri’s endorsement of McCrystle as an “incredible leader” and the right choice for CEO suggests the board is fully behind the transition. That internal confidence matters when you’re managing a publicly traded company in a competitive sector.

The real test comes in execution. Gambling.com operates in a crowded affiliate market where differentiation is difficult and operator relationships are everything. Whether this leadership refresh translates to improved performance will become clear over the coming quarters.

A California lottery player has landed a $3.665 million windfall after matching five numbers in the latest Mega Millions draw, with the winning ticket purchased at Chill Out Smoke Shop on Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance.

The winner, whose identity remains undisclosed, matched all five main numbers (4, 13, 52, 53, and 69) but missed the Mega Ball, which was 10. Still enough to trigger a seven-figure payout. The odds? One in 12.6 million, according to California Lottery data. Remarkably long, frankly.

A second Match 5 winner also emerged in New Jersey during the same draw. No jackpot winner stepped forward, so the top prize has now rolled over to $70 million ahead of Friday’s draw.

Previous Jackpot Winner Claimed $536 Million

The last Mega Millions jackpot was won on 10th March when a player using the pseudonym “Lucky Lady” claimed a substantial $536 million prize. That winner chose to remain anonymous, a right afforded to lottery winners in California and several other states.

The retailer that sold the winning ticket, located at 4437 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite B, will receive a bonus payment for selling the winning entry. Standard practice in California Lottery promotions.

Lottery Officials Warn of Rising Scam Activity

The California State Lottery has issued fresh warnings about scammers exploiting the heightened interest around large jackpots. Officials report a surge in fraudulent activity, with con artists impersonating lottery representatives or posing as affiliates of recent winners.

These scams typically involve unsolicited calls, texts, or emails claiming the recipient has won a prize. Victims are then told they must pay upfront fees, taxes, or processing charges before they can claim their winnings. The scammers often create artificial urgency to pressure targets into acting quickly.

California Lottery officials have made it clear that legitimate prize notifications are never sent out of the blue. The organisation does not initiate contact via email, text, direct message, or phone call to inform players of a win. Winners are also never required to pay any fees in advance to collect their money. Worth knowing.

The next Mega Millions draw takes place on Friday, 27th March. The jackpot now stands at $70 million.

A New Jersey Senate committee has advanced legislation that would prohibit microbets, the rapid-fire wagers on individual plays within live sporting events. Senate Bill 2160, sponsored by Senators Paul Moriarty and Patrick Diegnan, cleared the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism, and Historic Preservation Committee on 23 March.

The bill targets what it defines as microbets: wagers placed on the immediate next action in a game. Will the next pitch be a strike? Is the upcoming football play a run or a pass? If enacted, New Jersey sportsbooks would be barred from offering or accepting these types of bets.

Violations would be classified as disorderly persons offences, carrying fines between $500 and $1,000 per infraction. Not particularly steep in the context of sportsbook revenues, granted, but it does establish a clear regulatory boundary.

Concerns About Manipulation and Problem Gambling

Senator Moriarty argued that microbets present greater integrity risks than traditional wagers on game outcomes. Insiders with advance knowledge of play calls could exploit these markets, he suggested, creating an uneven playing field for average punters.

He also raised concerns about the addictive potential of rapid-cycle betting. The short-term nature and quick payouts allow for high-frequency wagering in compressed timeframes.

Senator Diegnan echoed these points. His position is that constant in-game betting opportunities intensify the already engaging nature of sports wagering, encouraging extended play and higher spend.

Industry Pushback and Competitive Concerns

Not everyone on the committee was convinced. Senator Vincent Polistina pointed out that banning microbets at Atlantic City casinos would create a competitive disadvantage against nearby Philadelphia venues, where such betting remains legal. Cross-border discrepancies in product offerings are always tricky for border states.

Zachary Kahn, representing the Sports Betting Alliance, testified against the ban. His argument centred on consumer protection: removing microbets from regulated operators could push bettors toward unregulated offshore platforms that lack responsible gambling tools and oversight. It’s the classic channelisation debate. He’s not wrong about the risk.

What Happens Next

The bill still has hurdles to clear before becoming law. A similar measure was introduced last year by Assemblyman Dan Hutchison but didn’t progress. Given New Jersey’s track record on gambling legislation, this could take considerable time.

Consider the ongoing casino smoking debate. Governor Sherrill recently urged lawmakers to resolve that issue by the end of 2026, despite years of discussion. New Jersey’s legislative process on gambling matters tends to move at its own pace.

For now, microbets remain available at Garden State sportsbooks. Whether this bill ultimately passes or stalls out like its predecessor, we’ll see. The debate does highlight the ongoing tension between product innovation, consumer choice, and regulatory caution in a maturing US sports betting market.

BetMGM has been slapped with a $100,000 penalty by Pennsylvania’s Gaming Control Board after fraud rings exploited weak account verification systems across its platforms. The operator’s BetMGM and Borgata brands failed to stop multiple individuals setting up duplicate accounts using stolen credentials, with fraudsters collectively wagering nearly $2 million.

The consent agreement, approved by PGCB members, identified four separate fraud operations that ran for months. One individual created seven accounts under different names, wagering over $600,000 in total. Another opened three accounts and placed more than $500,000 in bets. Two smaller rings involved dual-account setups with combined wagers exceeding $850,000.

All four operations relied on the same basic weakness: insufficient know-your-customer checks that allowed the same person to register multiple times. In most cases, the accounts were funded with stolen money or fraudulently obtained cash.

Sixteen Players Banned From State Casinos

Separately, the PGCB placed 16 individuals on involuntary exclusion lists, barring them from all Pennsylvania gambling venues. Four of those bans relate to incidents where patrons left children unattended in casino car parks.

The cases make for grim reading.

One bloke left an 11-year-old alone in a vehicle at Hollywood Casino York for nearly an hour. Another abandoned a five-year-old at Rivers Casino Philadelphia for 17 minutes. A third left a nine-year-old in the same car park for over an hour.

The worst case involved two children, aged seven and 12, left sitting in a vehicle at Parx Casino for more than 30 minutes while their guardian gambled inside.

The board continues pushing its Don’t Gamble with Kids awareness campaign, reminding patrons that leaving minors unattended exposes them to serious risks and will result in a statewide ban.

What This Means for Operators

The BetMGM fine sends a clear message about verification standards. Pennsylvania regulators expect operators to catch duplicate accounts before they become fraud vehicles. Basic KYC processes should flag when the same person attempts multiple registrations, especially when those accounts are being funded suspiciously.

For an operator of BetMGM’s size, a six-figure penalty stings but won’t break the bank. The real cost comes in tightening up systems and proving they’ve got their act together going forward. Pennsylvania has consistently shown it will act when operators fall short on consumer protection measures, and frankly, this won’t be the last operator to find that out the hard way.