Massachusetts lawmakers have advanced a controversial bill that could reshape the state’s sports betting landscape. Senate Bill 302, which cleared committee on Monday, proposes banning in-play and proposition bets entirely, capping wager amounts, and nearly tripling operator taxes from 20% to 51%.

The Ban on In-Play and Prop Bets

Senator John Keenan, sponsoring the bill, has targeted what he calls “the most addictive form of bets.” The legislation explicitly states that sports wagering would include neither in-play bets nor proposition bets. Full stop.

Keenan’s concern centres on the rapid-fire nature of live betting. “They are quick, they’re easy to place, and they provide instant gratification if somebody should win, or a desire to respond to it, if they should lose, perhaps by doubling down,” he explained.

The problem? In-play wagers account for 50 to 60% of all sports bets in most markets.

A complete ban would fundamentally alter how the industry operates in Massachusetts, potentially driving significant revenue offshore.

Industry Pushback on Restrictions

The Sports Betting Alliance, whose members include Massachusetts-based DraftKings, has come out swinging against the proposals. The industry group argues that in-play betting actually helps operators identify suspicious patterns and potential match-fixing, something that becomes impossible when punters move to unregulated platforms.

DraftKings CEO Jason Robins called the prospect of a blanket ban “crazy.” He’s reflecting broader industry sentiment that prohibition rarely works as intended in the digital age.

The proposed tax hike to 51% would put Massachusetts alongside New York, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island as one of the highest-taxing states for sports betting. Operators warn this combination of restrictions and taxes could make the regulated market uncompetitive, frankly.

Wager Limits and Player Protections

Beyond bet type restrictions, SB302 would cap individual wagers at £1,000 daily or £10,000 monthly. Operators could grant exceptions if they verify these amounts don’t exceed 15% of a player’s bank balance, introducing unprecedented financial oversight requirements.

Interestingly, Massachusetts has simultaneously moved in the opposite direction on limiting winning players. The state Gaming Commission unanimously approved new rules requiring sportsbooks to explain why they’ve restricted successful bettors. Commission Chair Jordan Maynard calls it a first in the United States.

“The operators keep telling me they’re not limiting many people,” Maynard noted. “If they’re not limiting many people, they should be able to tell people why they’re limiting them.”

The Wider Debate on Betting Restrictions

Massachusetts isn’t alone in dealing with these issues, though its approach is among the most restrictive being considered. Ohio struck a more moderate deal with MLB and operators, limiting micro bets on individual pitches to $200 rather than banning them outright. New Jersey lawmakers are debating similar micro bet restrictions.

Recent betting scandals across the NBA, NCAA, MLB, and MLS have intensified calls for tighter controls on player performance bets. Many states have already banned college sports prop betting, with the NCAA pushing for nationwide restrictions.

Not everyone’s moving towards prohibition, though.

Missouri rejected prop betting restrictions in its new sports betting market, while Washington approved sports betting with only in-state college props excluded.

The bill now heads to the Senate Ways and Means Committee. If it passes, Massachusetts could become a test case for heavy-handed betting restrictions, an experiment other states will be watching closely. Whether it protects players or simply pushes them toward unregulated alternatives remains the central question in what’s shaping up to be one of the year’s most significant regulatory battles in US sports betting.

What the team thinks

Baz Hartley says:

While concerns about problem gambling deserve serious attention, banning in-play and prop bets outright throws the baby out with the bathwater when better player protection tools already exist. A 51% tax rate would likely push operators to slash bonuses and promotions to unsustainable levels, which ironically could drive bettors toward unregulated offshore sites with zero consumer protections. Massachusetts would be better served implementing mandatory deposit limits, time-outs, and reality checks rather than eliminating bet types that millions enjoy responsibly.