Sometimes, winning can be the worst thing to happen to a regular sports bettor.

One patron in Massachusetts cashed $13,500 on a $375 wager on any non-QB throwing a touchdown pass in Super Bowl 58.

The +3500 ticket cashed when San Francisco WR Jauan Jennings hit Christian McCaffrey with a 21-yard TD pass in the second quarter.

This bettor, who asked to remain anonymous, had no limits on his FanDuel account prior to the Super Bowl. Since that hit, his wagers have been limited to $50.

The same customer has been limited at ESPN BET and DraftKings. Bookies.com has seen multiple betting slips confirming these wager limits.

“At DK, I bet some overnight college basketball total, beat the line, and they decided to limit me and it’s gotten worse and worse,” he said.

Shared experiences about being limited at legal online books after consistent winning are commonplace on social media.

This issue has created enough smoke in the Commonwealth to catch the attention of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Tuesday, the MGC holds the first open public hearing of the post-PASPA era in any legal jurisdiction concerning betting limits placed on patrons.

“We’re engaged. Our teams here are meeting about what it looks like. As you know, we are the first jurisdiction that I know of to tackle this kind of head on, and so we want to make sure that we get this right. We don’t want to rush this conversation. We want to make sure all the appropriate voices are at the table,” interim MGC Chair Jordan Maynard told bookies.com last month when asked about customer limits.

That conversation begins Tuesday at 11 a.m. The agenda for the “Sports Wagering Operator Wager Limitations Roundtable” was posted Friday. The meeting was scheduled earlier this week.

The public roundtable will include representatives of the legal retail and online operators in Massachusetts. Currently, the state has seven licensed online operators, six of which are active.

They are:

DraftKings
FanDuel
BetMGM
Caesars Sportsbook
Fanatics
ESPN BET
Bally’s (expected to launch by July)

BetMGM, ESPN Bet and WynnBET host retail betting sites at their sister casinos.

Multiple books contacted for this story would not discuss player limits on the record. No licensed book in Massachusetts has yet to make it publicly known how many bettors have been limited because they won, and more importantly, the criteria used in making the decisions to do so.

Speaking on background, operators say stories such as this are “sporadic” and more a creation of social media as opposed to wider trends. They argue — at the same time — that the effect these players have on the books is strong enough to negatively impact revenues but there aren’t enough of them for it to be a concern for the public or regulators.

They argue limits are necessary to help maintain profitability. And they cite their user agreements, which give them wide latitude in terms of refusing wagers, or placing limits on the dollar amount of wagers.

But the question of “Why do you limit players who win, but not those who lose?” will be a tough ask for the sportsbooks.

Player limits, long common to known sharps in Las Vegas, wasn’t on the radar of any legislators or regulators since sports betting was cleared to go nationwide outside of Nevada by the Supreme Court’s decision in the PASPA case in 2018.

Tuesday’s public roundtable will be just that — a discussion. A fact-finding mission if you will.

After a review of the public commentary received on this matter, the operators present will be asked to discuss the following:

1. Please detail how and why a patron may be limited on your platform, including how you may limit patrons on an individual basis.

2. Please explain the experience of a patron once they become limited.
What are the responsible gaming implications if patron limits are more heavily regulated?

3. What would be the impacts to the industry if allowing limits on individual patrons was prohibited or limited by law or regulation?

4. What are other jurisdictions and/or other sports books doing?

There will be no action taken by the Commission on Tuesday. If the MGC decides any rule changes are necessary, it will propose a regulation to affect those changes.

Once that wording is agreed upon, a public hearing will be held on the specific regulation.

After that, a final vote would be made.