 And thanks, Dave, whenever you're ready. Not a problem. And we're good. Good morning, everyone on this crazy weather day. I hope everyone's staying safe and sound. Today is Tuesday, March 14, 2023. This is an adjudicatory hearing before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission relative to the alleged non-compliance of Encore Boston Harbor with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 23N, Section 3. 205, CMR 24701, Subsection 2A2, and the Massachusetts Sports Wadring Catalog. I will refer to Encore Boston Harbor this morning as Encore. To be clear, this matter pertains solely to the incident on February 2, 2023. Any other alleged non-compliance matters up on core today will be addressed on March 31, 2023. Excuse me. My name is Kathy Juddstein, and I am the chair of the commission. I am joined by my colleagues, commissioners Eileen O'Brien, Rad Hill, Nikisha Skinner, and Jordan Maynard. The entire commission will preside over the hearing and decision of this matter. This hearing will be conducted in accordance with 205, CMR 101.01, General Laws, Chapter 38, Sections 10 and 11, and 801, CMR 1.02, the Informal Fair Hearing Rules. This hearing is being conducted via remote collaboration technology. Before we begin, I would like to explain the process that will govern this proceeding. First, a notice of hearing was provided to Encore in advance of today's hearing. It identifies the alleged non-compliance incident that will be the focus of the commission's attention at this hearing and the relevant statutes, regulations, and catalog. A pre-hearing conference was also conducted. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 23N, Sections 4 and 16 and 205, CMR 232, the commission may hold this adjudicatory hearing, and at the conclusion of this hearing may decide to issue a civil administrative channel team imposed conditions on Encore's license, suspend Encore's license, revoke Encore's license, reprimand Encore, and or assess a fine on Encore. At the conclusion of my opening comments, this proceeding will commence with a presentation of the evidence in this matter. Specifically, the commission will first call Heather Hall, IEB Chief Enforcement Counsel, and any other witnesses listed on the notice of hearing or witness list. Encore may ask questions of any witness who testifies. Encore will then be called upon to make a presentation and to call additional witnesses, if any. Any commissioner may question any witness who is testifying at any point during or after their presentation. However, I do ask that you request permission first for any question or follow-up question to ensure appropriate procedure and process. Encore may raise any objection it desires at any time, however, the basis for all objections must be clearly stated. Finally, at the conclusion of all the evidence, Encore will be provided an opportunity to make a closing statement to summarize its view of the evidence. Before we begin, I understand that there are pre-marked exhibits that have been prepared in advance of this hearing. Those exhibits are identified on the exhibit list that has been circulated, and they are as follows. Exhibit one, Investigations and Enforcement Bureau Sports Wadring Non-Compliance Incident Review Report dated February 13th, 2023. And exhibit two is the notice of March 14th, 2023 hearing. Are there any objections to exhibit one and two being marked and entered into evidence? And I turn first to Councilor Paul, there you are. And I would ask that Encore inform me as to who will be presenting today. So. Good morning, Chair, no objections on this end. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Jackie. And if you could please direct any questions to me, we're joined today also by Jennifer Roberts, who is the General Counsel for WinBet, as well as Mark Marino, the Director of Sports Ops, and we have no objections. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cromman, and I will make sure to do that. Okay, thank you. So those exhibits shall be admitted into evidence in order to maintain a clean record. We ask that documents are referred to by exhibit number. At this point, I'll ask if Encore would like to stipulate to exhibit one, the IAB Sports Wadring Non-Conference Incident Review Report, Councilor Cromman. We would like to stipulate to the IAB report. Thank you. Thank you. If Encore would like to have any additional documents entered into evidence during the course of the hearing, I would ask they be properly introduced and marked. I will add that no final decision will be made at the conclusion of the public portion of this hearing. Instead, at the conclusion of the preceding commission will privately deliberate and ultimately issue a written decision. If at any point during the commission's deliberations, it determines that additional testimonial or documentary evidence is desirable, it reserves the right to ask Encore to provide such evidence prior to a final decision being made. We'll now swear all the witnesses in, anyone who will be potentially testifying at this proceeding, please raise your right hand. Okay, thank you. Do you solemnly swear that testimony you will provide before the commission at this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. For the record, I'll have responded in the affirmative. Thank you, everyone. And before we begin, does Encore have any preliminary issues or objections, Ernie Cromman? We do not, thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. So with that, I ask Ms. Hall to present exhibit one, the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau of Sports Wagering Non-Proprience Incident Review Report, dated February 13, 2023. Thank you, Chair, and good morning, Chair and commissioners. As you all know, and as the Chair stated, you have our incident review report and we did present on this matter on February 14th, and I will further go through the highlights of that report for the record here. And I just wanna note that I'll defer to Sports Wagering Director Bruce Bann and his team and the others who are here on behalf of EVH to let me know if I missed anything in this presentation. So as the commission knows, the IEB has conducted a review of a Sports Wagering Non-compliance Incident that occurred at EVH, which holds a category one, Sports Wagering Operator License, with respect to the incident of non-compliance. As the Chair mentioned, the date was February 2nd, 2023, that EVH, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Jackie Crumb, or Attorney Crumb, notified Sports Wagering Director Bann that EVH mistakenly offered wagering on an unauthorized event. Specifically, the Boston College, BC versus Notre Dame Collegiate Women's Basketball game was offered for Moneyline Wagering. That game took place on February 2nd at 7 p.m. and was a regular season game. The IEB has learned the following key facts during its review of the incident. The wagering was allowed for approximately five hours. There was one bet placed that was part of a Parley wager where the BC Women's Basketball game was one of five Moneyline selections on the ticket. The BC leg of the Parley bet was voided prior to settlement of that ticket. And ultimately, the total stakes or amount wagered was $70 for the full Parley. The patron total winnings was $22.74, and that particular bet took place at a kiosk. So with respect to the reason for the error, EVH director of sportsbook operations, Mark Marino, reported that a staff person employed by its vendor, Gann Nevada, mistakenly omitted NCAA Women's Basketball from the prohibited wagers list. And as the commission knows, Gann is a technology platform that provides event management and other services to EVH and its vendor and affiliate WSI-US LLC doing business as WinVet. Specifically, Gann had placed automatic blocks on any Massachusetts school on a list provided by WinVet. And those blocks are designed to stop any games from prohibited schools from being loaded into the system. Gann did not, however, apply the blocks to Women's College Basketball. Upon learning of the issue, EVH froze the ticket so that it could not be redeemed. Given that the game had not yet taken place, EVH canceled the BC leg of the event and kept the remaining legs of the Parley active so that if all the remaining legs were winners, the ticket could be redeemed for those winnings. The patron ultimately cashed the ticket with the remaining legs in the Parley. With respect to remedial information, I know I noted this before on February 14th, but this was a self-reported incident. And in further with respect to this matter, Ms. Marino did report that EVH and WinVet will work to ensure that prohibited events are blocked from being posted. Specifically, WinVet plans to conduct, and I think is actually conducting a twice daily audit in the morning and evenings of mass college sports offerings to confirm that no mass regular season collegiate games offered for wagering. And in addition, as the chair noted, we are talking just about this particular matter that the commission was briefed on February 14th in this context here today. In addition, Gann will provide system access to WinVet personnel so that WinVet will be responsible for granting final approval for all wagering offerings. And I'll defer to the EVH folks that are here today to update with any information on that. And I would just note that attorney Krum has also further reported that EVH plans to assign a dedicated person who will be responsible for auditing the wagering offerings to ensure that unauthorized wagers are not offered. EVH is also coordinating with director Bann's team to ensure that its list of mass collegiate teams is accurate. And with that, I will, that's the kind of end of my main part of the presentation, but happy to answer any questions that the commissioner or anybody else has. Before I turn to commissioners on board, attorney Krum, do you have questions from Ms. Hall? We do not, thank you. Okay, commissioners, do you have questions for Ms. Hall? Ms. Hall, I see that no one has any clarifying questions. Ms. Krum, do you plan to present any witness? Not unless anyone has any questions. We do have representatives here from GAN as well. And if you would like more details about the twice daily audit that has been put in place, attorney Roberts, if I could ask you to talk about that. Okay, I see Ms. Attorney, I mean, Commissioner O'Brien happens to also be an attorney, has a question. So I'll defer first to Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's sort of either IEB, Jackie, you can answer, or the individuals from GAN. I'm trying to get a better understanding of how the women's team was left off. The men's team seems to have been captured and the women's were not into this. Can you talk to me at all? And I know this is maybe not relevant to this. And if that's the answer, let me know. The third party feed provider that loads these things up, can you talk about the interplay between what GAN's function is in this, EPH's function is in this, and what the third party feed part is in all of this? So Rob, are you able to talk about the, can you answer Commissioner O'Brien's question? Sure, certainly. So first of all, I wanna clarify that we actually blocked all Massachusetts college teams. So that's the reason why you only saw, I can explain why you only saw activity on the Boston College women's basketball event. So how our system worked is we got the approved list of the wager and catalog, I think it was maybe 24, 48 hours prior to go live. And in our system, we can go into our system and essentially blacklist teams so that those teams will not reach the environment for patrons to even visibly see the event to wager on. So not only can they not wager on it, they can't even see the event to wager on. So this is kind of tied into our data provider, Genius Sports. What happens is we get the events fixtures that come in through Genius Sports and each of the teams has obviously a team name. So Boston College, Boston University, Merrimack, UMass, UMass Lowell, you go to Harvard. So we went through in our system prior to go live and we essentially blacklisted all of those teams so that when the data feed comes into our core, it stops there and does not go in through into the EVH environment for wagering to become available. The situation that happened was kind of, it was actually an anomaly. It was the only Massachusetts college team that had two names for it in our system. We were unaware, as you can imagine, women's college basketball globally where we operate our sports book is a very lightly wagered market, right? There's very little, if any, wagering on Boston College women's basketball. So our team was not aware that there was actually two names for Boston College in our system. So when we went through and we actually searched the team name, we hit Boston College, Disabled, Black West, that was not available. Unfortunately, there was a second name in there, which is how this kind of came through to the system, came through our system as a second name from a data provider through our system into the environment to be wagered on. And we just weren't aware that there was a second name in our system for that team and that's how it came through. So effectively all the other college teams were effectively blocked and they continue to be. And until we noticed when this, the second team name was available, we blocked it at that point. So now effectively there's two team names that are blocked for Boston College. There's actually additional names that we kind of created just potential team names, right? That we created in our Blacklist just in the event that our data provider does for some reason change the name of, you know, maybe they call it the Lady Eagles, right? And that changes the team name but that will be blocked going forward as well. So that little bit of a clarification on that front. Any questions regarding that? Commissioner Hill, just one second, Commissioner Hill. I think Commissioner Hill wants a follow up. I would let Commissioner Hill go first. Thank you. So I guess my question, my follow up question is, have you gone back through and double checked? I would assume that any college or university name is gonna be referenced in the title. So the first question is, have you gone back and done a check to make sure any reference to BC, BU, or anything else is removed? And then also, can you clarify from you whether or not your third party feeder has the ability to change names to do an accidental or purposeful end run around what you guys have blocked with your nomenclature? Yeah, so we've proactively added some additional team names just to be safe, but there is a second layer. What we have done essentially is so now prior to, let's just say prior to go live, the feed came through and if it was not blacklisted, it just went straight through into the environment for wagering to be available to patrons, right? What we have done now is for NCAA sports, it comes, every event comes through from our data provider, it comes into our system as disabled and so there's a manual process now that involves somebody from the WinBet team to actually physically go in and enable that event. So now there's no automatic flow through, they come through and so even if it gets through that first barrier of the naming convention block, it does come through now into a manual process to have to enable that event. So that's why there's, never say never, very high, extremely high level of confidence, this will never happen again. And it's been effective for us to not just block college women's sports, right? We have our sports book operates in multiple jurisdictions throughout the globe and so there's events like political elections and things like that that we have effectively blocked. We haven't taken bets on things like the Oscars for example, because we're not confident and the Encore WinBet team are not confident that those are actually, should be available to bet on. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you, thank you. So just so you can clarify for me, so you said there were two different names, BC, women's had a different name. So if you had, for example, Northeastern as one of the schools, it just said Northeastern University. That's right. I actually went through our system to try and find a school that had two names and honestly I couldn't find anything else. Boston College was the only one that had two names that I could find. So by unclicking Northeastern, that included both men and women's sports, whereas the BC women's was by itself. That's why I'm trying. Boston College men's only had one name, Boston College women's had two. Northeastern had one and all the other schools just had one name. So you have two different, one is, typically what you would see is Northeastern and then the category is women's basketball, right? So what we saw was there was Boston College, women's basketball and Boston College Eagles, women's basketball and we didn't realize that there was that second name for it. Gotcha. Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner, is that the other questions? Madam Chair, I just have one last question on this. Okay. Can you tell me the date that that fix went in to effect? So the, there's a couple of different fixes. So the date that the first fix where we actually went through the West and blacklisted the team names, which we thought were all the team names was, I think it was the day prior to go live, we had very little notice to actually go through with the entire system to match the approved wagering list. So that was a manual process to go through and do all that. Typically we would have done that with code and we would have done that well in advance, but that was done the day before to one or two days prior to go live. There was an additional permanent fix, the one I'm talking about where all the events come in is disabled, that work was actually performed, I'm not mistaken on, let's see here, it was on the week of February 20th. I have to get that exact date for you. I don't know if I popped my head, but it was. Bob, would it be fair to say that based on additional instances, there were additional measures put in place at a later date. So some of this information you've shared with the commission is based on findings over a period of time. That's exactly right. So I have no work, we're talking about the one incident, but there was additional. Yes, I'm trying to find the line of what you guys did for this, you know. So the initial event, we weren't able to determine all the information that Rob has now shared with you, at that time, it was after the following events that we were able to do with Gantt's assistance, put the entire issue together and figure out what the problem and solution was. Is it fair to say that the initial fix was done prior to the 12th, that at least that step was done prior to the 12th, but you're not sure about the others at that point, right? That's right. Thanks. Questions? Richard Skinner. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I just had a follow-up question on the physical enabling of the sports event. Whose responsibility is that? Is that WinBat? Is it Gantt on core? That is WinBat. Thank you. And how does that fix? I mean, I know we're trying to keep the two incidents separate, this one and the subsequent one, but how, I don't know if this is a fair question, how does the physical enabling fix interplay with the other fixes that were put in place, the daily, the twice daily audit and... So, Commissioner Skinner. Granting the approval. Sorry, sorry to interrupt. No, I just, I was trying to locate the other fix that you put in place. So, but I think you get the, you understand my question. Thanks, Ms. Crumb. So, I think what happened immediately after this first event, we went through the list and double checked the entire list in the system again. At that point, it was, we thought with twice daily audits and watching it, that that would be resolved. What we subsequently discovered after the subsequent incidents, there was a bit of a glitch in the system in terms of the naming. And so that's when the second solution was implemented. But the twice daily audits were what essentially allowed us to catch the second group of incidents. Commissioner Maynard, were you meeting in earlier? Thank you. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms. Crumb, you did mention that you would be happy to describe the twice daily audits. Could you or someone from your team walk through, walk us through the process? Sir Jennifer, can you talk about that first? Yes, of course. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Maynard. So, our WinBit trading team is responsible for reviewing the markets that get published to the patrons. And when we learned of this first incident, we had assigned the trading team to conduct twice daily audits once in the morning and once in the evening to confirm and check the markets on what was being offered and to ensure that no Boston colleges are performed. So, they actually will go into the system and review everything that is being offered to the public. And so, when it comes into the feed from GAN, they'll review that and go through and look and see everything that's being offered in the app or on the kiosks or at the trading windows. So, that's what they did after this incident arose is that they implemented those twice a day. And we also had, we performed audits as well. We continue to perform audits as well. On our side, with our sportsbook team, most of our team is located, our sportsbook team from the product standpoint is located in Eastern Europe. So, the time zone difference is a little bit different, but our team is performing daily audits as well. Similar to the task that the WinBit team has. Commissioners, if I may, I have a couple of questions, but I wanna make sure that you're all set for right now. Okay. One clarifier, and I'll turn to attorney Crown because it probably is more legal in nature than minister Acti's, but he did mention that Sounding was a little time to get the catalog in order to get the prohibition prohibited list or as he said, the black list in order that he did that on January 30th, but I, and I do appreciate that because I think as we were working to launch retail, we did work on the catalog under those last days before launch. With respect to the non-compliance here, would you agree and acknowledge that it's a statutory prohibition on not allowing wagering on any collegiate team from Massachusetts unless it's involved in a collegiate tournament? And so that you were on notice while in advance that those would, these types of events would not be available for an offering. Absolutely. So we of course knew that from the sports wagering act. I think what Rob was discussing was the whole catalog could only be uploaded right in those final days. So it was a bit of a rush, but clearly we knew that the collegiate teams in Massachusetts were prohibited. Okay, I understand them at distinction. Great, thank you. That's really helpful for me. The other remedial measure that I'm wondering about, attorney Crom is any training that you're providing or provided after this first incident of the staff that are at the window, I guess we call them the sports book writers or any other staff in terms of helping to serve as a redundancy for the technical piece? Yes, I'd like to defer to Mark. Can you talk about the training that the team receives? Yeah, absolutely. We've gone over it with everybody at the windows now to what to look for. We have a sheet, a list of the teams. So as we cash tickets now that we're going through that as they go through the menu throughout the day, they're looking for those teams also. We actually do our own kind of little audit of it. Twice a day, we go through them ourselves, the management side of it looks through the list and goes over to her. Madam chair. Yes, commissioner Hill just for clarification. These were done in kiosks. These weren't these bets weren't made at the window. Is that accurate? This one that this one that's accurate. Commissioner Hill. Thank you. Yeah, it was a one bet, but it was a overlay. Thanks, commissioner Hill. And I only clarified because I know that's what your intention was. Thank you. Other other questions. Yeah, yes, I have a question about the notification that was sent to the patron upon cancellation of the wager. What can you describe what that what that is? How you know what what that process is? Sure, in this particular case, commissioner Skinner, we were unable to send a notification to the patron because we didn't know who the patron was. It was a wager placed at the sports kiosk. We do know that the patron came in, I believe on February 3rd to cash the wager and did in fact cash the wager and with the avoided portion of the parlay. Okay, that's a good reminder of the nature of a wager placed at the kiosk. Commissioner Skinner, could I ask a follow up question please on that because I was curious. So should the patron have noted that because we don't know if the patron in fact even understood what may have happened. And they would be able to ask questions at a customer service and that explanation. And so if you want to follow up and perhaps what would have happened if in fact you did identify the patron? Sure, and actually, we do have a, WinBet has a robust customer service department in January, you know, what would happen in the case of somebody made this bet, let's say on a mobile app where you were able to identify the customer or whether if they use a win rewards card. Yeah, absolutely. What we would do is we would contact the customer and advise that the wager is a prohibited wager and under our terms and conditions and terms of service that we're not allowed to offer the wager and that that piece of the parlay would have been voided. And, you know, if and but that the parlay ticket could continue with the remaining links. So we would answer the follow up question that you make clear at the window at retail too that you simply cannot make the individual hall on a prohibited wager. Correct. That's correct. Thank you. Other questions, commissioners. I have one follow up question for, I guess it's probably best suited for director ban. Is there anything that you would add or clarify or correct in the IEP report? I know you've worked closely as a team and I just want to make sure that there's nothing that you now are hearing director ban that you'd like to add. Interesting because you're not on mute but we can't hear you Bruce. So that's a technical difficulty from home base. We can't hear you at all but we can see sign language quite well. Any hints, you're not, you don't see any problems is what I'm interpreting, no clarifications, no additions. I think we'll note that for the record and he'll figure out his technical issue and I'm seeing affirmation that you're all set. Okay, thank you. Chair, is it possible for me to just clarify one quick thing briefly? Certainly, and I'm glad that you spoke up. Councilor Hall, thank you. Thanks, Chair. I do think, you know, this is tricky because there were these two incidents and I know that we're talking about the first incident today. I just want to note for the commission that it is our understanding on the IEP side that with respect to the first incident, GAN had mistakenly omitted NCAA women's basketball from the prohibited wagers list that it wasn't this name different. So when I see one commissioner understanding that, so I just wanted to make sure that folks understood that's in our report with respect to this particular incident just for clarification purposes. Right, and just to clarify, Councilor Hall will refer to the other instance which I noted at the beginning as alleged non-compliance and we'll deal with those in the proper adjudicatory form then. So thank you. And Commissioner O'Brien, was your first question satisfied with respect to women's versus men? The truth feels... Not particularly. They got into the details on the BCE goals which I got but I was first struck by the fact that the entirety of the NCAA women's was just left off. I'm a little flummoxed as to how that happened still. I just want to clarify the entire NCAA women's was not left off. So that was the only team in all of NCAA, you know, of all the band lists. So Harvard was properly blocked, Boston University, Merrimack, UMass, UMass Lowell, all those teams were properly blocked. The only one single Massachusetts college team that was available to make wagers on was Boston College Eagles Women's Basketball. Can I ask a clarifier please? Clarifier, if there were had been a Stanford versus USC women's basketball game at the same day, would that have shown up in the catwalk? Yes. And other non-band women's college basketball games were available for wager in that day. Okay. So does that help? Is that a clarifier for you, Councillor Hall? Is that different than what you just understood to be the case? Well, thank you, Chair. The report we have from EVH, and this may be a misunderstanding on our part, was that GAN did not apply the block to the women's college basketball. So, you know, it's possible that, you know, in learning how this all works, we might have misunderstood, but that was my understanding that the band was, the NCAA women's basketball was not on the prohibited wagers list, but I'm, you know, open to clarification on that if we misunderstood. Michelle Bryan. I was gonna follow up with Attorney Hall on that point to see if there was different information or just a misunderstanding. Perhaps we can turn to Attorney Carl now. Our initial understanding was that it was all women's NCAA basketball. So I'm hearing from GAN now that it was limited to this, but our initial understanding at least was that it was all women's NCAA college basketball consistent with Attorney Hall's report. Can you complete the whole sentence so that we are saying that they all were? So our initial understanding was that women's NCAA basketball was not blacklisted or prohibited on the prohibited list initially, but, you know, Rob, do we have that wrong? That was our initial understanding. So women's college basketball is not a band market in Massachusetts, just Massachusetts teams are. So we properly blocked every single women's, every single Massachusetts college team from wagering, whether it was women's basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse, you name it. Those were all blocked with the exception of the Boston College women's team. And that was the only event on only Massachusetts college team that was ever available for wagering on the system and other teams were properly blocked. So I think there was probably, like I think this was a learning process, there was a lot going on at the time. And I think that, you know, we respond, it's very swiftly to it, not just the GAN team, but the WinBet team and the Encore team responded extremely swiftly to resolve this matter and try to identify the root cause of it and fix the root cause permanently. That was the goal. And, you know, just say that, you know, the betting volumes on women's college basketball are generally low anyways, right? With very, very low limits. So if we didn't, for example, take, for example, your situation where you talked about Stanford USC, that game may have been available, we just didn't take a bet on it. So we probably didn't even notice any of it, right? I mean, not many people are betting on those types of markets. So my understanding, and going back and auditing our system was that we actually did take bets on women's college basketball games that were not prohibited games. And the only one that was prohibited was on this event. And all the others in Massachusetts were properly blocked. And continue to be properly blocked going forward. And if we misunderstood that, that was our misunderstanding, but we do rely on Rob and his team to provide the accurate information. Absolutely. So that's an important clarifier. Commissioners, follow up questions on that point because the way that you described it was my understanding when it first came out, but I wasn't sure if it was only because that was the only available game at the time. Commissioners, any follow up questions? Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Maynard. I just want to clarify something and understand. So on the day of launch or the day before launch, the posture was, and the process was, the market was open and games had to be turned off. Is the posture now, and I heard attorney Crum and attorney Roberts explain what happens today? Is the posture that it's actually turned off and then someone at when actually has to turn it on? Is that correct? So the game is prohibited right now and someone has to go in physically and make it pass through. That's correct for games that are blocked. I think, and this is more related to the subsequent incidences. That was, that comes up under the different name issue. And so those went through, it wasn't that someone unblocked them to allow them to go on, but that those games went through because of the naming issue. Got it, all right, I understand. Madam Chair, I just, we're learning here, so I have a learning question. So for the last week and moving forward into the NCAAs, you would now be able to place a bet on a Massachusetts women's basketball team because they have been in tournaments for the Big East or the Atlantic 10 or the ACC. And of course the NCAA is a tournament. So now you have to go in and click them on, correct? That's right, they have to be unprohibited. And then following this, they'll have to be prohibited again. Now the good news is that as our system matures, this becomes a lot easier. So when you start identifying Boston College and Boston College Eagles, that becomes part of the algorithm in terms of the system picking it up and doing it not manually, but with those parameters in place. Thank you. Other questions, okay? So at this point in time, I wonder, Ankur, would you like to make a closing statement? No, other than to say, we regret accidentally offering wage ring on Boston College women's basketball game. And I'd like to say we tried as quickly as we could. Obviously we avoided the bet before the game even took place. And we put additional layers in place to prevent further instances. And as I just said, as our system matures, we anticipate that these events will be far more unlikely. Okay. And unless there are any further matters that Ankur and my fellow commissioners would like to address, we'll conclude this portion of the proceeding. Does anyone have anything further? Okay. The commission will deliberate about this matter in private, as I indicated earlier, an issue of written decision. The proceeding at this point, however, remains open. If at any point during deliberations, the commission determines that for the testimonial or documentary evidence is desirable, it may send notice of such to the applicant and provide instructions as to how to proceed. We are adjourned. And I thank all who attended today very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.