 Thank you. Good morning. Good afternoon. My apologies. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And because we're holding this meeting virtually, I'll do a little call. Good afternoon, Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. I'm here. I realize that we don't typically start at noon, which is throwing me. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. Okay. And Commissioner Skinner, you're joining right now by phone. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Okay. And Commissioner Meek. Good afternoon. Great. So we can get started today. Public meeting number 455. It is May 23rd. It's a Tuesday. We had a full meeting yesterday and we have some good work ahead of us today, turning first to minutes. Commissioner Hill. Yes, Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the December 5th, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Did everyone have a chance to review them? Second. Great. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Any further comments or edits? Great. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So 5-0. All set. So now we're turning to the next item on our agenda. This is in connection with our review of the treatment of promotional play as whether should be considered tax deduction or not. This is an issue that we've reviewed in the past. We had a beautiful some discussions on it. And there was a majority of the commissioners felt that the interpretation of the law allowed for enough flexibility or ambiguity to allow the commission to have discretion in making that determination. Two of us and I'll include myself and Commissioner O'Brien felt that the law spoke for itself as not permitting formal play to be tax deductible. But we all agree that there are important policy discussions. It's just that some of us think it's already been resolved and others are looking for that guidance on the policy. So today is an opportunity for the majority of the commission to hear those policy discussion and for Commissioner O'Brien and I to continue to be informed. So we are turning, I think we always understood the responsible gaming implications. And now we have Director Vanden Linden joining from afar to give some insights from his know of expertise. And Dr. Ingers. Yeah. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning commissioners and all. We really appreciate the opportunity to talk about the responsible gaming considerations as you all contemplate sports wagering promotional taxation. And so really the purpose of the memo that we provided for you for this meeting is to provide you with information regarding responsible gaming considerations as you weigh action on taxation and sports wagering promo play. Just for the record, this memo was prepared by myself and by Dr. Andrews and consultation with Rianne Dora Scholl, a frequent advisor to the commission. As we look at promotional play as we consider most policy action in the commission, I think it's always important to take a look at responsible gaming and problem gambling and ask ourselves where how should this be considered in our decision making. I'm going to refer back to a study that was released last summer by Dr. Rachel Volberg and her team with UMass Amherst and the stigma team. The title of that study was legalized sports betting in the United States and potential impacts in Massachusetts. Dr. Volberg and her team stated that at risk and problem gambling are higher among sports betters. But this was primarily because sports betting is often involved with a wide range of gambling activities, including sports betting. As we've learned from our previous research and other research, that we know that the single greatest predictor of problem gambling isn't necessarily just one gambling type, but the number of forms of gambling that people participate in. They also noted that legalized sports betting has the potential to increase rates of problem gambling harm in Massachusetts sports betters as well as overall rates of problem gambling in the population. But she also with a caveat that the magnitude of these impacts is expected to be modest. And that is largely because the overall number of persons who engaged or who participate in sports wagering in Massachusetts is relatively small. So the overall impact would be would be modest. Dr. Volberg also pointed out that there are specific groups which may be at greater risk who were not previously identified such as adolescents, young adults, women, immigrants, individuals and recovery from gambling problems and college athletes. We also took a look at the National Council on Problem Gambling. They've actually released two studies on this on this topic, but the engage study, the National Gambling. Oh, geez, I'm sorry, I can't remember what the acronym stands for, but it's a large national study that the National Council on Problem Gambling has conducted over the past five years. And they pointed out that sports betting carries a rate of risky play two to three times greater than comparison with other types of gambling. Now, Dr. Andrews and I did a pretty limited literature review. But there were a few things that stuck out to us that we wanted to point out to you. As it relates to inducements and gambling behavior, there was a study in Australia that took a look at sports-raiding inducements and specifically looked at promotional play. And what they found was that these types of inducements are likely to encourage more frequent and higher betting expenditure, even though some consumers may perceive them as lower risks of betting. In addition, we took a look at the effect of promo play and big wins. Now, big wins is pretty well known. There's some pretty early research dating back to Dr. Robert Custer, looking at the impact of a big win. A big win has different meanings for different people, but overall, just the term of big win and how it relates to developing a gambling problem. Promotional credits, especially those for younger gamblers or persons in lower so-so economic groups can essentially see a big win as see a promo play as a big win, even though there's a lower financial risk associated with it. And this was also echoed by Dr. Volberg. We also took a look at helpline calls related to sports betting and a number of jurisdictions. And this also comes with a pretty big caveat. You'll see in this memo that we point out that there are definitely increases in calls to problem gambling helplines, especially from Ohio and Virginia, even in Massachusetts to the 1-800-gambler line that then gets transferred to Massachusetts. The caveat, though, is that there's also been a lot of promotion of problem gambling helplines with the introduction of sports wagering. And there are many calls, a significant percentage. I don't have the exact amount where people are calling the helpline looking for other types of information, not necessarily related to their gambling behavior or problem gambling. But nonetheless, as this memo points out, you do see a correlation between the introduction of sports wagering and calls to helpline. So now taking a look at the impact of funding for problem gambling and responsible gaming. In Massachusetts, the elimination or depreciation in tax revenue if promo play is deducted, is allowed, would likely reduce the amount of revenues deposited into the public health threat fund. And I'm sure that Director Linnan probably has more to say on that. Just to remind you that 9% of the tax revenue generated from sports wagering goes into the public health trust fund. And the public health trust fund was established in chapter 23 case section 58 to provide funding to programs and services to prevent and mitigate problem gambling and carry out the MGC's annual research agenda. Massachusetts isn't the only state grappling with this issue. There was a study released in 2021 and updated in 2022 by the tax foundation independent tax policy nonprofit that found that state there's there's a lot of states that are that are handling promo play slightly differently. Their bottom line, though, was that states that do lovey tax, lovey attacks with deduction should consider some type of cap. The tax is supposed to raise revenue dedicated to spending without a cap. And without a cap sports betting operators could theoretically eliminate their tax liability completely. Now, this is actually supported in the remainder of the memo talks about several states, including Virginia, who's struggled to successfully fund problem and responsible gaming. They allowed unrestricted deductions which have since been rescinded and limited to the first 12 months of operation only in Colorado, like Virginia also rescinded their tax policy that once allowed for unlimited tax deductions on on free play. And then finally in Maryland, which is a pretty recent addition to this storyline, and they launched in November of 2022, they look when they launched, they offered unlimited deduction on promo play. And the unlimited deduction of play and effect for that fiscal year resulted in a nut loss. And so now they they're going to cap it at 20% of the taxable win for the prior year. So just to kind of sum it up, again, thank you for considering the responsible gaming problem gambling. And in this discussion. And as you can see, there's there is some growing evidence to talk about the potential impact of problem gambling, responsible gaming and sports wagering, and that funding for programs and services to support efforts to prevent and mitigate problem gambling should should be sustained. Thank you. Questions for Director Van Halen and teachers. Mr. Skinner, are you all set? I'm off that chair. Thank you. Okay. So, Mark, the absence of questions doesn't mean anything. It's a great look for your comprehensive report and also the written report. And I want to thank Dr. Andrews to be your contributions. And I think we're all set. Mark, good luck with your comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. So now we turn to item number four on our agenda and this is where RSM, the financial advisor, consultant who advised us as we assess the multiple applications for both the retail and online sports wagering licenses. Welcome them back. We have the benefit of a lot of financial analysis, particularly on the online side, as we thought about and considered revenues that might be generated by the online sports wagering operators. And today, we welcome back Teresa Moreno and company to give us an update. I understand that much of your presentation can burn the public sphere, but there might be considerations commissioners that you are interested in that if you were to go forward consistent with what we did during the assessment process would really require an appropriate acceptance section should be so both go into that. So Teresa, thank you for coming today, Connor. Thank you for joining. And we'll turn to your presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair for the introduction. And I just I have a presentation that I can share my screen. Thank you. I just want to confirm that my audio is working now. And there you go, Teresa. Wonderful. Great. I'm happy to be back. Looks like you're my my my computer isn't working. So I called in so I'm the 619 area code phone number there. Perfect. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So we have you by phone and video. Excellent. Yep. Nice to see you both. Can everybody see my screen? We can. Great. So I like to begin our presentation with a quick overview of the analysis we provided to the commission. I'll hop to slide six. First, RSN prepared an overview of the financial projections for the following applicants that have been granted a temporary sports betting license to operate in the Commonwealth. And this includes what they submitted as projections for their promotional play spending. I'd like to just please note here that we've reserved presenting any confidential applicant information for an executive session. Just like 11. Second, we provided an analysis of promotional play in other select jurisdictions. We selected 70 states that utilize a variety of tax regimes when considering promotional play. We broken these states down to two courts. Established states, which includes Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia recently launched states of Ohio and Maryland. With that, I'd like to provide some quick notes on this list of states we utilize for the analysis. Two out of the seven comparable states, West Virginia and New Jersey do not allow any promotions to be excluded from the tax basis. Four out of the seven comparable states, Connecticut, Virginia, Colorado, Maryland, currently allow or have allowed a portion of promotions to be deducted. Three states are reducing or eliminating this deduction. One comparable state Ohio does not currently allow any promotional play deductions, but will at a later date beginning in 2027. Just for context, we examined the tax regulations for the 29 states that have legalized online sports wagering. The vast majority of these states 24 of them do not allow exclusions of promotional play from their tax base. For purposes of our analysis, we selected, you know, kind of a mixed bag, if you will, of states that exclude, include or took a hybrid approach with promotional play taxation. I'd like to also note here in our intro, you know, for the benefit of the commission, we have updated current total addressable market or TAM forecast published by Deutsche Bank equity research. We compared the current Massachusetts TAM for the online sports betting market, which was published in March 2023, versus the original forecast we discussed in our original hearings, which was published in October of 22, for the annual periods 2023 through 2027. Although the prior Deutsche Bank estimates provided a slightly favorable OSB market size 2023, their latest projections are more favorable for the Commonwealth. In terms of OSB market size for the years 24 through 27, it's worth noting that this suggests a positive sentiment towards OSB revenue for the Commonwealth. And then to round out our public session presentation, and to be discussed later on, we provided a high level overview of the financial performance of Fanduul and Drakkings, per their most recent publicly available financial information. And with that, I'll pass it over to Theresa who will provide a general overview of promotional play to the commission. So for this portion, what we would we thought we would do is just provide an overview of promotional play. Please feel free to interrupt or ask questions as we work through this, given that it's just more of a context as we get into the actual numbers. So we'll talk a little bit about context and then roll into the numbers in more detail. So just as a grounding point, really promotional play is is a mark is typically used as a marketing strategy. And it allows the operators to either acquire or helps them acquire new people. So they're actively going into unknown customer groups who may not have a relationship and bring them in into the sports wagering world, or it's typically used for retention. And there's a cost to the acquisition and redemption elements and some interesting analysis that we identified through the historical implementation of sports wagering in various different states that I think will be helpful for the commission as we look at both acquisition and retention of players. So that's kind of at a high level. And what what promotional play is typically driven for there's different types of promotional play here on the next slide that are that we'll typically see. And all of this would be in the realm of promotional play. So there's there's that credit, or sometimes they're called bonus bets. So there's enhanced or boosted odds. So a bet credit or bonus bet would be, hey, if you bet once, then you get a second bet. Or if you bet and lose, we'll let you read that on another game for another another sporting event. Enhanced or boosted odds allow the players to get a better payout if they make a wager. Oftentimes, this can be either for kind of, I would say, entry level type wagers where, hey, we want to get people used to betting, we want to get these big wins. It's it's an even game where we're willing to take a little bit of a risk because the the operator may from the lines won't get hurt one way or the other. Sometimes we'll see boosted odds and situations where the players are taking riskier bets. So if they do a parlay, they'll get boosted odds. Or if they if they if they increase the risk, they get an increased payout higher than the norm. And the operator is basically taking a discount on that increased hold percentage. But because it's a riskier bet, they can do that and still be profitable. There's also loyalty program type incentives or promotional play. So if you wager $1,000, we're going to give you $10 bonus bet or or you can accrue points that can be used for bonus play. And then there's referral bonuses. So this is more in the acquisition environment, where if you refer somebody who isn't currently a gamer on the platform, you would get bonus bets based upon you pulling in your friends and family and acquaintances that may also be wagering on games. So those are the different types of questions. We do want to note that there has been quite a bit of chatter in the industry around these terms of free bets or risk free, because these are not necessarily may or may not be completely factual. And it kind of falls into the line of problem gaming and creating the image that you can wager for free. And there's actually been some recent regulatory violations for operators who have used these phrases. So I think as the Commission considers promotional play and considers responsible gaming, also thinking about how is that marketing marketing lost and tried to spin this to enhance and entice as many people as possible, but making sure that those those marketing efforts are factual and not are not in a realm that could could influence problem gaming. Or give the perception that there's certainly something that's free. Any questions on the types of offers? And I think this when we talk about promotional play, we're including all of those pieces. So we'll move on to the next one here. On the next slide. There's some examples we thought we would be helpful just for Commission's reference. There's there's there's that credits or bonus bets, and it's often for new signups. And you can see some examples here, as well as the boosted odds that that I referenced on the on the previous slide. Again, for reference on the next slide, we have the loyalty programs and here's some examples right up those of those pieces, referrals, and as well as VIP loyalty programs. On the next slide here is where we actually have the calculation. And this is I think where it's important to ensure that that everybody's on the same page as we talk about the the upcoming numbers, you know, handle is the total money or represented value. So the handle will include both cash wagers, as well as promotional play wagers. And so it's the entirety of play. And then payouts is the result of any winnings. So those winnings could be based upon a wager that was was driven by a promotional play or could be driven by an actual cash wager. The gross gaming revenue is traditionally the handle less payouts. So that's the GGR. That isn't the profit, but that's that's kind of the margin of the based on play. And then the whole percentage is based upon the GGR divided by the handle. So what's the whole percentage based on the handle and that handle can be inflated due to promotional play. GGR is going to also be higher if promotional play is included in that handle, right, the handle being the larger number. Often time and then the tax revenue would be kind of the usually it's the tax rate times the GGR. Now, the GGR calculation to Connor's point, there's a variety of different approaches in different states, but a vast majority take the GGR as is. But there are some that will reduce the GGR by promotional play. So that that reduces the GGR as well as the timing of those pieces. When we talk about GGR, there's going to be like a standard GGR, which would be handle, which includes promotional play, minus payouts, and then kind of an adjusted GGR, which would would be reduced by promotional play. That's the kind of the math component behind that. If we talk about the impacts of the tax revenue, and you can see that when we look at the handle here in Louisiana, this is a different table. Okay, I'm sorry, I skipped this one on my own slide. So this is how the impacts of these pieces can't apply. So Maryland recent, these are the two recently implemented environments here, comparable states. Maryland allowed for promotional play deductions, and Ohio has not yet allowed for promotional play deductions. You can see here the handles. Maryland is roughly, you know, roughly half of Ohio. You have the payouts. And you can see the promotions as a percent of the total handle. And Ohio had a significant amount of promotional play in that first month of operations in particular at 29.9%. There was a enormous amount of interest in Ohio. The gross gaming revenue calculation, Maryland did allow for promotions. And then you can see Ohio did not allow for promotional play deductions. And then the corresponding tax revenues are shown here. So the promotional percentage, you know, is basically there's a higher cost of acquisition in Ohio, like 29% of the handle was through acquisition and trying to get new players to join. And it does inflate the gross gaming revenue, the handle, but it will not reduce the taxes. In the Louisiana in market, they do allow to deduct promotions and also they allow to offset losses. So this is very, very favorable to the operators. And the taxes paid, you can see the handle is, you know, kind of in the $200,000 range, which is less than both Maryland and Ohio. And the taxes paid are reduced because of the promotional payouts that are allowed. Now the promotional payout in Louisiana, you'll notice in January was quite high at 28%. And then it came down quite a bit over the over time. And we have some water statistics that show kind of trends in promotional play that we'll be sharing at a later date. So as you look at the acquisition, I think the responsible gaming discussion, much of our research was not as detailed as what was previously presented. But I think it is consistent with what we've previously heard. I think of note as you think about the who is receiving promotional payouts and understanding the recipients of the promotional payouts and the concept of particularly online, meaning that there's always a notification on your phone. It's very accessible compared to other environments where even if I get a notification, I still need to get my car and drive to the casino and I need a park and I need to walk in. So there are some barriers to play in a traditional brick and mortar environment that are not that do not exist in the online sportsway during the world. So if you look at the statistics similar to what we heard already on the right side of the screen, sports betters are at least three times more likely to exhibit risk of behavior and at least five times more likely to report problem gaming if they bat more than once a week. And if you think about the kind of the promotional play and the aspect of promotional play and understanding that the recipients between 21 to 34 are regularly either playing every day, weekly or monthly. There's quite a bit of quite a significant number of players that fall into a higher risk environment where they are receiving these online wagers. And you can see based upon their play, how much they're wagering either in the frequency of that. So understanding the recipients of the promotional play is I think important as the gaming commission considers the decision making on policy. So the other implications of offering promotional play, I think similar to what you all have done in your various pieces of research, but understanding legal ages and the promotional pay wagers and the communications that go out as it relates to promotional play and what messaging goes out to the broader public, particularly when you're dealing with acquisition and what are those under age individuals hearing about promotional play and what that means. Obviously limiting the college and university advertising and controlling the digital media and website content and the messaging related to those pieces. As we kind of wrap up this kind of overview of promotional play, of note, there's been some recent regulatory violations in Ohio, which went live in January, related to sending out promotional mailers as well as using terminology like free or risk-free in their violations. So those are all implications and I think the promotional play element does provide kind of that risk that those that shouldn't be gambling are marketed to. So with that, what we thought we would do is unless there's any questions like just in general about promotional play like what it is and how it's calculated what we'd like to do is do a kind of a deeper dive on the actual financial data that we observed as part of our analysis of these representative states. Questions of Theresa and Collin commissions. I see a note from Commissioner Bryan. Commissioner Hill, are you all set right now? Commissioner Maynard. I just want to say I appreciate this. It's very helpful. Commissioner Skinner. Okay, I'm hearing that. I'm all set. Okay, great. Commissioner Hill. Okay. Yep, I'm all set. Okay, great. Thank you. All right then, Theresa, please continue. Sure, yeah, I'll take over from here, Madam Chair. Thank you. And as we jump into slide 25 here up, we analyzed the correlation between projected promotional play spending, you know, as a percent of total GGR and GGR annual growth rates of the temporary applicants in the Commonwealth. This chart on the screen illustrates the consolidated projected financial information by the temporary applicants that submitted promotional play projections. Please note that based on our poor temporary applicants, based on the poor temporary applicants that provided projected promotional play data, there is a positive correlation between projected promotional play as a percent of GGR and projected GGR growth rates in the Commonwealth. Of the four temporary applicants that provided projected promotional play data, all four casted, the highest promotional play is a percent of GGR in 2023 or year one, followed by or year one of operations, followed by significantly less promotional play dollars spending or estimates through the remaining projection periods. And in terms of promotional play dollars, the total promotional play of the poor applicants increases over time, but relatively lower on a percent of GGR basis. Higher GGR growth rates in the initial years may be partially due to other factors, including the initial surge of OSB play immediately following the legalization of OSB in the Commonwealth. And I think just on that slide, the one thing that really struck me on that previous slide is that ultimately the four applicants that did provide this level of detail all seem to conclude that about 20% once the market matures, about 20% of GGR would be related to promotional play. And just looking at very different applicants, very different backgrounds, very different perspectives, the fact that all four ended up very close to that 20% of GGR, which is similar to what we've seen in other states as well for the more mature market. So there's this kind of concept of we're going to go out and get a bunch of players, but then over time they intend to pull back their GGR to about 20% of their grossing. Going to slide 26, we analyzed the correlation between the projected promotional play dollars and hold rate percentage of the applicants. This chart illustrates the consolidated projection, projected financial information by the applicants. Directionally based on the consolidated view, there appears to be an inverse correlation between projected promotional plays, percent of GGR and hold rate percentage. However, it's worth noting there was a mix among the temporary, the four temporary applicants regarding the projected hold rate percentage. Two of the four applicants that provided promotional play projections assumed that hold rate percentage would increase over the projected period indicating that these applicants may assume an inverse correlation between projected promotional play activity and projected hold rate percentage performance. The other two applicants that provided promotional play projections assumed that hold rate percentage would remain constant over the projected period, indicating that these temporary applicants do not assume a strong correlation between promotional play activity and projected hold rate percentage performance. Additionally, the higher projected hold rate percentage in the later years, assumed by certain applicants, may be due to other factors, including the evolution of promotional play offered to players over time, including the not limited increased emphasis towards parlay wagering and lower odds offered to players. In slide 27, we analyzed the correlation between promotional play, again, as a percent of OSB GGR and the OSB GGR growth rates for the following selected states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado. And based on our analysis, we've currently concluded that insufficient publicly available data exists to determine a true correlation between promotional play as a percent of overall GGR and GGR growth rates for these presented states. For purposes of our analysis, RSN selected Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Colorado based on the availability of reported promotional play data among states that have legalized online sports voyager. It's also worth noting that 10 out of the 29 legalized states report promotional play data. States that legalized online sports spending were excluded from the analysis due to the generally limited reporting data that they provide on the subject. And then on slide 28, we analyzed the correlation between promotional play and hold rate percentage for the following selected states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Colorado. We've observed that there is, you know, an inverse correlation between promotional play and hold rate percentage, similar to the consolidated applicant data. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Colorado all demonstrated a higher portion of promotional play in 2021, as compared to 22. Their respective hold rate percentage increased over the same time period. However, higher hold rate percentage in the later years may suggest or be partially due to other factors, including favorable odds, promotional play offerings, which may have enticed new and legacy users to partly wagers or favorable odds offerings. And with that, I'll pause here to see if there are any questions or current slides that we've covered so far. Commissioners, not hearing any, Connor. Okay. Thank you. And so going forward, I'll hit upon some key slides that we wanted to present within this public review station. On slide 30, we analyzed the handle in the recently launched states of Maryland and Ohio. Maryland's performance had relatively low growth since launch in terms of OSB handled per adult. When Ohio legalized online sportsway during in January of 23, there was a very positive response in the community, which drove OSB handled to $234 per adult. The Ohio market then cooled in the second month of operation, the users are still betting in a relatively high level of $134 per adult. And if you recall on that though, the Ohio had a significant amount of promotional play. So that handle was heavily associated with promotional play of 29% of the year. So Ohio's numbers, particularly for that first month, are likely due to motion. And one thing I forgot, I omitted on this slide is that we did compare a trend line of Massachusetts actual results for March of 23. You could see that that red trend line of roughly about $102 per adult is more similarly in line with Maryland's performance. We analyze promotional play as a percent of total GGR for the recently launched states. Maryland launched with 246% of promotional play as a percentage of GGR in November of 22. But declined to roughly 25% in March 2023. Similarly, Ohio's promotional play as a percentage of GGR was 156% in the first month of operations, then declined to 72% the following month. Albeit, still it is turning some mentioned a higher level than Maryland's in their fifth month of operation. We also took a look at analyzing the promotional play as a percent of total GGR for the established states. The key observations here are that in Connecticut's first quarter of online sports betting operators promotional play was 49% of GGR. This metric has decreased over time as one would expect in a low point in Q4 of 22 of 21% of GGR. RSM also analyzed the GGR per adult to compare and gain a better understanding of the demographics of recently launched states of Maryland and Ohio. Interestingly, Ohio generated a GGR of $44 per adult for the month of January 23 that experienced a sharp decline to roughly $18 per adult for the month of February. This could be due to excessive promotional campaigns during the first month of launch which was presented earlier in the deck, which proves to be the similar trend in year one for the Massachusetts applicant and their financial projections. And so to conclude our public portion of our presentation, we wanted to touch on the recent performance of Fandill and Drapkins as they currently represent approximately 70% of the Massachusetts market share. We wanted to illustrate here to the commission that the Fandill currently has adequate liquidity of approximately $2.5 billion and has been running a positive EBBA margin percentage over the last several years going back to 2017. We've illustrated Fandill's most recent projected EBBA margin on slide 46 where you can see it as evidenced by a positive EBBA margin over the last several years. We did provide an estimate per S&P Capital IQ based on historic performance where they do project that positive EBBA margin to persist through 2028. And Drapkins is showing improved EBBA margin percentage for the most recent fiscal year ended 2022. Analysts are projecting a positive EBBA margin percentage beginning in 2024 as revenue continues to grow at double digit positive compound annual growth rate through 2028. Additionally, as illustrated on slide 49 this increased EBBA margin performance is likely attributed to lower selling general administrative spending as a percent of revenue. Also on slide 51 it appears that the Drapkins also has approximately has adequate liquidity with approximately $1.3 billion in cash which per our analysis is sufficient to meet their historical capex or capital expenditures spending and their working capital run rate. And with that that this concludes our sense public portion of today's presentation. I'll pause there for questions before we head to executive session. Christians, do you want to go back to any slides here? Do you have any questions about how they'll take down this PowerPoint if you don't have any good questions? Thanks. General questions that you may have before we consider whether we're going to go into executive session. Okay. So as you know, commissioners the RSM in the past public executive sessions when appropriate and today the same thing holds if we decide to vote into the executive session I have to read into to record language from the Chapter 30A for us to consider it. The commission anticipates that it may meet in executive session in accordance with general laws Chapter 30A section 21A7 general laws chapter 23 and section 6 I in order to review financial projections including revenue and handle provided by category one and category three sports wagering licenses sees as part of the respective applications for an operator license as analyzed by RSM USLLP in the context of the taxation of promotional play as such information is competitively sensitive and if disclosed publicly would place the respective applicant now temporary licensee adding competitive disadvantage. The open section of the commission meeting will reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session should we so vote. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair I move that we go into executive session on the matters and for the reasons just stated by the chair. Second. Thank you Commissioner Hill. Okay any questions or edits? Okay Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Mayer. Aye. And I vote yes. With that we will move into executive session but for those attending um we will reconvene in our public session. So thank you everyone. We will be asked to join and we will be asked to just a moment. That's Lou Gehrig man. That was pretty cool. I think I'm responsible for that sorry. I'm assigning people now currently. All right. I think I have added oh wait a minute I think I actually maybe listen. Yep I forgot the RSM team they're kind of important let me add them over right now. And don't forget my phone number. It's the 619 number right? Yes it is. Perfect thank you. All right if anybody else is here that is not been added please feel free to let me know. Dave don't forget me. Got you right now Bruce. I'll talk to you. Thank you. I'll set Dave. I'll set also. Thank you. Everybody made it out of the other room. It's auto closing in the next 45 seconds so if anybody hasn't built the automatically put back in. That's great. We don't want anyone lost in space there Dave. Love that show. I was going to say Brad did you like that show? I was just. Of course I did. I loved it so I was wondering if this was a new it was a show. I'm a sci-fi fan but I can't say I've seen. Oh no. Oh danger danger. Oh is that what that is Will Robinson that's that show. Okay. That almost sounds like a staff meeting requirement for lunch entertainment. All right. I was trying to think Dr. Smith was the other one. Is that Julie? Julie the daughter? I don't know. I'm having a brain cramp. I can't remember. There was Penny and then there was a then there was a mother. And probably combining them now. Yeah. Okay. I think we have everyone all the commissioners are back. This is a as we chat about lost in space that we referenced our virtual setting here. That requires me to do a roll call. So Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. All right. So this is a reconvening of the gaming commission Tuesday May 23rd public meeting number 455 and we did enjoy the benefit of an executive session with our financial advisors, RSM US LP. And before we get too far down into our agenda, we learned that a question was posed during our executive session. There were some responses made to it that but it really was a topic that belongs in the public session. So we'll repeat the question and some of the answers that were provided and perhaps we even have a more fulsome answer we don't know yet. So Commissioner Hill, you asked the question and it was a very good one. So I wanted to know out of all the jurisdictions that are in place who taxes promo play how many tax promo play and how many do not. And Commissioner Hill, is it fair that it's also did you want to know the ones that fully tax and the hybrid Okay, so there's choices. Thank you. And then we had some responses. So I'll turn it back to Teresa and company. Well, I want to reflect me to feel these so you want to go through it. Connors, so we have a list of 31 states that have legalized the OSB betting. The ones that have no exclusions out of the 31. So no, not excluding promotional play is there's 23. The ones that have partial exclusions are three. Promotions excluded completely are three. And then ones that are are hybrid are two. So the vast majority have no have no exclusions of promotional play from the tax base. And do you want to just say which I think during our private our executive session we learned at least we discussed that Louisiana and Pennsylvania were two of the ones that completely deducted Como play from taxes. And now you have a third one Connor. Yes. So was it Michigan that got brought up? Yeah. So the ones that that exclude promotional play include Arizona Maryland Pennsylvania and then a correction on that Louisiana does as well. So we we just we just noted 23 don't allow exclusions but it's actually 22 that don't allow exclusions. And so there's four that exclude fully. Yes. Yeah. There's four that exclude Arizona Maryland Pennsylvania and Louisiana. I think that covers what was discussed in the executive session but Commissioner Hill do you have a follow-up question or does anyone else have a follow-up question on those jurisdictions? I appreciate that. Thank you Madam Chair. Okay. I'll turn to Todd. Council Grossman are we covered? Yes. I think that's right on point. Okay. Excellent. All right. Now additional questions. So as I mentioned at the beginning of this meeting as we move into the substance. Actually I want to I want to do a correction there on that. I just want to go through the excluded states just to make sure we got them all right. It's Arizona Connecticut or Connecticut's a partial. So it's Arizona Maryland Pennsylvania and the Louisiana. So we did have those four. Connecticut's a partial and they're different. Partial, yeah they're great. Yeah. Okay. So again just to return to our agenda when we started out today's meeting substantively we heard from Mark Van Der Linden our director of research and responsible gaming and he apprised us the implications of responsible gaming with respect to tax deduction for promo play. We just heard both in public and executive session analysis from RSM USLLPS to the implications financially for the state and the operators with respect to promotional play being a deduction that can allow for tax deduction. And as I indicated the beginning of this discussion we came today because the majority a three of the five of us had concluded that the relevant law which we have discussed at length and other sessions with the benefit of our outside council with the benefit of our legal department we've looked into promotional playing from other angles that Commissioner O'Brien Commissioner O'Brien you can I want you to chime in and I felt that the law itself was clear and didn't permit promo play to be a tax deduction I'll let Commissioner O'Brien if you want to just chime in on that. No I agree I don't think there's any ambiguity in that for what it's worth to accept there was we got a you know I don't know if it's scathing but we got a pretty clear letter from representatives of the Senate President's Office in terms of what the legislature's position was on that I haven't changed my view that I think that it was clear that it's taxable and it's not within our purview. Right and I think part of them the benefit for me of the legal analysis was that we also have evidence of what we felt was strong legislative intent where the House had included language to allow for tax deduction and then the Senate took that language out and ultimately after joint conference what landed on the governor's desk was the version that reflected the Senate with the language on promo play being tax deductible taken out. So Commissioner O'Brien and I were aligned on the other three Commissioner Hill Commissioner Skinner Commissioner Maynard you had some you interpreted I'll let you speak for yourselves in terms of the interpretation of the law but the three said ultimately it's ambiguous enough that we find ourselves wanting to think about and decide how to interpret the law and so the today was a chance for the three commissioners to think about the policy implications and Commissioner O'Brien and I are the beneficiaries of that additional policy discussion. I have to add Commissioner O'Brien and I've always felt that the policy discussion that we had today was discussions that I I'll only assume that our informed legislature and informed governor's office also considered when they decided to pass the bill and then the governor signed into law. So now I'm going to turn to the three of you I'll stop talking because this was just to set the stage but now Commissioner Hill Commissioner Skinner Commissioner Maynard the stage is yours. I'll let you proceed. May I? So I'm one of the three commissioners who believe that 23N was not clear on this issue. I still believe that we were counseled and I'm not violating any attorney client privilege because it was repeated publicly that the sports wagering act either requires nor prohibits the commission from determining promotional gaming credit should be subject to tax that's a great quote. And the absent and expressed prohibition the law in the Commonwealth is clear that an agency or regulatory body has broad discretion. In fact, some of the research I did and brought up in December when we talked it was quote first priority when interpreting statutes that the agency is charged with ministry. I still think that the history here is murky murky and individual legislators you know obviously we have to take the legislation as a whole. That said, I had time to reflect upon our meetings in December and January regarding promotional play. We did receive various letters from legislators feedback from the attorney general's office. Actual revenue data post launch we've seen it. Information from director Vander Linden today. Information from RSM. In short, I believe that the legislature intended to include promotional play within a sports wagering operators gross sports wagering receipts on that early August 1st morning. That's my interpretation as a regulator charged with implementing 23 yet. Therefore, I content with with ending this what seems to be perpetual promotional play discussion and give some stability to the operators interested in hearing what Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Skinner say, but I would be prepared to move today. I'm trying to be a gentleman, Madam Chair, but I don't see Commissioner Hill. I don't I don't see a Commissioner Hill. Go right ahead. I think now the two of you taking away Commissioner Hill. So you all know how I feel philosophically about taxes. And when it comes to businesses and trying to help out our businesses never possible. If you look at what's going on in the legislature as we speak, they're concerned with businesses staying here in Massachusetts. They're concerned with people staying here in Massachusetts. They're actually looking to try and give tax breaks in certain ways to be able to do just that. So I've always felt if we can give a break to our businesses that we should do that. I look at all the incentives that we give our businesses to try and help them start a new business. And here we are in a new industry and we're trying to help these folks do well in this industry and do well for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I look at the economic opportunity areas throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where we help businesses come to those areas and give them a tax break for five years. And then they ultimately pay the full tax after that five years to try and get in and try to get the infrastructure, try to get the employees that they can get up and running. Philosophically that's how I truly feel. And if I was still in the legislature, that's probably how I would vote on an issue like this as I did once before. However, after some reflection and I think that's a very good word, Commissioner Maynard, and after hearing the details of what some of our experts have told us, as a regulator and someone who's looking out at this industry and looking out for what's best for Massachusetts, I think what we need to do moving forward and again, stability is a very good word. So send the word to our licensees that you will not get the exclusion that you will be taxed on promo play. And the reason I say that is for two reasons. One, it benefits the commonwealth in terms of tax. But more importantly, if I for a second think that we're taking money away from the health care trust fund that can help the people that we are all the most concerned about and that is people who may have a problem with gambling. I really would feel that I wasn't doing my job. We all agree and I can speak for myself when I voted for 23K and for 23, partial 23N. I didn't vote for 23N but one version of it. The concern of making sure that we are there to help those with problem gaming has always been at the forefront. And if these dollars a portion of these dollars are going into that health care trust fund to do that, I am not going to step in the way and stop any funding from going into that trust fund. So although philosophically I really do believe we can and should help our businesses in terms of helping those who need the help in terms of problem gaming that's more important for this discussion and for the position that I currently sit in. So although I feel as a commissioner that we do have the legal right to make a decision and I still do believe that in terms of policy we should move forward with the status quo and I would just add and please correct me if I'm wrong anybody. I haven't heard from any operator and no one has reached out to me to say please don't tax this and we have quite a few operators now in business here in Massachusetts. If it was such an issue I would have thought there would be a huge outcry from our operators. I haven't heard a peep from any of them in regards to this and when I see and got my answer and I thank you madam chair on the amount of jurisdictions who do tax I mean 23 out of 29 I think it was a 24 out of 29 it shows me that this we're not out of the realm of what we're trying to do here. We're not going to be like the only jurisdiction in the United States of America who's taxing promo play and I'm comfortable knowing that we're not. So with that said those are my remarks moving forward there's no reason why we wouldn't continue doing what we're doing. Thank you madam chair. Patricia Skinner. Well Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill we've covered a lot of ground and made this quite easy for me. That was by design I think. I'm in alignment with the both of you generally. You know I I go back to the legal advice that we were given months back. Like you Commissioner Maynard I struggle with you know the the way that that discussion unfolded the way that you know some of the developments occurred and so I'm not going to revisit my determination that the commission does have the authority to interpret that definition of gross gaming revenue. What I and I'm going to step back because I need to thank RSM Connor Theresa for all their time and effort during the deep dive that they did so that we can be better educated as to whether or not deduction of promo play makes sense from Massachusetts. I'm going to keep it simple. I don't think it's the right direction policy wise from Massachusetts at the time and that's based on the totality of the information that I've received. Both today prior meetings from Mark from RSM and from information that's in the public realm. I do not think that promo play is right for the Commonwealth right now. Okay as to next steps. I actually have a motion that legal was happy to look over during the short break but I'm ready to move. Actually before you do that Commissioner Maynard I do want to speak because Madam Chair you and I restricted our commentary to truly sort of the background discussion of whether or not we thought we had regulatory authority but I do want my voice on the record in terms of in light of the 3 to 2 vote that was there before I have been pretty vocal in terms of RG in this industry that stepped into the Commonwealth and in addition to what the three commissioners have spoken before me in terms of exercising to judge judgment on this what I would say is that in addition to looking at the fact that the vast majority of other jurisdictions tax it if not entirely at least partially I do think when you look at the genesis of the bill being a tax bill the negative impact of allowing that deduction would hit the coffers of the Commonwealth that would then inhibit their ability to not only do responsible gaming but also just in general given the funds that the revenue here feeds I have a belief also that any sort of deduction for promo play would likely lead to an increase in the offerings of the promo plays which would have an RG impact would also have an impact in my view on the advertising that would then go out and into the marketplace and we have already been receiving quite a lot of feedback in terms of the frustration that people have with the promo play and the advertising that's already going on in the industry unlike the brick and mortar the vast majority of these new licensees aren't bringing the job to the Commonwealth that the brick and mortar did and so while I hear and respect Commissioner Hill I do have to say I think there's a distinction between these businesses and some of the businesses that he's talking about and the the licensees for the brick and mortar so all in well I still believe that this was a statutory decision made before 23 and got to us to the extent that there is an agreement by majority that it is within our discretion and authority I think for the reasons stated and for those reasons absolutely that the promo play deduction should not be part of the definition of the adjusted gross sports wage during receipts in the statute Commissioner Brennan I'm aligned with your your statement and aligned with the commitment and I think I can speak for all of us with respect to the interest that we have taken with respect to being real responsible stewards of the consumer protections that we expect in this industry and you know the responsible gaming tools that we make available it's all part of it and of course it was pointed out today by Mark Vanderland and in his memorandum the impact that the deductions would have on the public health trust one which of course does help fund our programs but of course is a direct link to the public health provision that's needed for any of those who suffer from problem gambling so again I I echo your remarks and I do believe that at the time that this 23 and was enacted into law the legislature and the governor's office had access the information that we had and also I would based on the the law that we were given to implement we had the same sensibilities that we share and so that's why I think the you know on policy and the language itself attacks that promo place should not be deducted so I thank you for that summary and I appreciate today the input from RSM and and our research and response to gaming so I think all of us have echoed that into our colleagues at RSM Teresa and Connor excellent job with that is everyone all set Commissioner Maynard you would like to I think you are just slightly interrupted please go right ahead and I I appreciate that interruption and and appreciate everything that of you and Commissioner Brian said before I move I just want to state again that you know I'm doing this because I do believe that the intended legislature was to include promotional play within a sports wagering operators gross sports wagering receipts so I move the commission find that funds received by a sports wagering operator that were issued and those that will be issued to a patron for the purposes of promotional play shall be included in the calculation of the sports wagering operators adjusted gross sports wagering receipts but I offer a friendly amendment that that also include the term that is in the definition of promotional gaming credit yes is also included within the definition of adjusted gross sports wagering receipts I accept that friendly amendment and I would second Mr. Hill Commissioner Skinner questions edits do you want nope also do we need it to be rebad nope okay we're all set all right Commissioner Brian aye Commissioner Hill aye Commissioner Skinner aye Commissioner Maynard aye I vote yes so five zero all right great work everyone all right so now we're going to turn to our sports wagering division it's item number five on today's agenda I understand that Carrie Terese our our council will be leading this and then we have director Chief Band thank you Madam Chair chime in oh and I see we have Annie joining us too so thank you yeah Madam Chair Commissioner Deputy General Council Carrie Taurese myself or before you today concerning 205 CMR 255 which is play management this was adopted by the emergency regulation on May 9th and the sports wagering division on May 12th started to get requests for a waiver of this regulation from various mobile sports betting operators for various parts of the regulation as far as implementation if you would like specifics we will go into that but I also would like to let you know that GLI thought all the requests were reasonable and that they would like to actually inspect the software prior to being used we also got word from Mark's group is that that they thought that the request were reasonable as well for as far as his group you have questions for us everyone has had a chance to review the memorandum in our packet the extension is all varying right from operator to operator Chief Band how do you feel about it I think it's reasonable requests anytime you put a new thing into software it can cause problems so I would rather have this all work properly and not have any issues with their current software thank you Madam Chair yes so Bruce the only question I have is as I'm looking at the request the dates are pretty significantly different some are much you know some are all the way out to September I believe some are in June and I personally don't think I have an issue with that but I think I need to hear from you why there's such a big difference in getting it up and running well I know that certain ones like bar schools are actually switching their software come beginning of July to a totally new software platform so we'll probably take them a little longer to get you know into the software each one has little different issues with their platform and getting this installed and as well as the test time for their platform like I say that's the reason we had GLI review the requests who are familiar with everybody's software so I don't think any of them are unreasonable I would rather have a comfort level with what they're doing and you know that we get this all operating smoothly and did you hear from our operators this can be done with no issues if given the time that's all what they indicated to us yes okay thank you Bruce and thank you Madam Chair thank you are there any operators that did not request an extension or waiver excuse me there are seven requests from the seven operators so yes thank you just looking for that confirmation and just I have a specific question about the waiver request for 255.03 where it requires conspicuous display of a message describing the available limitations for sports wagering there are two components there's that one and then there's the two components to this particular reg there's the one I just described the one I just read and then there's also the affirmative acknowledgement so is it that regulation as a whole meaning those two requirements that the operators are struggling with or is it one piece versus the other so I guess you know I don't have a problem granting the waiver but if there's any way to mitigate some of these issues there's some of the harm right the short-term harm to the patrons who are not getting the benefit of these protections then I want to entertain that discussion so is there a way to determine from the operators whether they can just you know get the display portion of the reg I'm sure I could get that answer for you Mr. Skinner but I'm not the tech guy here so I can't totally answer that I wish I could but I can get the answers for you you know to answer your question if I could add also Commissioner Skinner the operators are required still under a different regulation I believe it's 247 to offer these limitations to patrons this is just a more detailed regulation outlining those limitations so it's still a requirement it's just some of these technical pieces my guess would I don't know but my guess would be it's something about that affirm or decline option that isn't already built into their system but they are still required to notify the patrons of the option yeah or that you know what I guess my point is you know if there are any temporary I guess substitutions to accomplish the same goal for some of these like the conspicuous display for instance an email a direct email to the patron in notifying them of the availability of the enrollment of these responsible gaming features I think that would I think that you know would be a good thing so if there's any way we can endeavor to try to understand you know which aspects where there are multiple components to to a regulation which aspects operators are having difficulty within to try to to make a request actually that they mitigate wherever possible using other methods to accomplish the same objective I guess well I I can get those answers for you if commissioners Skinner I can't answer for you off the top of my head thank you so Commissioner Skinner I did just pull up the other reg just to make sure I was certain on what it said it's 248.16 and it does require that sports wagering operators allow patrons to set self-imposed limitations on sports wagering at any time including when the patron signs up for sports wagering accounts all right so the the ridiculous display or I guess on the you know on a prominent space on the platform is on top of what they're already required to do in that regulation you decided exactly it's just a bit more specific the affirm or deny excuse me enroll or decline enrolling it seems just requires an additional checkbox or something like that for them one of the regulations requires you know a static link on the website where it's always there perhaps some of them don't have it static it appears at certain times and not at others so just you know they are they are required to do it it's just some of these really specific details that we included in 255 that they're not quite built up right now to to align with thank you Carrie other questions for chief and one for attorney turn to see okay not a question more of a comment I think in one of the letters from the operators there was a reference to the data that we are looking for in connection with 255 04 five the requirement is to have the operator produce monthly reports containing data and other information regarding the play management program just putting that on the commission's radar to come back to in the very near future aside from it being mentioned in the operators letter I can't remember which letter that's one that I flagged when I read through the play management regulations and preparations for this meeting well we did have a discussion about keeping it consistent with the requirements for play my way which is monthly that's why it says monthly I think Bruce if you could or or I mean it's that if we have the guidance to give right now on some level could you perhaps respond to the operator yes I will respond to them yes okay so I think we are looking for action today by this meeting temporary waivers for these operators any other questions or questions I think all of us share desire to have these matters addressed and if they are able to come in earlier than the deadlines that's really would be helpful right but we understand that they establish these these deadlines and we presume in good faith and so we'll come from there commissioner hill you're leaning in I'm leaning in asking my fellow commissioners would you like one big motion or would you like to do these separately I think commissioner hill will go with your usual preference to do separate what do you think commissioner o'bride I'm fine with it it just would mean a recitation of the relevant date to the operator right well some of them because aren't they all some of them are different right or correct some of my request for different requirements as long as it's really clear right commissioner Carrie I was just going to say that they're they're different provisions and different dates but you could you know do the overarching motion and then list out the provisions and the date to be like by operator I think I can go ahead and do each one we've been laid out pretty well well then I will do then I will do the first one then Madam Chair thank you I would move oh no just to just a clarification so fan dual has they're seeking a waiver from a provision that it's in 255.022 it says no default limitations shall be imposed by sports wagering operators fan dual is looking for a default limitation in limiting the amount of the deposit to 25 not more than $2,500 for patrons under the age of 25 so 21 to 24 is there a discussion to be had there Carrie I didn't see that in your motion yeah apologies commissioner Skinner I must have missed that one in their letter no worries I think that is a provision that requires consideration of their request to waive first do you have any background on the is it Fandall or Butter is it fan I think it's Fandall so better it apparently had the cap on the 21 to 25 okay it might be better it was 24 and that's better that was asked like so better asks for that they're the ones who came in sort of from the get-go saying they had those you're right you're right Fandall had a different waiver request under 255 022 oh I see commissioner Skinner my apologies I think I read this yes I read this thing correctly when looking at it if if possible if we could take maybe five minutes I could look at this briefly and add to the motions or if you'd like to just discuss discuss now that's fine as well one better the $2,500 excuse me was better thank you for sure Brian for that correction but can we just make sure we understand Fandall's waiver requests pursuant to that same provision and better better is included right we're all set with that or I think that's both right no bad I'm at 25 255.02 so better better has a separate request in terms of a waiver from 255.06 which is the it's a 2500 and now I'm a under 25 and Fandall also has a waiver request under that same that same section 250 that's actually I can I can look see where so is it 250 I don't have a reg in front of me is it 255.06 or is it 255.02 two see the second page you read them in conjunction well yeah looking for an additional limitation do you want to have they flagged that they would run a file of the two and so they also flagged 255.06 they would need a waiver from that as well so we're just looking at better correct I don't see a request for a waiver from that section in Fandall they did read the question about it which is why they included their request for a waiver while we sort of assess that question but I do see it in the better letter but in the better letter I guess I'm just wondering it's certainly know that better would restrict 205.06 in the process and blah blah blah and then they're asking for immediate 205.02 205.02 two so I just thought I thought you covered it Kerry in your your motion language just so you know that's I don't know there's no reference in the draft language that addresses the 255.06 yeah but I guess I'm wondering is it needed that's my question they do have the 202.06 it's 255.03 that Kerry has covered in the current better motion but right 550.02 is not covered nor is 255.06 032 I know it's my glasses 022 and 032 got it 022 Kerry on the Fandall question well there's And this is really to the commissioners. Fan Joel is looking to where there is a. An individual seeking to unenroll in the case of a daily limit. It won't be unenrollment won't take effect until 72 hours following the request. Weekly updated seven days. Monthly updated 30 days. So I think the weekly and monthly. Are in line with what's required under the reds that the. The time frames for, for when they go into effect changes. But I don't know if the daily. Meets the requirement there. It's not effective until 72 hours. So beyond the day or 24 hours. So I don't know if there needs to be a specific, specific language in this motion. To grant that waiver or not. They did request a waiver from that provision in its entirety. They, they also have asked the question as to whether their current timeframes could be considered. They've been discussing among legal as to whether that falls within the provision that allows for additional limitations or whether changes to sort of the parameters of enrollment. Don't constitute additional limitations. So that's why for today, we sort of just brought the waiver request to you. And we let them know that we would, we would look further into that issue. And then we try to get that resolved before their waiver on that section. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to know from my own edification, whether you considered the question or not. So. I mean, it's up to us on our motions anyway. So can. Sorry, Madam chair. So I think the commissioner scanner is correct that there would be one provision missing from the motion. Which would be this, this one from better related to 255.022. If you do want to grant that waiver, but I don't see that they've included a timeframe. No, I think their hope is that, that's a, they want an immediate waiver. And then I think their hope is that that's something that will be continued to be allowed. We'd have to adjust the reg. I think we flagged this at some point, this came up, maybe commissioner scanner flag that there was a, we realized that we were stopping them from doing something we liked, which was putting limits on under 25. They're looking for this to be their default. Limitations. Right. Yeah. So I, the language I was thinking of and carry, you can tell me if this adjusted, which it wouldn't put a time limit on it, but it would specify the limit that they're doing. So if the language said. After the 0.044 request to say and. 255.022 in connection with the specified under 25 years of age limit. Yes. Sorry. I think it would be limiting it so that we don't give them too broad of a waiver from 255.04. I mean, sorry, 255.022. But we're only giving them that waiver as to their specified limits on people under the age of 25. And so if we say the waiver only applies to that offering, we're not giving them a waiver that's overly broad. That sort of swallows the whole reason that we had. So we're not giving them a waiver for 255.022 in there. But Carrie, I want, I think that works, but I, I want Carrie to. Give me your thoughts on it. Yeah. No, I think that makes sense. That's very specific. And then you can leave the timeframe. You know, not include any timeframe. And of course you can always revisit. Should you change your minds about that? Or if you want to revisit the reg as well. Right. Okay. Let's start with that. I'll move that in accordance with 205 CMR. 202.023. The commission issue a waiver to bed and GM from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR. 255.031. 255.032 and 255.033 through August 10th. 2023. As granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR, 102.034. And it's consistent with the purposes of general laws, chapter 23. And. Thank you. Any questions on that? Carrie, you feel good about it? Yep. I think that sounds great. Thank you. Okay. All right. Hearing no edits or concerns. Commissioner. Hi. For sure. Hi. Commissioner. Skinner. Hi. Fisher made. All right. Five zero. Moving on to better. Certainly. I move that. In accordance with 205 CMR. 202.023. The commission issue a waiver to better hold and same TVA better. From the requirements outlined in 205. 255.032. Through August 17th of 2023. The commission issue a waiver to better hold and same TVA better. From the requirements outlined in 205. 255.032. Through August 17th of 2023. From the requirements outlined in 205. CMR. 255.044. Through July 2nd 2023. And a waiver. Of two. Of 255.022. Only in connection with the specified under 25 years of age limit, including the commissioner's packet. As granting the waivers meets the requirements specified in 205. CMR. 102.034. And it's consistent with the purposes of general laws. Chapter 23. Thank you. Any questions or concerns? Gary, I'll set on that. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Mr. Brian. Aye. Mr. Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Mr. Layners. Aye. Mr. Hill. Aye. Mr. Hill. Aye. Mr. Hill. Aye. Yes. Fine. Moving on to draft. Can. Okay. I moved that in accordance with 205. CMR. 202.023. The commission issue a waiver to draft kings from the requirements outlined. In 205. CMR. 255. 255. 255. 255. 255. 255. 255. It's a requirement specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23N. Second. Okay, any concerns or edits? Carrie, I'll set. I'll set, thank you. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote that's five. Okay. Moving on to fanatics, theory question or waiver? I have a motion. I will get in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023, the commission issue waiver to FBG Enterprises OPCO LLC, DBA Fanatics. From the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.032 through August 31st, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirement specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23N. Second. Any questions, concerns, edits? Carrie, are we all set? I'll set. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Okay. Now we're moving to Fanduil. And Fanduil is on page 95. Do I have a motion? I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023, the commission issue a waiver to Fanduil from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.031 and 205 CMR 255.044 through May 31st, 2023, from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.032 through July 17th, 2023, and from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.032 through July 31st, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23. Second. Thank you. Any edits, concerns? Carrie, are you all set? I'll set. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So 5-0, now I'm moving to PSI. Now it's moving it down to page 100. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023, the commission issue a waiver to Penn Sports Interactive doing business as Barstool Sportsbook from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.033 through September 30th, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23. Second. Any questions, concerns, edits? Carrie. I'll set. Excellent. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. Now I vote yes. 5-0, now we're on to Wynn-Bett. The last one. On page 104. Very last page of our project. I have a motion. Madam Chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023, the commission issue a waiver to Wynn-Bett from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.021A until June 20th, 2023, and from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.032 through August 31st, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23. Second. Any questions or edits? Madam Chair, could I just make one suggestion there? And this isn't, this is, I apologize, this is my fault. On the June 20th date I wrote until and August, all the other dates I wrote through. So you may want to make the June 20th date also through just to be clear. Does somebody want to make that amendment, please? I offer that as a friendly amendment. I accept. Okay. I accept. Thank you. All right. With that, Mr. Ryan. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. I vote yes, five, zero. All right. That's a little more. Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Chair, for item six, do we have other business to attend to today? I'm not hearing any. Must mean that the only other business is a motion to adjourn. I don't need Kerry's help with that one. Move to adjourn. I have a second. Second. I just wanted to pause and just thank everyone. Commissures, if you would like to do so, I offer you the opportunity, but we've had two productive days here. Monday and Tuesday, we're gonna see each other in the morning for our gender-studying meeting. We might have a break on Thursday and Friday, but I know we'll be busy working and our team will be very busy getting us ready for our next public meeting. So thank you to the team. Thank you to my fellow commissioners. Anyone wanna add anything? All set. All right. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And thank you to Executive Director Wells. I vote yes. Have a good day, everyone.