 Okay. Good morning. This is a meeting of Massachusetts Gaming Commission holding this virtually so I'll do a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Mayer. Good morning. I'm here. All right, we'll get started. I think I just need to make one clarification because our communications director and I noted that this morning there was one local news program that had a scrolling that the Gaming Commission would be acting on the applications that we in fact acted on yesterday. So our decisions with respect to the six category three untethered online sports waging applications made yesterday and six were approved. Mills has issued a press release and other communications will be going out. But again, that was excellent work completed around three o'clock January 19. So today's agenda. It's the agenda that rules for so many meetings extended to today later today, but we will not be meeting in that public meeting that work is complete. For now. Thank you. So we'll get started with your ministry update Karen, please thank you. So the agenda item that I'd asked to be included this morning is just to confirm what we would like the commission would like to do for a start time so the expectation is that sometime next week the application certificate approval with rock before the commission they will get hopefully the approval of everything goes well. And then a launch date for the category one casino properties on the 31st but it's important to note what what time is the actual go live time on the 31st. My suggestion is that we do a 10am start. It's helpful to not do a start time at a really busy time not at, you know, six or 7pm because we want to make sure the flow of people coming in is not too overwhelming at the beginning for public safety reasons. So that is why that there's that recommendation. And then I know the commissioners are planning on going to each of the properties starting with MGM and then going to ppc and then ebh on that first day so that's why I was thinking I have a little bit of lead time to get organized and get there for the 10am start so that's my recommendation, but before I notify any of the properties of the start time I just wanted to make sure the commission was okay with that and and that work for them and if they have any questions on the start time, Bruce and I are available to answer those. It can be done offline it's just I'm actually presiding over a reg hearing that I think has to happen that morning. We just need to just figure out how I can do that out in Springfield. We have been talking about that internally to make sure that happens for you, and that you can do that so we will figure out because that starts at nine and that's another reason to start a test actually is because you have that nine o'clock matter, and we don't any of the commissioners missing out on that first day. I mean we'll all join you if you'd like. I think everybody can have their, their hour, I will, I will take the early morning on that one. Okay, thanks. And it should work out. Just fine. Who is that carry will you be doing that with Michelle Brian carry or Judy. Judy. Yeah, I think it's Judy yeah. Excellent. Thank you. Adam chair. Yes, if you're looking for feedback I think 10 o'clock, a good, a good time to do it, and gives us time to get out there. And I would, I would be okay with that time. Okay. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Skinner. I'm good. Sounds great. Okay, so I think that that's the plan I will keep everyone posted as we go through the final verification process on the kiosk and all that. And keep you posted, you know we do have meetings next week we do have to do the operation certificate so this is a plan and process. Okay, that's my zoom thing on there. The licensees and is on track for the 31st. Yep. Yep, so we're still there's still a little bit of back and forth on the internal controls the house rules, but the testing so far, pardon me, I keep getting that incorrect. I'm not testing its verification on site is in fact going well so Bruce is actually out at EDH today while they're doing where they're doing that today so we are moving along as scheduled. Okay, thanks. Okay, that's all I have for the Israel update today. Excuse me, excuse me in my effort to clarify what happened yesterday. I forgot to say what's happening today and it is January 20, and it's public meeting number 425. So for the record we have that in place will move on to legal item number three on our agenda, and we're going to also have regulations again thank you to the legal team in housing and outside council, where. Your consistent excellent going works. Thank you. Thank you good morning madam chair and commissioners. So in your packet, beginning on page five you have an updated draft of 205 CMR 256 the sportsways during advertising regulations. As you'll recall you had a lengthy discussion on these regulations on January 12. And we've made some updates based on those conversations. So I'm going to go back for your review so I'm just going to turn it right over to being a material from Anderson and Krieger to walk us through those changes. Good morning everyone. As Carrie mentioned, there is starting at page five and your packet the red line version of 205. By the way just to note it's page five of the PDF but it is marked at the top as packet page three case there's any confusion so I'll try to to know both if we need to. There are no changes to 250 601 third parties, or 5602 or three for that matter so that on the following pages where you start seeing changes this is under false or misleading advertising. The first change you'll see here is just a move of the requirement that no employee or vendor of a sports waging operator, encourage a particular wager or specific type of wager. All we move this so that we could keep the fall this will have a for in front of it. I apologize it's just the way the formatting shows up on a red line to keep numbers five and six together because they were more closely linked. Based on our conversation. Number five is the provision we discussed last time with respect to what has to be disclosed for a promotion of sports wagering we took out the words or free to avoid confusion with the provisions in six, which now are updated in a couple of fairly small ways. One we we framed it in the negative. As I mentioned at the outset of last meeting. We were trying to kind of get the, the best of all different different states regulations that for the most part was a good thing it didn't mean that sometimes we were following different phraseology from from different states so we aligned that a little better in this one I hope. The, that's the only real change to six. So I think this hopefully flows better now and is responsive to those edits before I go on to advertising to youth any, any questions about those those changes. And I should mention at the outset, just in line with what I just said. Prior to last meeting we had surveyed the states that sort of raised a couple over, over the meeting but really a lot of the ones that have been placed before then. Just last week, the state of Maine announced its sports wagering advertising rags among others. I'm happy with those. I'm happy to say that for the most part, we have the same or more detailed versions on almost all the false or misleading advertising pieces. There are some places where they had had done some things that we did not include in this draft there's one place where we'll talk about where we borrowed from them. And that but the exceptions that I am recalling and this may not be an exclusive list are they were explicit for instance about advertisements for sports wagering that also included tobacco, or alcohol. It's our opinion that you probably don't want to wade into that very well regulated and field at the moment that, however, that to the extent that something that because of its involvement of alcohol or tobacco touches something else for instance glamorizing sports wagering, excessively, you could still you would still be regulating it. They had some slight differences in terms of who can be endorsers for instance, explicitly calling out Olympic athletes and cartoon characters. We capture cartoon characters by virtue by a broader set of if it's intentionally targeting minors and I think that's a fairer way to do it because it's sort of irrelevant whether they're cartoon or real. It's targeting minors but so nothing wrong with their approaches to slightly different approach in some cases. I will get to later in the rag as I said, one place where we did borrow from from mains. You know when I look at that there was they have a they have a more they have a prohibitive section my memory is about if they're going to do any sort of promos free that sort of thing it has to be can't be on their TV advertising it has to be there on the web or on the app, so that they can capture what the terms of it are. Is that something is that what we're going to be talking about later or is that something that you guys had a broader discussion about. We can we can discuss that one we did not. That's not the one we're going to be talking about later. The phrasing on that. I think and let me just pull up. Sorry to divert to this but I think it's an important piece of what what folks are thinking about is. We're not just limiting it quite that much. However, the standards that you'll see we did add are how you do have to advertise closer to Pennsylvania New York, which may mean that an operator may determine that if they can't do all of the things that they need to do for responsible gaming, they may not be able to do a TV ad so rather than try to exclude a medium altogether which, you know, I think is a slightly trickier piece, we addressed it that way. Okay, and then basically keeping a record of what the offer was right. Right so that is captured it's not captured necessarily in this it is captured in this rag as well as 238. When we get to it later. We'll talk about one thing that is, since I'm on the topic that main is doing is requiring pre approval of, or pre submission at least of all advertising to the licensing body up there. We wanted to balance the sort of functionality of being able to actually process all of those with the utility of that so as you'll see later, and I apologize for going out of order but since it came up. As you'll see later we suggested it as a possible disciplinary or enforcement mechanism where there are concerns about a particular operator. And so, but that's a policy choice for the commission it could be, could be brought in. Okay, great thanks. So, 25605 is the advertising to youth which we had discussed quite a bit last time. Again, a first change was moving up the sort of broad requirement this is the one affirmative requirement that all materials have to show have to state that patrons must be 21 years of age or older. And then we reframed a couple of the following ones in into the negative to make it clear it's a prohibition, which we hope clears up some of the confusion from last time. So with that in mind just to reiterate it. So you'll see knots are crossed out and knows are inserted at the beginning so this is a don't do this as opposed to a longer phrase that gets that has a shell not buried in it. So with that in mind 25605 for now, I hope is clearer that there should not be any advertising to an audience where 25% or more of the audience is expected to be underage for the purpose of sports and under 21 and the other. So, and just to be clear so that makes it more stringent than many states are requiring when they say majority. And any questions about that. For me it reads more clearly Nina thank you. Thank you for the feedback I think it helped a lot so I've never seen more wheels spinning than during that meeting all of us across the board so thank you. This language does that mean that 75% or more of the audience is expected to be 21 years of age or correct. Correct. Yeah. What you may advertise to is an audience over 75% of which is is of age and who you may not advertise to is an audience that's 25% or more underage. If there's no other questions I will move briskly to the next one so that I don't confuse things any further on that one. So 256 06 is the advertising to other vulnerable persons this was a question of, could we be more I think we had mentioned we were looking to, to maybe be more explicit about the standards for what it means to have conspicuous advertising of responsible gaming information. With the exception of sort of terminology to capture what we're calling responsible gaming messaging. The standards that you see outlined in pages nine and all the way to 11 of your packet packet also seven to nine, the label is seven tonight at the top. I'm from New York and Pennsylvania and theirs are virtually identical. So the rationale behind any particular one I would say that you know sort of is to keep it consistent with two other large markets nearby. You'll see it's broken out by different media in some and in some cases, and there's a little bit of intentional duplication in some of this so this meeting for instance the requirement that a sign, I think it's 2% of the height or width of the bill of a video or television ad be the responsible gaming doesn't negate the fact that also can't be obscured or can't be in lettering that you can't see right so it's sort of all builds on itself to, to give some clear guidelines to, to the operators. There's any particular questions on that but again these were drawn, literally, you know, almost verbatim, other than changes for terminology from Massachusetts. Questions. And I'm chair I don't so much have a question. Hold on one second, because I'm having an issue with my. I see mark is on or in the meeting. And I'm satisfied with the language but are you. I was just thinking about that thank you, Commissioner Hill, and where we state, we're explicit about the problem gambling health line of the Department of Public Health, and that it would be clear that that's the response for that to be the language adopted for anything dealing with the problem gambling were rather general about responsible gaming messaging and I would prefer if that messaging was consistent through through the state and if it was as directed by the Commission, it would allow us to integrate game sense messaging. Probably game sense messaging but it would it would give us more control over a consistent message that would be going out about responsible gaming across the state and across our operators. So, Mark, and I just just for the Commission and for your sake just to make sure the thinking on this in at the bottom of page nine. And this item forward says information regarding the problem gaming. I'm sorry I'm seeing a typo here now gaming helping it should say help line obviously so that's a clerical correction or make and any other required responsible gaming information. We were trying not to in this reg dictate all of them because we thought those would end up in other responsible gaming regs, but the intent just to be clear is that anything that the Commission requires be put in place would have to follow these standards for how conspicuous they are so that that hopefully addresses that again, so correct in the type. Yeah, I think what what you just said is in line with what I said previously so that's the case and I support that. Thank you madam chair. Madam chair I'll go all the way down to 250 609, which is on page 11 of your packet. Very small change that we actually I think everyone agreed was necessary last time. I'm just checking out the caveat for professional athletes or minors and may provide endorsement so that it jives with with the provision above about depicting minors, even if they're professional athletes in advertising. And assuming no questions on that one I don't know if there are any. The last one which is 256 11. Two changes one in section to capturing the reference to emergency enforcement as dictated as we talked about in 109 last week. I think that's last week maybe was earlier this week, the, the, to make sure that you know that's, that's a one avenue that's here again not in lieu of any other enforcement but just being explicit about it. And then three is what I had started referring to earlier. So as I mentioned main requires all advertising to come to its regulatory agency I believe they have a smaller suite of licensees. Certainly a smaller media market. So one thought was to avoid this sort of becoming a deluge that becomes a harder to review for the commission or commission staff that if you are finding problems with an operator. You could as a condition of their discipline require essentially a probationary, you know, check that they that they do that. I will add that of course you know as as you learn from from how this integrates we think this is a reasonable and prudent first step. If you find that this is a good thing to do across the board. The right could always be changed to make this an across the board requirement. Any questions on that. I think that's, that's really helpful. You know, can I just go back up to where we struck that parenthetical. I think it's captured just fine but think we saw in our review that these might have been one fraction concerning the involvement of an Olympics with involving minors. So, I guess I would just say we should keep an eye out when we say endorsement by minors that could include Olympic athletes even though we don't say that. Correct it could amateur athletes of any kind whether or not they're collegiate Olympic etc. or in school or anything like that. Okay. Also asked that question, when we had the round table, if this had ever happened or I think, I think the MLB was there and they said that they never confronted the issue. I would state that this, this could, you know, be a problem for now and I'm fine with it for now but this could become a problem right. If somebody tries to contract with a 20 year old 19 year old athlete, are we using minor to be under 21 or under 18. That is a good question. In this case, we're using minor as opposed to when we use both terms, Commissioner Maynard so we would say it's under 18 in this case. Okay. I think the ability of someone to contract is already a professional athlete and how that could swing back around on this. Yeah, so that's in 23 K we I that's the distinction is sort of you have the underage and then you have the minors. And the minors is usually the under 18 and the underage is usually the 19 to 20s. So that where there is some where I guess there would be some room here just to address your question more directly or the issue the chair raise more directly is in theory a Olympic athlete who is not a professional in any sport is not a collegiate athlete in any sport. And is 19 or 20 could under this be an endorser. However, I should I should say, as that the way that they do the enforcement may be done in a way that targets minors or targets underage folks, you know, of their same age and the commission may find that the particular ad is a problem even if not those two facts about the athlete. And of course, there's other the sports governing bodies as you know I think this came up in the roundtable. Part of it is that the sports governing bodies have tried to figure out what they're going to allow their own athletes to do active athletes in general to do with respect endorsements as opposed to retired athletes or others. So what's the policy behind allowing that endorsement by 18 year olds and not 19 year olds or 20 year olds. So what's the policy of allowing it by, it wouldn't be to allow it would be to allow it by 18 to 21 year olds I think is is the issue. Yes. So what, so what's the policy behind. I mean, if you have to be 21 to wager. I'm just trying to understand why it's okay. In the case of an 18 year old, but not a 19 year old. I'm just, what's the policy behind that. I think that's a policy call for the commission where to set that that bar. I think the thought is there. I think the reason there might be some distinctions and what the original language. I think that and maybe it's not. If you're rejecting the, the parenthetical which we all I think agree or three was agreed last year by everyone. Is that there are some professional athletes who are in that more likely to be in that 18 to 21 gap, as opposed to mostly amateur athletes but that that language minors could easily say by anyone under 21 years of age so that's that's a policy call for the commission. Yeah, it would seem to me that it should be anyone under the age of 21, given that the legal age to wager is 21. I guess I would weigh in that right now. 18 to 21 year olds. That could be a big source of income. So I guess I'd want to be careful how widespread we. So in Massachusetts, they wouldn't be able to have any endorsements. Excluding, not the 22 year old athlete, but the 18 to 21. So it's 20 right because once they hit 21, they're fine. Yeah, so it's 1819 20 which I agree with Mr stairs. We would be. Distance and arbitrary to come up to have you know to allow it for, you know, 18 to 20. Yeah, it just, but they can't legally participate in the business. I just respectfully disagree. I can't imagine a world of telling Tyler hero, or LeBron James that they can't be in an advertisement when they're already playing professional sports. I just, I couldn't imagine wrapping my head around that one. They can be in an advertisement just not for sports wagering by an operator licensed by the mess by Massachusetts. I'm just, you know, inviting the discussion. Yeah, can I ask me to and you may not know the answer to this in terms of federal regulations in terms of ads for alcohol. Do they have to depict people who are of age in the market to consume alcohol I mean is there anything parallel to that in that in that sphere. Great question. Commissioner Brown I believe the answer is yes. I don't have a site off top my head but that that piece is parallel to the provision in here which is still true that that the someone under 21 can't be shown participating in sports wagering. And so I think what what makes us a little trickier just to use the two examples. I think you would still have a problem to use sort of LeBron when he was 19 LeBron couldn't be shown sitting at a sports book doing something that would be a problem. It's the Encouraging someone else to do it. Exactly. Yeah, that's that's a distinction. So they can be that to be clear to be clear they can be that on the 18 to 21 year old athlete. They can't collegiate athlete schools or colleges can't be that on in Massachusetts, but it seems to me to be a little bit odd that you could place a prohibition on them, their ability to earn additional income. Yeah, they can be that on. You know, it's a little bit of it is a tension. Commissioner Skinner I understand the tension but I think that's where I see the distinction kind of really and I think that's probably why you had that parent medical in there to begin with. Meena you're sort of thinking about if they're professionals, it's different. And we struck that. Maybe we shouldn't, you know, I don't know. Yeah, there's something inherently pushing the line if you're the idea that you're not supposed to target anybody under 21, you know, by the nature of the athlete being under 21 it raises the question of what is your demographic target audience if you're using them. Which is wholly apart from saying does well you can't, you know, advertise in general it's just, they'd have to make a pretty good argument as to why they think they're targeting somebody, you know, of age. I don't think they would think that. Take. Mr. Hillard. You want to weigh in on this. I'm juggling this because I'm with Commissioner Maynard it's like if you. If you're a star basketball player and you're 19 or 20 years old and sadly, that is the case sometimes in the NBA. Their endorsements is how they make their money. So as a professional parenthetical, something we shouldn't be striking. I don't think so. I had an issue with that before. So maybe we shouldn't strike it for the for the minor, the minor, the 16 year old star. It is, it is definitely harder. I would say that those are such exceptional athletes right Commissioner Hill that it's almost their exception makes it more targeted and feel right. You had somebody who is under 18, but because of the nature of sports the 18 to 21, except for a few particular quarterbacks that come out of the Patriots. Prime time is 18 to 21. Those youthful legs and bodies I mean stretches now well into the 30s but that's time time for recruitment. So, I guess my feeling is, it wouldn't, if, you know, the, the exception for collegiate athletes makes a lot of sense to me in Massachusetts, because they can't be better on. But I think to deprive professional athlete of an income. Because, you know, we, you know that that strain is maybe unfair to them. So I'm thinking of the athlete. So does the parenthetical stay and say if they're professionals who are underage that's one thing, but in general we don't want to see it. I actually feel more comfortable with that. But I also understand the other side. You mean, keep the parents, parents, and you keep the parenthetical into right. I mean, we're getting into the weeds of this but like a professional athlete. In some cases the window of them being able to make money is a very short window. And we would be depriving them, possibly, possibly. I mean I think we've been pretty clear as a commission how we feel about this, and I'm hoping our licensees will, will appreciate that. But I've been juggling with this one. I mean, sometimes a window is only five years to make that way. I understand commissioner Skinner's point when you're only depriving them from not working with sports operators but I always sort of think about the equity and you know they're they're 22 year old. They're called teammates who are also getting that on can do it. So that's where I just, I see, you know, for the athletes or their pros. And I do think Commissioner Hill you're right. How that's framed. If they're framing it in a way that becomes clear to something that's where they're on their youth as opposed to on their sport. And then we're going to have a problem with that but I don't, I think that the operators are hearing us on that. And they're hearing that across the country. So, do we need to take our temperature on this one right now. If we had the way it's written down with the parenthetical out do we want to expand to make it only endorsements on the shoulder. Or are we good with the way it's written. Let's start with the way it's written as with the edit. The edit that was made, I'm just going to state again for the record I don't think any potential deprivation of income by an 18 to 20 year old outweighs the potential harm to that that that same group of individuals who may be drawn to sports as a result of that enjoyment. Okay, Michelle Brian. So I mean after this conversation I'm more close to the middle of the line but I still ultimately fall on the same line as commissioner scanner. And what is it that's complicated shift a little bit. The concept that there might be a professional who falls within that 181920 is not something I really contemplated. But I still come back to. I have a hard time believing they would pick that athlete for an endorsement that wasn't essentially targeting their peers, which to me would fall within that demographic and so I'm, well I'm seeing the argument and I hear what you're saying about this window of opportunity and there's a, what would appear to be an arbitrary line, the 21 year old can do it, the 19 and 20 year olds can't. And that is the nature of the demarcation of a minor to a person of age so I am falling in the camp with commissioner skinner I don't think we should be allowing it. I, I totally respect both Commissioner Skinner and Brian's comments and understand the issue they have. I'll go back to a couple issues one is there's a lot there a lot of athletes professional athletes under 21. And I used kind of LeBron James in 2003, not currently as an example because he was getting a whole lot of endorsements at the age of 18. And I just, I honestly don't know if this would hold up. I was challenged in court by an athlete who wanted to contract with with the light, you know, with one of our licensees. And so, for both of those reasons one is the equity issue amongst the players who are under 21 being able to earn. And by the way, Commissioner Brian my response to you would be, it probably targets a lot of their peers it also targets old guys like me to right like I root for five jerseys for a lot of players who are a lot younger than I am. And for the fact that I you know for that reason and for the reason that I believe that this is like I said I don't know the survive challenge. How do you feel about the parenthetical because it could be my years for professionals how do you feel about that. I would, I think, looking back at this, I would leave it in. I'd like to leave it in. And keep keep it with a parenthetical restored. That's where I'm leaning at this point. Yes. Yeah, comment to Commissioner maintenance point about the language if we changed it, not upholding in court. We do regulate sports way during operators, not professional athletes and so that I think is a non issue for me, having an athlete challenge our regulations. Yeah, question for you on that is the reg interpreted such that we would be prohibiting it within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or we saying, you know, if we find out you did this in California, we would deem that a violation. It's a good question. No this this gets the this reg is about what's advertised in Massachusetts. I will say and I not to weigh in on the policy piece but just for one sort of linguistic clarification here. Most of the states that we've seen a couple of different permutations of this, but Virginia and Connecticut I know do have this carve out, except for professional athletes. They, they have it. No one under under age for for the purposes of betting there which I think is also 21 in both states. So it's under 21 years of age, except professional athletes so it's a little bit of both, as opposed to minors except for professional athletes. So that's just another that I guess I would recommend if you're interested. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. Sorry about that. What are the two states. Connecticut and Virginia, another state Louisiana bands it for minors all together but I'm not sure how they define minors in their regs. And they just don't have an exception, but Virginia and Connecticut do allow professional athletes who are not of age to place a sports wager to to be to be to endorse. They could be bent on right. Oh yes no that's certainly true. Right so they could be bet on yeah. And I'll say those two states also don't have a lower limit so to the extent now most American sports leagues don't allow very young athletes under 18 anymore, but if there was a professional athlete who was 16. They could still be part of that that's that's again the different piece of it. I would suggest given today's conversation Nina that we retool this in a way that reflects. Given today's conversation I would, I would suggest changing minors to under 21 years of age. I think that maybe simplifies things a little bit. I think it's a call for you whether to include the carve out or not. But if you do include it you still have some enforcement authority if. If it's clear that the reason they're using a 19 year old professional athlete is to target their cohort as opposed to Commissioner were made his words old people like I like me. I was gonna say like guys blame me. So it wouldn't just be endorsement by under 21 because there would probably be three of us who would think that's too broad. It would be endorsement by under 21 other than professional athletes is that way. Are you saying just are you saying just are all together anything under 21 is that I'm saying is is for clarity I would just decide whether you're talking about Bart altogether or bar for professional athletes but it's a call for for you whether you want to allow professional athletes under 21. I'm inclined to make sure that the professional athlete who can be better on it's not barred from entering into the same business deal as his colleague arbitrarily. And I know that and I say arbitrarily because his patch can be making money for the commonwealth. And yet, you know, when he turns one year older, he can enter into the endorsement. My feeling is that we'll know what when we see it if there's an ad that is intended to concentrate on his youth. I doubt we'll see that you know these 18 to 21 year olds, you're not even knowing that they're 18 to 21. They're so integrated into the game. They're all stars there. They're big there. They're part of the game and they're endorsing. They're endorsing their team. They're endorsing their region. And, you know, if it's about the youth, we'll know it when we see it. You know, I have a comment to make on this and this goes into time also. We're meeting with the players Association, right on Monday. I'd be curious if they had any thoughts on this. That's a good idea. And then it, but then it gets into, I know emergency on emergency is not a good idea. I know Carrie's head explodes at the concept to tweak emergency on emergency. If we settle on everything but this, could we, could we do this by emergency on Tuesday and still be good for launch. Just so we have the opportunity to hear from that players Association to see if there's any insight on this. I think that's for me. Yeah, in terms of time, that would be fine. We, even if you voted on this today, we would be filing it, you know, sometime midweek next week. Anyways, so we can file as a bundle as has been requested of us. So that wouldn't be a problem if you wanted to discuss further on Tuesday. We just need to market up somehow. But I think we do want to be cognizant of the fact that the leaks tend to work to respond to, and I don't know about the timing on that question. Yeah, I just felt we, we got a solicitation pretty early on from players Association and because of the schedule we haven't been able to talk to them. And so given that it's this couple of days, and we can still do it my preference would be to to get some feedback from them and maybe we reach out to the ones we already heard from way early on terms of the leaks themselves. Yeah, we can do that. That's a good idea. So I'm for today. Let's see how we want to treat this one. I'm sorry that I opened up a big can of worms but I guess it's important conversation to have. I thought about it because of the segment I saw in the news this morning about a very talented young gymnast using social media to really promote her as an influencer. This is not just really restricted now cars to professional now it's the, you know, college athletes in other states will be able to make money on their brand and enter into endorsements like this Massachusetts is going to be more restrictive because of the barred group of sports that can be bet on, but then this is these are across the country these young athletes are looking to make money. This is their time and they'll be able to make money as Commissioner Skinner points out with respect to other endorsements and sports way during companies. So, can we agree that we will right now. As is with the without the parenthetical, because there's a three perhaps that agree with that, and then change it after, you know, when we get more input from the players association. So as is without the parenthetical with bar anyone under 18. 1819 20 would be permissible under this is that I guess what I'm trying to do that proposal right now. Well, maybe I should say more clearly that professional athletes who can be bet on should be able to enter into these endorsements, the under 18. I feel very uncomfortable with an under 18 myself. I mean they can't even contract really they'd have to have someone do it on the behalf. That's a good point. So, I just don't see our licensees doing that. I really don't. So, I'm not that worried about it. I think we'll leave it in. Take it out leave it in. I would. I'm feeling more like Commissioner O'Brien on this. My, my conflict in real life real time here is like the next Simone Biles right. Are we telling her. No, sorry, you know, you can't make money on this in the Commonwealth. I mean I'm just being honest with where my tug, you know, push and pull is. I'm definitely not comfortable telling an NBA MLB athlete. No. So I would just say, I guess I would be a little more broad and hope that the licensees is Commissioner Hill said would take care of the real issue I would say. If you are a professional athlete, and if someone in the Commonwealth can place a wager on you. You should be able to contract with one of our licensees for, you know, to be in an advertisement. That's probably where I would fall. So let's, Madam chair. Yes, please. So let's use your example with the gymnast. I think under our regulations. I would not be able to bet on the USA gymnast because of the age is that an accurate statement. What would I be able to. I'm looking at you, me and Todd. As am I. I'm Todd you remember from the statute directly. Certainly the commission, if it was an allowed bet you'd have to allow it in the first place I am trying to remember if it was a collegiate sport and not a tournament or pool, then you wouldn't be able to bet on them and collegiate competition. The question of could you bet on the Olympics I just don't recall the answer and I don't know if Todd you do. Yeah, that's what I was looking for. I think we'd have to approve the book. Yeah. You would have to approve it but I was trying to remember if it's one of the ones you can't approve, like, like high school sports and other things. I don't think it's barred because I thought there was a discussion of it in our later today. Yeah, the word Olympics. That was my understanding. I would have compromise as you're looking that up Todd. If we I actually have an issue with anybody under 18 so 1617s. I have an issue with 181920s I don't have an issue with in general or the professional athletes. In vote certainly professional for sure. But in general I don't have an issue with that. So I'm, I don't want anybody under 21. I'm not talking about compromising. Okay, I'm with you on the 17 and under I just feel like, you know, you can't even contract with someone I don't I just don't think it's appropriate. But I could compromise on the concept of a professional athlete who's 181920. That's a great compromise. I'd shake your hand Brad if I could get through the camera. That's, that's, I would be okay with that. Yesterday at one point during your meeting, our meeting, Michelle, Brian, you leaned one direction at the same time commissioner main or leaned and I almost said, I almost said, oh, they're going to bump. It was very funny. But I did know just now you were not going to shake hands. So I think that that really puts us where we were right. Well, a little bit different because it changes the minor to 21, but then exempt and then puts the parents back into exempt professional athletes so it is a bit of a shift exams. Professional athletes but they would include them though they under 18 professional. The prohibition would be that no minors, they can't do it with minors so until they hit and they can't do it at all. And then the 1820 would be the professional athlete exception. Yeah, and I do feel strongly about that because it's just some I think that's a big group of athletes, big group of athletes. Yeah, I mean I'm still curious to hear from the players association on it but I think today's purposes I think today's purposes yeah exactly. Okay, so how would the language read them. Madam chair I can suggest language I think it would say an advertisement for sports wagering shall not state or imply endorsement by minors, comma, persons. In the ages of 18. 21 or 20 excuse me. Yeah. Yeah, parentheses other than professional athletes who made other than professional athletes. Close parents collegiate athlete schools or colleges etc. And to answer Commissioner Maynard's question from before. More concretely, I believe, at least my reading and again taught I don't know if you disagree with this but the definitions. The Olympics and other sort of amateur competitions are not excluded but they would probably fall into the category of other events, you would have to approve. Yeah, that's exactly right. So I mean I would be language that you just proposed. I could be so I would be supportive of that. I think that's a good compromise. Yeah, I would agree. It's a compromise that gathers. I think we each kind of get more than 50% of where we're coming from with that compromise, although, Joe's got his hand up. I just get her first I think she was leaning in. Yeah, I was just going to say I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of the good here so I think it is a really good compromise. And you know what we will keep our eye on it right. Yeah, let's turn to Joe from GMI. Just just leaning into. So yeah, so just leaning into have have Mina and Todd and Mark, take a look at 207.01 one and two under the uniform standards for sports wagering. That's where the stipulation for colleges is a college athletes as well. So 247.01 one to AB through. Thanks. You're welcome. Okay, very helpful. All right. So should we just finish up them with the, the advertising I was responsible for going back to that language but it turned out to be important. You're going through the. I think that we're getting to the last one. Madam chair can I interrupt you just for one moment. So did we agree that we were going to adopt that language, or are we not there yet. Well, we are going to ultimately decide at the end how to move so let's just say that we've got that language on a plate and it looks like we have a consensus. Thank you madam chair. So we got through. What page were we last on 99 100. No, sorry, we were on page 11. Sorry, that was that was just my eyes. That's okay. There's a nine and an 11 on that same page. I'm thinking in the heart. And we've been meeting such voluminous documents like, are we on page 1,920 minutes. Alrighty, there we go. A little punchy today. There we go. So we're on page 11 of 99. Yep. Oh, that was where we were, but where were we last before I was sorry. So before that I had actually finished presenting what was on page 12, which was the as a sanction requesting everything come to you. And I think you had us to go back to that. So I was done with with every other change on this. And I just, yeah, so I just wanted to get back to my fellow commissioners. Did you have any questions on that, but I thought was a great provision at the end and then anything else of them what we just discussed in the advertising. I, you know, we had a robust discussion on this earlier. But again, I say we keep on learning. So this is a user important instructions and remember commissioners we can we visit any reg at any time. We continue to borrow the phrase we want to continue to remain them. Anything. So does it make sense for us to act on this now. And then with the caveat that we could revisit it. Otherwise, we just let the players union brings up something. And then we have to vote on Tuesday, right, because I think at that point. If we vote on it now something comes up Tuesday, we can't really do overlapping emergency regs and so we probably have to wait without it getting messy, right. We can't override it. You can override the vote. I would probably, I would just, I wouldn't file it until after you've had the chance to discuss again on Tuesday. You can hold off on the filing and that gives us the wiggle room. Yeah. Yes. Yep. So if we could act today, given our discussion with the understanding that will remain nimble and revisit as needed. And I'll have to figure out, Todd, if what we do on the agenda to address that issue. Okay. I think it is on the agenda for Tuesday already. Just in case right just in case we had included around tables Monday, not do it on Monday, but Tuesday. Okay, excellent. Thank you. So commissioners. Do I have a motion on this role. What number are we on this is 256 right. Okay, I move that the, excuse me, I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement and the draft of 205 CMR 256 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And specifically, in recognition of the edits discussed on page 99. It's a lesson of the packet nine as shown and the PDF. Okay, so nine of the PDF page 11 and the commissioners packet and in regards to under 21 and minors. And I further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation process and further the staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved, or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation propagation process. Amendment. I think the page numbers will backwards so it's page nine of the packet page 11 of the PDF. Okay. Thank you. And the amendment is accepted. Yeah, accepting. Madam chair discussion. Yes. Me and I can you just read one more time, what the language would be for me. The language will be an advertisement for sports wagering shall not state or imply endorsement by minors, comma, persons age 18 to 21 or 20, excuse me. Open parents, other than professional athletes close parents, comma college athletes and the rest would remain the same. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Mina. Okay, with that clarification any further discussion or edits. Mr Brian. Hi, Mr Hill. Hi. Mr Skinner. Hi. Mr mean. Hi. And I vote yes. Okay, five zero on that. Okay, let's move on then to 239. Good morning. Good afternoon, Caitlin. Good afternoon. So I'm just pulling up my packet here 239 is the continuing disclosure and reporting obligations of sports wagering licensees regulation. I'm going to turn this over to Mina to walk us through the regulation. And he's also going to talk about some of the differences between chapter 23 K and 23 and with regard to these obligations to disclose. And in particular with regard to the public records law and the lack of exemptions under 23 and thank you, Caitlin. So I think just to frame at the outset, how this reg was developed. We, we looked at a couple of things we looked at the existing analog in 23 K, which is 139. There's actually a couple of others that that's sort of, it's in a few different places but that's a key one. So we also looked at a lot of the other regs we've been putting together over the last couple of months, including the revisions to 138 and 238, and try to make this to consolidate in one place. So I'm going to talk about these, as I'm sort of referred to super regs that, that explain where what what's going to have to be kept in terms of records and submitted to the commission, or to particular portions of the commission, like the Bureau, the issue as Caitlin alluded to is that under 23 K, there were fairly broad public records exemptions built into the statute for for categories of documents that don't exist in 23 and much of what would be captured here in the sort of post application world, especially would only be exempt from disclosure as a public record, if it otherwise met an exemption under the public records law. Therefore, in putting this together we, we spent a good amount of listening sessions and got a lot of feedback from various internal stakeholders about the records that they really needed to be able to do their jobs, whether they needed them to be in the commission's possession custody and control or whether they needed them to be kept and available to the commission in a particular instance, keeping in mind that the commission would still have broad authority to seek any records, but that it could then make the judgment call about what protections if any from public disclosure would be appropriate in those cases. And, and so that's avoid sort of over, over promising confidentiality that you couldn't for public records purposes, or, or, or holding records that you don't really need to hold in at the commission itself. So that's that's sort of the general framework of why things may differ from the 23k framework in some cases with also a lot of really helpful input from Bruce and folks at the bureau and others on this. So, with that in mind, I can go through the, the regulation. This starts on page 17 of your of the PDF, which is labeled packet page 15. 23901 is a general, a couple of general statements. One is what I mentioned a second ago the commission's access to an ability to inspect the premises of an operator but also the to require production of records. It also requires the maintenance of complete records. Note that on the ability to inspect a premises or to have access that way that's limited to category one and category two. We do not think it's it's appropriate at least in this regulation. You may have other abilities through subpoena and other powers for for corporate office space of untethered, obviously category three but that's that's different than this. 230 any questions on the sort of general authority piece. 230902 is a very simple one. And this is really just for consistency for with the gaming entities that the operator should have a fiscal year. I don't think that's going to be a difficult one to comply with. And then I know three is where things I think these judgment calls I mentioned before start getting made these are the reports and information to be filed with the commission. So this goes on. First with the list of reports include the annual and as otherwise required statistical reports on employment and MBE WBE metrics to sort of compare to the diversity commitments diversity and inclusion commitments made by operators as well as just for for data for the commission to have item C at the top of page 18 is sort of an update a regular update on goals and commitments generally, not just on on those issues reports required regarding occupational licensees quarterly reports which show up later documents and other materials that might be referenced in the licenses as being required. House rules and internal controls and amendments are obviously fairly big ones. That's G. H is a declared event of default. I think we received some comments on this. If I'm not mistaken at some point and one of the questions was, should this be in here or any, any event of default and important that this is a declared event of default of debt obligations is to ensure financial competency and ability to pay wagers, the annual problem gaming plan, etc. That's all sort of regular reporting that goes in there. And this for instance that the condition on the license one just to go back to that one for a second. That's how you would if you if say you did condition a particular licensee now or in the future to give you all of their advertising upfront. This is where this would be sort of a belt and suspender approach for that as well. Yes. Subsection age, would we not want that reported by the parent company. The operator. I believe the. So this is this language comes almost, I think is identical to what you have in 139. And I would think the affiliate or holding company would include the parent company or that's at least the understanding. Okay. Thank you for that. I mean, while we're on the subject. This is where picking up where we left off yesterday relative to the workforce and diversity spend goals. This is where this is captured it's not expressly stated but it's in AB and see I think would cover that and require this that reporting. Item two is this is consistent with the continuing obligations of disclosure. This is self reporting of violations or suspected violations of the sports wagering actor any other, or the regs suspected violations include irregularities and volumes of changes with odds that comes comes from the statute as well. Section three is similar this is self reporting if a self excluded person on the self excluded person list. It is found to have engaged in sports wagering I think those words are important I'll just want to pause on them for a second, because I think there was some, I know there's been some thinking about how to define and when you get the definitions regs back before in a the next couple of weeks I think you'll see that we're defining sports wagering area and facility and thinking about that issue. Engaging in a self excluded person may end up being on the premises of a category one, especially by not engaging in sports wagering and so there's there's that doesn't that negate other controls that might exclude them from certain categories, it just means that the reporting is when they engage in sports wagering. So if they're caught and not don't do it before. Number four is is intended to be, you know, to get the information about how much money is coming in. So that's sort of the kind of central to a lot of the operation here so obviously needs to be reported. Number five is an underage person report this is where we start referencing some other regs under 250. There's also in six a quarterly report regarding complimentary services offered I think this came up before what you know what what promotions and other complimentary services have been offered as part of sports wagering promotion. Number seven is counter check information, which again references back to the internal controls regulations. So those are the ones that will be required to be submitted. Really, if I may, I'm sorry to catch this earlier counter checks is credit, and that's not permitted on the sports wagering side so I'm not sure exactly the application here. What was that Todd I'm sorry. He was just discussing paragraph seven which talks about counter checks that's the old name for credit that's issued by casinos. We should take it out then. I just noticed this I haven't had any time to think about it there may be a reason it's there but I don't know off the top of my head, what that is. I have known what that meant. I have to say, I don't know if others picked up on the counter check. So hopefully the answer would obviously zero if they are reporting on that. But otherwise that's the other one was six. Oh, sorry. Maybe that's why we want to be able to confirm it's zero. I'm just double checking because this came from 138. This this was a reference that refers back to 138 as as revised so I just want to as Todd was speaking I want to make sure we're on the same page there. I think well mean is checking that is on six and again I apologize I didn't catch this sooner. Obviously that's requiring a report on a lot of items that are comped by the casino. I don't know that a lot of that stuff is really applicable to sports wagering operators specifically. I just throw that out and again I haven't spent a lot of time thinking this one through you. Yeah, Todd on that one. I think that the suggestion to keep this one in was to the extent that because this is the new market and maybe bringing in new people that if a casino operator in there or a gaming establishment operator in their capacity as a sports wagering licensee offers somebody who may not have been interested in all of their promotion so far a free hotel room and sports wagering credits because now it's a new line of business. We just want that tract as well. It was sort of a making sure there's no end around actually that they're not reporting something because they only gave it to somebody as part of their sports wagering arm not there. Gaming arm. And with respect to number seven I'm sorry I'm just trying to keep track of everything I have open here. That I believe the report that's referred to there actually have to do with including you know you're right I think the answer would normally be that it's zero. But the only I don't think we actually made any changes with relation to sports wagering so that may want that one may not be relevant for sports wagering and could easily come out. Any questions commissioner. Okay. 23904 is a category of documents that have to be maintained and maybe available to the commission at its request but don't necessarily have to be submitted every time. I will say that even though there were confidentiality protections under 23 case some of these were treated the same way there too. These include sort of internal business documents the first categories really everything that a corporation or corporate entity would be expected to keep everything for minutes and records of votes and records of shareholders etc. So this is basic corporate records. Number number two is securities filing submitted to federal state or domestic authorities. Obviously some of that may be already a public record but since they're, they have to accept their subject other redactions there wasn't a need to submit separately. Three is a similar category. Number four is tax returns. It was felt that that was an inappropriate thing to be capped at the, at the entity not necessarily submitted annually to the commission system of financial accounting obviously you know this this sort of serves two purposes obviously yes so that the commission could audit it but also to ensure that they're committing to keeping a basic functioning accounting system. Number six is gets into data derived from an operators player card and reward card programs. Again this is in part this one's partially intended to avoid having too much personal information and personally identifying information or proprietary data in the in at the commission's offices but again may not be necessary to review in particular circumstance. And the last three are again kind of back to kind of corporate ones business plans compliance plan separate and apart from the internal control regs etc. And copies of minutes of all of all board and and committee meetings. So, any questions on those. Right. 230905 this this identifies the quarterly reports. Again that need to be submitted to the commission. And this is sort of, this is not more of a specific set of reporting requirements. The first is on financial positions. Again this is a sort of a check on financial health and there's attestations that are required by appropriately senior folks at the entities to do that. And there has to be a company by these attestations that really that the company has the ability to put these all into much simpler language has the ability to meet its obligations both to patrons and and to comply with what it needs to do as a financial entity. The, any questions there. So I'm not. Alright, 230906 is an annual audit. Yes. About that. Subsection two. First I patient I think that's a typo should it should that be 205 CMR 239.05. Yes, that's correct. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. And as we go on to the other sections that you might have already caught them but I can point out, I think it's just, you might have added a section, and then everything just not to their couple of changes that needs to be made. Yes. Thank you we were going to suggest at the end that we would ask for a technical technical corrections on numbering because there are a couple of these I think either formatting error or something that through some of these off my apologies on that. The quarterly. So we've talked about quarterly reports annual audits. There are sort of two separate purposes of an audit here. The first purpose is really a financial audit, which is why it's set up to be by a certified public accountant. They have to have an audit. They, there's what happens with the recommendations. It's spelled out. Again, all of these mirror what's in the gaming regs. The audits are filed with the commission I think that was determined to be something that should be kept in. That's towards the bottom of page 22 of the packet. Correct. I cross-referenced it to 230907 to 06. There, there are also just going through these sort of other safeguards about what happens if, if there are particular circumstances during an audit or of a removal or resignation of a chief financial officer audit committee chair. So this is all financial audits. I just to be clear. This is the last section is 230907 audit by the commission. The commission would audit on an annual basis. I don't think there's really any aspect for compliance with the system of internal controls. So the financial audit, you should have more of an operational audit, the commission, the one that performs the operational audit. And that's, that's put here in this in the same place. So I think that's it as, as mentioned, we will address the numbering. I don't know, Madam Chair, if we came to a final decision on whether to include the cross-reference to counterchecks. I think it could be removed for the avoidance of doubt. Unless we want to know that they it's zero for compliance purposes, but I have a hesitation with that, Madam Chair, is that it is and looking at 138, it is a very complex report. It is not as simple as how much credit. So I just didn't want to be putting up to put 16 different things to you every time. In accordance with our regulatory review sort of policy, I think I'd recommend we take it out. It just makes it more complex, right? But I didn't, I'd have to say that it was a refresher to see to learn what countercheck was. So thank you, Todd, bringing that up. Anything, any questions on this? This is a good bit of work because we didn't have the same guidance in 23K. So thank you for this. Any questions that we prepared to move on this commissioners. 239 correct. Okay. And other than striking, what's the specific reference to strike? Hello. Visitor today. The specific reference. Hello, Maeve is a 239. You wave back. 239.037. Do 39.037 is the one with strikes. Okay. I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 239. As included in the commissioners packet and further discussed and amended here today, specifically to delete 239.037 and to fix specified numeration mistakes. I further move the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter and to begin the regulation promulgation process. And that staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles and file additional regulation sections as reserved or make any other administrative changes necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. And I felt, yes, five, zero. Excellent. Okay, so we're moving on to 241, right? Nina or is it Caitlin? Can I turn to now? No, Maeve. We're going to introduce this one. It's really simple. We're going to start with a short one. So in any event, 205 CMR 241 is surveillance monitoring, maybe the shortest drug we've had this far. One of the reasons we're bringing it today is because it is cross-referenced in 239. So we want to bring those together, but I will turn it over to Mina to discuss the substance. Thank you. So these are very simple for a reason. They're really intended to be, this could have been an edit to 141 and 142. We thought it was better to keep it all together in the 200 series, but cross-referenced and essentially where a sports wagering operator has sports wagering areas or sports wagering facilities that the surveillance, the cameras, et cetera, should capture those as well. So that's sort of the 241 01, 241 02 takes the place of 142, but we thought it would be a little overkill to have two separate regs for one sentence, two sentences, gives the commission the same inspection authority over those areas as it does over gaming establishments. Any questions, commissioners? Okay. I think Maeve could have led that one, Caitlin. Thank you. Thank you for your hair. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Do I have a motion on that pressure? I'll make a motion madam chair. Thanks. I move that the commission approve the small business impact statement and the draft 205 CMR 241 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. I will not be authorized to take steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. I further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Thanks. Any questions or edits commissioners? Okay. Michelle Bryan. Hi. Michelle Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. I vote yes five zero. Thank you. Now we're moving on to play management 255. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon. So you do have a draft of the play management regulation in your packet begins on packet page 30 PDF page 32. This regulation falls in the family of responsible gaming regulations and requires for three during operators to offer play management programs patrons including various types of limit setting. So I'm going to turn it over to Annie Lee from Anderson and Krieger to walk us through here and I'll just note that Dave Mackie and director Vanderlinden are also here for help on this topic. Thank you, Carrie. Good afternoon commissioners. So as Carrie said, today we have before you play management regulations. These are similar in spirit to play my way in the gaming context and that they allow people to engage in sports wagering but to do so within their own means as individuals elect to sort of set them. And so with that I will I'm happy to walk the commission through this regulation section by section. And so the first one 255 01 again I'm on packet page 30. This is just stating the general scope and purpose of the play management regulations. This is to allow people a means to restrict their sports wagering behavior and to increase informed player choices so that folks are accidentally gambling or wagering beyond their means and finding themselves in hot water. We do envision this as applying exclusively to the mobile apps as well as to kiosk so I'll come circle back on this kiosk aspect after presenting the regulation, but I just want to know that this is an envision to apply to retail sports betting, or to any sort of physical sports betting and is supposed to apply exclusively to sort of digital sports betting. And so the specific limitations that we envision for sports wagering or in the play management programs are described in section 02 of the regulation, and it provides for six different ways that people can set limits for themselves. And I will note here that individuals are not limited to just selecting one limitation for themselves they can select anywhere from one to all six limitations. And so the first limitation that we can see above is just a maximum wager amount. So you can say as an individual I don't want to at any one time put more than $50 on the line and so if you as an individual wanted to place a $60 bet, you would be prevented from doing so because of your own self imposed limit. The second type of limit you can set is a little bit more akin to play my way which you can set a budget for yourself on a daily week we are monthly basis, you can again sort of opted to all of those options that you can set a daily budget for yourself and no more than $50 a week no more than you know 100 and a month no more you know 300 or something like that these are all arbitrary numbers. And so with this kind of limitation, you could continue to sports where you're best soon as you've hit your daily budget. You would be prevented from sports wagering, regardless of your wins or losses throughout the day so you can essentially say, I don't want to sort of put more than X dollars at risk in any given day week or month and this will prevent you from going beyond that. And so the third way that you can place a limit on yourself is on net loss and so you can say that I am willing to wager sort of as much as it takes or as much as I want, but I don't want to incur net loss over $200. So, if I get really unlucky and I lose all $200 that's it I can't wager anymore. If you know I have a little bit of luck here and there and I will use your to, you know, $100 and I, you know prevail about $300 but then all of a sudden I get really lucky unlucky over a series of bets, and I've lost $500 then your net loss has been met and you are no longer permitted to wager at that point just because you simply don't know if it's going to result in wins or losses and you've decided that I don't want to lose any more than you know $200 over the period of a day week or month or something like that. The fourth kind of limitation is a max deposit amount and so individuals maintain sports where your accounts in order to engage in play management programs. And so you can say I don't want to be transferring at any one given time more than you know $250 into my account and this would prevent you from exceeding that this the fifth way that you can limit yourself is similar to kind of play management about this. No sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. The fifth way that you can limit is you can say I want to have a max account balance of you know $800 or something. And so if you hit that account. If your account hits that balance you just can't add any more to your account so you're essentially it's a little bit of a way of sort of imposing a softer budget on yourself. And sort of saying that I'm not going to allow myself to put it risk through my account you know x dollars. And so, lastly the final way that we've conceived of a limitation is a little bit more of this budget and concept again to say that over a given month you can't you can't transfer more than you know $1000 into your account and so you could you know do smaller transfer amounts into your account. But once over this period of time again day week or month you've transferred more than that you're prevented from doing so. And so as I said before, you're allowed to sort of mix and match any of these kinds of limitations that work for you. And so this is just intended to sort of increase consumer choice and allow individuals to choose what they think will be the most effective means of sort of managing their play in a responsible way. The other part of this section is that you know individuals have to opt into play management we're not requiring sports where you're an operator symposium default settings on players. And so individuals will have to sign up for that which leads me into the next section 2503 which starts on packet page 31. And so the enrollment here is similar to how you enroll and play my way. When you first enroll onto the mobile app or onto the kiosk in an account as we're asking sports way during operators to put up a message that essentially describes play management for you and all the different option all six options that I just described, and allows you to, you know, upon sign up immediately begin enrolling yourself in these play management programs if that's something that you would desire. If you choose to decline that opportunity, you're absolutely permitted to do so you just need to indicate to the operator that you're at that time declining to involve in play management. But that's not your only time to enroll in play management on a monthly basis we're requiring that operators sort of push a notification to individuals reminding them that play management is play management programs are available to them and you again have the opportunity to enroll at that stage. We are also asking that operators maintain at all times a prominent link on their homepage essentially through which people can access play management so even if you miss it on, or even if you decline it on your initial enrollment and the monthly period that those aren't your opportunities to enroll in play management you can always at any time opt into play the play management program of your choice. And similar to what we've heard from some of the operators who presented before the commission, any limitations that you place on in a play management that you're rolling is immediately effective, with the exception of sort of modification so if you modify a play management setting to be more restrictive so if I have a budget of $100 today and I lower it to $50 today that becomes immediately effective. Cover if you modify your management settings to be less restrictive so to engage in more sports leisure than you previously said that you wanted to do so if I increase my budget from $50 to $100. It's not going to take effect immediately. It's going to take effect the next business day after any kind of time period that's applicable applies so if I've already said for a week my budget is $50 and I want to increase my weekly budget to $100 I'm going to have to wait for that week period to first complete itself and the next business day before I'm able to increase my budget to $100. Thank you. Thank you, certainly. Michelle Bryan are you leaning in right now or no. No. Okay. Yeah. I'm not a commissioner skinner. I think we're probably all thinking about one thing, but go ahead commit your skin. Well, I don't know I won't. Maybe no. Do you do you want questions at the end, or can we ask them as we go, because I have a question on 255.02. I'm happy to take questions at any time. Yeah, I think it makes sense before we go on because this is such a big piece of the substance Commissioner Skinner, it's fresh in our mind. So let's, I know it disrupts, but I think it's helpful. Okay, thank you. So 255.02 subsection three. I'm just looking at the language around recovery of losses and that section says an individual shall not or any losses. And I'm wondering why that is because just, I mean, I understand why, you know, we might wanna include that, but I'm recalling during some of the presentations when the operators talked about disciplinary action when that occurred as a result of VSE individuals being able to place a wager. They voluntarily reimbursed or repaid the amount that they wagered. And I don't know if that was in all cases, but in some cases it was voluntary. And I'm looking at language that appears elsewhere. For instance, in 233, it talks about the language is an individual shall not be entitled to recover any losses. And so I'm just trying to understand, I understand the distinction, but was that intentional to not include the language of 233? So the entitlement language, that was not an intentional difference between these regulations. I believe this language was carried over from 233. So they have just been in drafting here of not including that specifically not entitled to collect language. So 233 does include that thus shall not be entitled to recover. So I guess, you know, the question is, do we want to be that forceful? Do we want to preclude an operator from voluntarily reimbursing a patron who was able to wager when they weren't supposed to? Their weight, the amount that they wagered. Commissioner, Director Van Der Linden, please. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Skinner, I did have a similar question as well. It feels to me like I can't imagine a scenario in which somebody who chooses to enroll in the play management or self-limit setting unless there is a fault to a faulty, you know, unless the system is faulty, I can't imagine how they would be able to bypass the settings that they've established. And if they are, the question would be whether who would be at fault of spending or going beyond the limitations. So I think it's the intention is really to stay in line with voluntary self-expression that we are talking about two different systems here, two different RG systems. So, Commissioner Skinner, you want to elaborate because we did see there are infractions where they did. And so to your point, they did give back the winnings. Yeah, and I know, you know, I specifically remember why at least one of the operators saying that they voluntarily did that. Other operators might have done it because they were required to under that jurisdiction's regulations. So I just, I'm asking where we want to be. Do we want to prohibit it or do we want to allow an operator to voluntarily return wages that shouldn't have been placed in the first instance? That we're at, and they were placed enabled, the patient was enabled because of a faulty technical error or some error on the part of the operator, right? Right, as opposed to the VSC. Right. Perhaps another scenario would be if an individual is somehow allowed to have multiple accounts under the same operator sets up limitations under one account, but not another. And chooses to, this is where these are tools intended to assist individuals, set a budget and stay within the limits. And so I understand this right now on multiple accounts. I think we need to visit that. Yes, we do. I think I asked Karen to put that out on the list at some point, Ms. Chevron, you're nodding your head. I did, because I was struck by a couple of the applicants saying they deliberately don't allow it for amongst that, amongst the reasons was what Mark just talked about. Whether we wanted to say that that's how we want to. Management of Archie, yeah. So putting that scenario aside, because Nina and legal team, I don't know where that it's into the scheme of our regulatory scheme. But I think we want to visit multiple accounts. So Commissioner Skinner, you're sort of what, as to the language in looking at, it's 255.02, subsection three, am I right? Am I, that you're wondering that we get more flexibility? Yeah, I'm actually, I'm suggesting that we give more flexibility. I mean, I'm looking at, and I don't know where these are in the process. I think we reviewed them initially. We might have even filed them as final, but 233, excuse me, 205, CMR 2308, subsection one. The language there reads an individual who was prohibited from sports wagering under 205, CMR 233 shall not be entitled to recover losses. And so I think that language allows for an operator to voluntarily return those funds. And I think we should stay consistent in this context unless, you know, Mark, you're telling me there's a reason why we wouldn't want to allow that here. So just put, be entitled in front of collect, might be entitled to? Yeah, shall not, shall not, I think collect any, collect any winnings. I think we want to enforce that, right? We don't want them to be able to benefit from, you know, in terms of, but shall not collect any winnings or be entitled to recover any losses, if that works. Is that helpful? Do we need to clarify that it's at, well, I think it works the way it is without clarifying who's that fault or how it came to be. Just leave it for the operator's discretion. If it's, okay, I see Mina though. I'm not, I was waiting to weigh in because I don't have a comment on this just to answer your question. It's 248 does ban multiple accounts, Madam Chair. Oh, we've addressed that already. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. I need to reread the book. I'm forgetting all the good parts. Okay. So thank you. We've done that. And we say no to multiple accounts. So thank you. All right. So in terms of. Skinner suggestion. To be consistent. What are we thinking commissioners? I agree. And actually I would agree with the underlying policy point that commissioner Skinner made, which is. We want to give some flexibility to the operator as well as the folks from our team who engage with the operators. And we want to make sure that. Someone who has losses. Under these conditions are, could be made whole under certain circumstances. Mr. Hill, are you leaning in? I'm fine with that change as well. I mean, it still has his hand up, but I think it's from the. The old request. Dave or Annie, do you want to weigh in? Is there any concern if you were to adopt that? And I, and I'll go back to director of the end of London. I think it's an appropriate change. I guess one thing that. Another reason to have the regulation is it, it does send a message to. To patrons participating in sports wagering that they shouldn't be tempted to game the system to try to get around whatever limitations they've imposed on themselves because they will not be entitled to benefit from it. I know from conversations with Mark that, you know, this would probably. The only way they're going to be able to do that is somehow the operator system fails. The safeguards fail. But I think it's also a nice message to the, to the patrons that they shouldn't try to get around it because even if they could, they're not going to be able to do anything. Okay. Madam chair, may I just say one last thing about that? This is different than playing my way play. My way has the an individual may at any time make a change to increase their, their budget amount and that it takes effect that takes effect immediately. It really is there to, you know, as, as a support for setting a budget. It is this is different. This is much more in line with what we've seen from operators that are out working in this sports way during operators working in this mobile space. So that I just wanted to point out that distinct difference between our play my way on spot machines and this type of play management for mobile sports. To that point, I do have one question on that subsection two right above the subsection three. I don't know if commissioners have you had other questions, but if I could lean in and I, I might be wrong. It says no default limitation shall be imposed by sports way during operators. I believe we have at least one participated licensee who has adopted a company wide. Coalition on or a limitation on deposits. Fair to say it that way. In terms of the amount that could be deposited for 21 to 25 years. I think, I think I remember the, the applicant now anticipated licensee. And we like that. We like that because it was seen as, as, you know, forward thinking. I know it competes perhaps. And I think I may have mentioned this publicly that, you know, the informed player choice. I think commissioners, I think commissioners, you've identified that. The good population is being more vulnerable. And so we like that. And so I think that. That number two would prohibit that. That second clause. Yes, Mark. Yeah. You're right. And, and I actually think that is a. I remember that now. That is an interesting rule that they may for what is a very high risk population of experiencing gambling harm. I don't know if there's a way that that can be changed. This is very consistent with what I understand most operators are. And it's very consistent with how my way was set up. And that was intentional because operators were insistent that, that no default settings are there. And I think that's a very consistent rule. And overall, I, I support that, that decision. But they also have a fantastic choice. They also had a restriction on no credit. Yeah. Those were the two really thought forward. I mean, I shouldn't speak. I saw as forward thinking. This is, I don't know. See the fix. I'm thinking of, I don't know if it would work for. I don't know if it would work for me. Do you change it to say no default limitation shall be imposed. By sports way during operators. And then there's an unless. Or without a notice. You know, as, as they're creating account. I mean, is there some way to make sure that they get the alert. That it's happening as they create their account. Which probably already happens on the app. Given that. Obviously they're tying the. The 21 to 25, but I don't know if. I don't want to suggest language. That's going to be problematic either. Commissioner. I think that it could also be doable just to strike that entire section. So 255. Oh, two. Section two. And that would give operators the most flexibility to continue for this sort of forward thinking. That. Well, the chair. And you just described. Except what I'm wondering about the first sentence. I've been in a lot of people complain about. I'm doing well. And now they're not letting me bet or they're limiting my bets. And I didn't ask to do that. And so I'm wondering if the first sentence. Is that part of why it's there or is it all. I believe the, and Mark, feel free to sort of jump in if I'm stating here. I think the, the intent here. Was. Also to sort of follow the same requirements in play my way, I'd like to point out that I think that it's a very, very important point. And I think that if we opt into the play management. System, I understand the concern. That you're coming with commissioner O'Brien. And so I would defer to mark on his perspective, whether he thinks. Whether he thinks sort of striking the section might go beyond. Sort of what the commission is intending to accomplish here. I do generally support that it's an often. That said, I, I, I like the, the piece about. The deposit limits for a specific group that is considered at, at greatest risk. So. I don't know if there's a way to change the language that would support, support that. Can you, it doesn't say if individuals choose to be subject to limitations regarding sports where they must affirmatively designate themselves as such. So, you know, unless the company's. You know, internal controls require. Default limitations. As a condition of creating the account or signing up or something like that. Or, or. Sorry. Maybe, you know, maybe unless. The operators internal controls impose limitations on all. Patrons or particular classes of patrons. So in other words, there might be automatic limits on. On young. Sports fans. Your age and they're just going to apply that across the board. But if you want something in addition to that, you've got to affirmatively designate it. Right. If this is coming in through internal controls, we could also work out in a. In other words, we could also work out in terms of, you know, I think there's a clause at the beginning of section two to say not withstanding sports waiting operators approved internal controls. And that way. Operators are only limited to sort of default. Imposing the default limitations that are approved by the commission in its internal controls. And still preserving this opt-in ability for patrons to engage in sports. So the only concern with that is transparency and understanding by the customer, because I'm not so sure they're going to dive into somebody's internal controls. You know, so I'm wondering if there's a way to. Do kind of what Dave was saying where you reference, you're going back to the specifics in the internal control, but you're giving a nod to the idea that. It might be inherent in their internal controls. This is just. This is just the way they do it. They do it for everybody. So. And that's just the product that they offer is not based on, on their sense of whether an individual is responsible or not. It's just. Just their internal control. Right. I suggest what might be a lot simpler of an approach. I'm not sure that. We need to be very, very careful. We need to be at the level of protection one in that first part of the sentence. So if individuals choose to be subject. So limitations regarding sports, wagering. Pursuant to. 255. 021. They must affirmatively designate themselves at such as such. And then just eliminate that second sentence. I'm just trying to think through what I'm wondering if that's if we amended O2 that if we amended O2 to that way it it then seems redundant to O2 because the O2 one does I think presume doesn't use the word affirmatively but you know the idea is it's going to take an act on the part of the patron to sign up. I think it you know this was drawn I think Mark correct me if I'm wrong from the MOU and play my way and it sounds like it hasn't gotten discussion because no no one in that context pushed back. Right quite quite the quite the opposite there was an intentional push not to have something pose limitations on it to leave it to the patron. And when you start you know setting determining specific dollar amounts is is it is tricky. You know anytime you talk about what is an individual's budget it will vary depending on who that individual is. So, in general that's why I do feel like you know it shouldn't be imposed it should be chosen by the person signing up choosing to use this tool. In a contrast, we just listened to, you know, an applicant that gave something that we weren't offering, but they came out, I think it was that big big big conference in there's Kevin, he's going to help me out here. I think there's, you know, a technical aspect of this that's essential that the Commission be aware of and that is that none of the kiosk systems currently support this. We're not talking kiosk yet Kevin so if you could just this is right now we're just struggling with limits on the general the general notion, you know, one of our anticipated licensees wants to be able to impose limits on deposit size from 21 to 25 year old. And so it's really strictly a policy I am going to turn to Kevin for the kiosks, and also the technical component here capacity of operators to to adopt to all of one through one section one a through that as well as with respect to chaos which I think any of you to this way alluded to. Before we get off this other subject Kevin do you have any experience with that we, you know, marks. Mentioning it's really important to have informed player choice. And I agree with that, but I also agree that there may be some limits on that informed player choice that might be healthy. I think we have one. Yeah, we have one. We have one category one operator who I know has a more restrictive approach to our allowing for, they prohibit. Anybody who's on the VSC list for placing ragers on slot machines to also not be able to place wagers on online express wagering my right mark we do have one who's adopted that. Right, that's, it's pretty, that is actually pretty consistent across operators right now. Our policy is that if you're our policy is if you're restricted on from slots, you can go still go to the casino in place of sports wagering that my mom. We, we differentiate between a sports wagering voluntary self exclusion and a casino voluntary self exclusion and the operators have adopted different policies to to be able to accommodate both of those lists. Right, so I kind of liken that to the situation we're looking at right now, right, we're saying, you know, we don't want to have any operator placing a default limitation. And we have one anticipated licensee who wishes to do exactly that. So I'd like, I guess I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't want to be not, I guess I want to encourage innovation in this area mark and for you to be able to assess it and entertain it and think about it, not just have. And Madam Chair, I do, I agree, I agree with it. I think it's a, it's an interesting idea. I think, you know, like, like many of these areas, I think it's, it's right to be evaluated to see how effective, you know, preset limits or even just these tools and in general are. But, but the sort of the theory principles behind what this operator is suggesting are, I think are quite good and quite interesting. So can we just leave it somehow. Yeah, do you have some language. I'm wondering if so if you go to tunes, if individuals choose to be subject to limitations beyond any limitations in an operators approved internal controls regarding sports or a drink that they must affirmatively designate themselves as such. And then you strike the second sentence. I guess you could leave the second sentence because it's more. You're basically trying to bacon the idea that the internal if the platform internal controls they did this is the requirements for entrance into our app. So if individuals choose to be subject to limitations beyond any requirements set forth and an operators approved internal controls regarding sports or a drink, they must affirmatively designate themselves as such. You know, I could offer you could more affirmatively stated say operators may impose limitations through their own systems of internal controls but if an individual chooses to be subject to limitations beyond those they have to affirmatively designate. That's almost encouraging operators to think about. Yeah. Yeah, and then if we see operators, we see operators choosing limits that you know we really think are outside our, you know not consistent with our values, we can, you know, work with them, or change our, our reg but I like, I like that. Okay. Okay, now let's just put them in the parking lot with that language. And let's turn to Mr. What do you have in this Lee if you want to introduce the issue around the chaos and then just confirm from me about to understand whether online operators would be able to implement. I think most of these are consistent with what they've indicated to us they have the technological capacity. Before we keep going. I just have to raise a flag that I'm going to need to stop and get lunch pretty soon so yeah if we could maybe bank on breaking at 130. As we keep going through this, I apologize but I'm no I'm with you and I realize that but okay. Just wanted to say it now it's 129. Okay, thank you. And only one standing between us and much there you go. What a heavy responsibility while I certainly don't want to be the cause of anyone's hangers so I will try to move through these speedily. So returning to the regulations the next section I wanted to explain was 2504 on packet page 31. And this is regarding notifications of approaching limit so this concept is one that came from play my way, in which there are no notifications that they're at 50% of their budget 75% 100% 125 or 50 every 25 increment after since play management and vision is a hard stop so individuals can't go beyond the budget that they set for themselves and also based on feedback from the play management program in which individuals patron sometimes said we're getting too many notifications. We have here created a requirement that operators provide just one notification when someone has reached 75% of their budget. And so that can be your daily weekly monthly wage your budget as well as your deposit budget as well as your account budget. And so this is tied to the concept of, you can only maintain this maximum amount in your sports with your account. So you will get one notification when you hit 75% of whatever that budget is. And this is just to give you a heads up that you are starting to get close to sort of the limit that you've imposed on yourself for this time period. And also a recognition of the fact that patrons said we're getting a little bit too many notifications result we've also created the ability for patrons to say I don't want to receive these notifications, because if this is going to be a hindrance or an annoyance in their sports during activity, and therefore they're not going to want to enroll in place play management we wanted to remove that sort of disincentive, or that sort of barrier that may prevent otherwise rolling in play management. If an individual chooses to accept, or if an individual doesn't opt out of these notifications, what will happen is, during this person session so during, you know, the day week or month for which they've set this limitation, they'll get the notification that the first time they reach the 75% they're not going to get it a second time or a third time X number of times as sort of their sports wagering actively fluctuates and only get it the first time. In order to proceed with sports wagering they'll just have to acknowledge that they have, you know, received this notification that they're at 75% of their budget. If there are no questions there. I will quickly move on to the next two sections. I guess I'm, I guess I'm just checking in. Just Mr. Maloli was going to weigh in. Should we be turning to Mr. Maloli now? Annie are you going to wait? I was going to wait until getting through all the substance of this before addressing the kiosk aspect of it. Okay, did we get through all three? All right. Commissioner Skinner. I wonder how weather, including these notifications is a relatively easy thing to do. I didn't, I didn't hear that any of the sports wagering operators were doing that currently. And it just, my other question is whether that is a requirement in any other jurisdiction. My exact questions, you know, Kevin might be able to answer that or someone from Gli. Yes, that that answer is, no, it is not required in other jurisdictions. So we Massachusetts would be the first to require this. Yes. So Joe, on the first to commissioner Skinner second question. How flexible are operators on that operators? How are they able to incorporate this? They would. That's a that's a really difficult question to answer. Certainly operators are looking to comply with the regulations that are opposed on them. The, as for what is being decided here and how some can react to that requirement. I really can't answer is there's what seven tether untethered mobile operators and all operator. Sorry. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's like, it would really depend on the operator and their and how quick they can get such functionality implemented into their system and then through the lab for testing. Certainly, if, if you're intending on imposing this requirement prior to launch, you might not end up having many operators able to launch unless they're able to really fast track all these updates, which I'm not going to speak on behalf of the operate the software divide providers. It's just gonna I didn't mean to interrupt but that I've had that on my mind throughout wondering what's new and what's different. So, just gonna you want to elaborate. Yeah, well exactly what Mike, I think it was Mike mentioned is that that would be my concern is whether or not a sports and operator can launch at the anticipated timeframe once that's identified I know we said March but once there's a specific date issued that'd be my concern is whether they need ready to launch. The other thing I want to bring up is that basically what we've seen in other markets is most jurisdictions do require deposit limits and wager limits but very few, if any off the top of my head, require loss limits and that's because the nature sports wagering it's not that you place a wager and it immediately settles. You've got futures bets that might settle in the middle of the day and basically you're having a player who might be chasing losses by trying to have a loss limit as opposed to just requiring a wager limit. And with wager settling in middle of the day you might have a future futures way wager settle, and then you hit that loss limit but then 10 minutes later, another wager settles, and now you're back in because it, the equation rebalanced and now you're below that loss limit, and then another wager settles and then you're back out. So, it's typically not implemented for sports wagering it's more of a eye gaming type of wager. Yeah, due to the, what we call latency. The time between the bets placed and settled where you'd imagine on a slot machine or a blackjack or a let game bets are placed and instantly, or near instantly resulted where an individual can place a bet on a sporting event, and then there's a three hour plus betting window for them to continue to bet, and that first bet hasn't actually been determined a winner loss yet. In addition to longer timelines, where as soon as this launches this possibility of instant the bets on the Superbowl which won't happen for, you know, a couple weeks. And you could place a bet right now in most markets to have the Celtics win the NBA championship and that won't happen till the end of June. So, just bringing some extra light to what Mike said. Given that we're only requiring a single notification. I wonder how effective it will be. You know, to the point of, you know, a wind settles and you go below the 75% mark. But an operator isn't required to send a subsequent notification once it gets back up to the 75%. You know, if there's a loss that settles. I wonder, you know, about the effectiveness of it. So I don't know. And really what, you know, I don't know if Mark can speak to sort of the policy behind. I mean, these are fantastic points. But, you know, much like playing a slot machine, you will be up and down and you may be over the 75% or it's really just it's an approaching notification. It's not even saying you are at 75%. It's an approaching you're approaching your budget is is the intention of it. Letting somebody know they're getting close to to what whatever the designated budget is. So you can go up and down from that 75% on a slot machine to the ideas to just provide one notification. Could I make a suggestion, just that practicality because, you know, we look at Director Randall Linden as being, you know, the thought leader in this space. But I'm hearing Commissioner Skinner she raised the exact question that I'm sure many of us were thinking about. Okay, this is great but how does this get implemented. Could we think about this reg in the two parts, the current part that we know the operators could implement for launch and then we visit the other parts and understand and then get really really well informed on the philosophical part of policy underlying policy commissioner Skinner and then and then add to this regulation just like we've done, you know, you didn't launch with playing my way we didn't launch, you know, casinos with playing my way but we put them in and did that in a way that worked for the operators, so that there was good functionality. I don't know is there a way to do that now. Mark. Yeah, thank you I was hoping to be able to respond to that I I wholeheartedly support that the operators that that you have selected the operators that are currently have licenses and operating in Massachusetts have been good partners and developing these types of play management responsible gaming tools and and I think we are in some cases in uncharted territory, this is a relatively new form of gambling, and I think the innovation takes a partnership between the Commission and these operators, and we have really good ideas, we have our own sort of approach to responsible and I think that operators typically have some very good ideas to and it's coming together to with a shared vision of what we want to accomplish that I wholeheartedly support and that's I feel like we've done that with with game sense. We've done that would play my way, and I, and I think that, however, we, we land on this. I think that it will still be a partnership to look at how we can advance this technology to improve informed player choice and positive play. I don't care about the Commissioner Skinner I felt like I, I should have yielded to my apologies Commissioner Skinner bottle up on that. I don't follow up I think that, you know, I appreciate Mark's perspective and I think that that's the way to go that we just revisit this at a later date. Yeah, so, and I think now back to Kevin you started to talk about chaos capacity to so if you want to address your, your concerns. Yes, I think what Mark said makes a lot of sense to try to work out some of these practical issues with the operators, my big fear was that it would be mandated for chaos, none of which the systems that currently support this at any level. It's been tested for it so if you're talking about, you know, launching by the end of the month, it becomes a substantial practical problem. And so I think that working out some of these issues and coming back with a way to implement it. I also agree with Mark on allowing the operators and leeway to do what we call what I call informed experimentation. But always measuring that. We do a lot of things in our G that we don't measure and you know we've seen instances for instance in Australia where they they mandated relatively strict time limits on slot machines. And the practical effect of that was that it annoyed the average player and it was a fundamental misunderstanding of how a severe problem gamblers mind works because if you tell me, I've got 15 minutes to play. And I'm down $500 I'm going to play three times as fast and triple my bet. And that's what was happening. So, some of these things that sound good and vacuum that, especially for people that haven't spent, you know, years and decades on RG. You know, we had the $500 loss in Missouri, it was a disaster, I mean it was easy to circumvent. You could just walk around the parking lot of the bathroom pick up somebody else's player card. This really wasn't part of our, you know, we were the first ones to have self exclusion the first one to have an alliance on problem gambling the first one to have free counseling for every resident. It just wasn't effective. And, and the thing I worry about with kiosk gambling is, even if you have you're using an account and you run up against your limit all you have to do is log out of your account, put money in the device. The ease with which the loss limit was circumvented taught me a lot about trying to micromanage human behavior. I don't disagree with that. Kevin, I think a lot of responsible gaming tools can be circumvented and it's our job to put them out there to allow these types of tools to be in place so people can put parameters to put limits on their gambling. That we do run into, I mean this is, this is outlined in 23 and so I don't, I do like that the direction that this is going but I don't want to forget what what we're required to do to so I don't know how to reconcile those two gracefully. So, and maybe this is a good, we do need to pause because Michelle Brian has pointed out. We are reaching our hunger limit. So it's one 35 I want to be kinds of time, we can, we can revisit this but to mark point. So something that we decide to take out items that cannot be imposed. Nimbly, you know just assuming we accepted the policy underlying policy couldn't be accepted nimbly by the operators for launch dates. We still be meeting our staff with the operators still be meeting their statutory requirements and my, my response to that is that they've known along with the statutory requirements are, and that their applications and their demonstrations reflected compliance with the So, does that help mark. Yeah. Yes, madam chair I think. Absolutely, it's in statute, there's a requirement to do so in each applicant that has come forth has demonstrated limit setting technology that's available on the planet. Yeah. And so it's that thought leadership that we want to reserve the option to implement it just may mean that we have to do in the second step. Commissioners, should we return to this item after lunch, or do we have a plan now. And I turn to our lawyers to for any guidance. I need to take a break. So I'd like to circle back after lunch. All right, let's break. It's 137 will come back at 210 we may have to turn to the catalog. Next, to make sure we get to that before we go back to our regulatory region. Hey, we'll come back at 210. Thanks everyone. All set. Thanks. Kind of a pretty snowfall going on outside my window. Yeah, same here. Same in Boston. Yeah. Right. Yeah, I'm just gonna, I need to refill my water bottle. So, please. I'm here so you can just, you know, if you need to take roll call without me please go ahead. Okay, thank you. Okay. So we're going to just get started with the roll call is a convening of. Of our meeting that we started earlier today at 11 and commissioner Skinner's just getting her water bottle built so she is here. I'll confirm a roll call commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. And commissioner Maynard. I'm still here. Okay. So, last we left it. We're on bill. Management. 255. And we were trying to come up with a practical solution commissioner Skinner I noted your presence. And I'm going to come up with a practical solution that would preserve the thought leadership that director Vanderland brings to this area, as well as allow for practical operational implementation. I'm going to turn to the legal team. Did you come up with some kind of practical solution as to how we should move forward on this. Miss Lee or Mr Mackie. So from what we were hearing based on the conversation before the break it sounded like the commission was trending towards removing the references to chaos as well as the notification provision. And so we're trying to come up with some kind of practical solution to this first. For this first round of promulgation, due to concerns that operators just don't have the technological capabilities to implement play management on chaos, as well as provide these kinds of notifications that we kind of originally call for. We have drafted or revised the regulation that's in your packet in accordance with that conversation. So it's a good overview that Kerry is able to share her screen but I will just note before, you know, we sort of delve into what that kind of regulation look like that it's certainly not the only option that is before the commission. The commission could keep the regulation as is an issue policy about later effective dates for those specific provisions so such as for the chaos or the notifications you could provide a specific date or say that, you know, six or nine months after launch is appropriate, you know, then the commission will sort of require conformance with those specific provisions and in the meantime the commission women force it. There's also the other option of just keeping the regulation as is and we understand that this is going to be a difficult left or it's going to be a bit of a press for operators but from what we have heard from sort of folks with a little bit more of the technical issues, it doesn't sound like any of this is impossible, but that certainly would be demanding to get it done in time. And so that's also, you know, a policy decision for this commission to make about, you know, what goes into the regulations now and even if this notification part do stay in the key in the regulations is does the commission think that it makes sense to issue a policy sort of saying it won't enforce these specific parts for X amount of time until operators have had time to develop the technology and that's why it's time to test it. I'm just asking a question just to clarify just on the operational side my understanding is though for the January 31 launch, it would be impossible to have the kiosks with this technology. Is that, is that correct. Kevin. That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. That just can't bet if you wanted to keep the launch date that will work. And then my understanding as well. It's unclear as to the March date, which Commissioner Skinner raised as well with, even if they could do it with respect to the category three. That is more than likely yes. Meaning they could do it or they could not. Let's take it one step back so while the stipulation calls for a notification. And we get them all time on our phone they seem really simple. There's a lot of technical changes that need to be implemented. There's a lot of algorithm rhythms to track that logic database databases to be realigned to correctly record that logic to have that notification show up. So it would be a fairly significant ask. So we're not talking just the kiosk, your point. Well, it's also the. That's my understanding I do not propose to be an expert on the tech I'll defer to the GLI folks on that. I'm sorry, I, so we've already heard from any, I know about the kiosks but in terms of the retail on the tethered so we already heard from them that they would need time and what the timeline is on this for the mobile part. And as far as the regulation goes we haven't gotten any comments from any operators on this regulation yet but I also recognize that we just posted it last Friday for comments. Right. The other thing I'm wondering is could there be a section that's added in here for a waiver where we grant waivers for good cause and they can just say to us, you know we're going to need nine months you know whatever it is. And then they can simply come to the commission and get a waiver for a period of time. Yeah, and I have been getting some inquiries about waivers, just generally, if the commission if the operators can't do any tech requirements and Todd sort of looked into that generally. Overall, I think, and, you know, Kevin chime in I think overall, you know, the GLI requirements and the testing has not stopped anyone from launching today. They're not understanding in other jurisdictions they have not been the hold up the testing, but I just don't know us to the specifics so Kevin I'll defer to you on that. Yeah, I think that for the purposes of the statutory requirement which only applies to cat three, which just generally says they have to have limits and ability that that that is within the already adopted requirements, we are testing to that that functionality is built into every jurisdiction for which we've tested in the US. So I'm not so worried about that this specific, the additional requirements in this. I think there are two things to consider one, how long from a technology standpoint is it going to take to support it. And two, do we have a proper. robust and sufficient vetting period to make sure that it works as we are advertising because one thing that I always look for with especially with with anything but especially with RG features or policies where we're saying to a vulnerable population we are going to help you by offering this tool to you. I'm absolutely sure that it works, because I think it's a, a significant risk and an error to say okay, we're going to, we're going to allow these self limitation tools and here's how it works and then it doesn't end up working that way so I think that trying to do this right is more important than trying to do it fast. So my question in that regard then is if we want them to be working toward this and testing it. If we're not going to have it in the reg. Where's it going to be so they know they would have to work toward it and what would the deadline we're shooting for me. You know market I've talked about this I you know he's your director responsible gaming son, let him talk about it but from a tactical standpoint one option is for market is responsible gaming framework to work with the operators to establish the guidelines from a technology standpoint how this is going to work mandate that they included in their internal controls that have to be approved by the commission and once they're approved by the commission they're bound as by their internal controls as if it was a rule. So that's a more flexible approach, and it still has the portion effect of a rule and a violation could be penalized and disciplined and you can hold them accountable and you can audit to it. It has everything that I think you're looking for but that's just one option and I'll defer to mark on the rest. And that's the point of clarification right now is the issue that we're focused on only 255 oh four. One, no. One, is that what is that the, or there any in the earlier section to that also are a present implementation issue. One, because I think we need to understand the lay of the land for implementation and then I think we have to have a discussion as to whether from a policy point of view we all agree that that we would want to go forward, because that's our discussion to right. I think Commissioner Skinner you framed it. You know, it's a policy issue and then it's implementation issue. Maybe the implementation issue is a good one to address first right now. I think that, as Joe explained, the way the notifications work may be more technologically complicated than it might on its face appear because we need to figure out how to notify them of what. So precisely, I'm looking at limitations on 255 oh two section one ABCDF. Do those present implementation challenges, and I'm assuming that this does not apply to kiosk at all because they don't have a capacity period right. Okay, with respect to for online. The big one there would be see seeing. Because of the examples I brought up earlier and how the velocity is the term used in the industry of sports waging is significantly different than a casino or slot machine. Okay, and so Joe. A B B E F. There may be some issues there would have to double check with the operators. Certainly a is already there in some formats because of the overall arching wagering limits. You know someone just can't log in bet a million dollars on Patriots. There's certainly a stipulations to in that and that's just a number to adjust right. And then be. I am aware that some operators do already have that type of functionality I am not aware at this moment if all of them have specifically for the ones that applied from Massachusetts. See has already been noted. D is the same answer as be. Would have to do investigation amount. Same with that would have to do an investigation to the amount operas that cover that. So off the back can't be assured that that's an easy implementation right. So they all kind of have some challenge. All right. That fair job. Yeah. And then we got to 2504 notifications of approaching limits, which mostly went through with us. So we understand what it's intended to do. That we know the chaos that doesn't work. What I'm hearing is it would be a. That's the right now the operators for the online are not going to have capacity right now in it. For chaos. Yeah, the correct the chaos in deployed in Massachusetts as of this week. They are incapable of the, they're incapable of meeting 255 period, which is called for in 2501. Okay, so, got it. All right. So, I just asked a clarification on that. They are inherently incapable or just programmatically incapable at the moment. They're not set up to handle this at all. They could be in some period of time right. Is it a software issue again, right or a hardware steps. Absolutely. Going to be a software issue. It's just a functionality just not exist straight up like. As for when I kind of go back to that. Answer I gave earlier where I was really careful in my language to you've got different operators and different. And while they all do want to comply. They certainly have their own dev teams and speeds. To which get that type of functionality. Deployed. So my, my question is, and I think all the commissioners, we know the answer. Then this kind of a program on kiosks. And maybe even on the apps. At least with respect to. Before would be new. To the nation. I'll try other jurisdictions know the jurisdiction has similar. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Madam chair. Yes, commissioner. We used to use a term back in my day. That something wasn't ready for prime time yet. And I'm not sure that this is ready for prime time. However. I think I heard Mark say. That we can have conversations. With all of our operators. Moving forward as we did with the casinos. They can come back to us. And we can address this at a later time when it is ready. Prime time. And we can have a better information. I'm not. And I'll use your terminology. I think we need to put this one in the parking lot. For a little bit. And, and I would say that. I started to hear the direction with that. We could accept it as it is and just have a waiver. I'm wondering if we need to put it in a parking lot just to also understand the underlying policy and have Mark really inform us in the right way. And so that we know if it's cutting edge, it's the right coach. What do you think commissioner? As one commissioner, I would like to do that. Yeah. I need, I need some more information. Yeah. So commissioner Brian, I kind of liked where you're going, but I think I'm just not ready necessarily even to just assume policy. You know, I would like Mark to go through it with us. Yeah. I would have some more conversations though, in terms of timing. I like the idea of it. And to me, and I, you know, if they really wanted to do this because it was going to increase profits or whatever my guess is it might happen faster than if we say, well, let's talk about it and we'll circle back and we'll meet you in agreement. You know, this is again, the cynical side of me. So I'd like it to be done in a way that is clear that this is what our hope and expectation is. And then Kevin, my understanding is you thought maybe a ballpark September date was something. Sort of realistic on this front. Is that. Yeah, I can't claim that that is based on any. Thorough research with the operators. I felt like it was a reasonable opening bid. And let them comment as appropriate. But if you want us to investigate that further and come back. It would be nice to get a sense from them. From the ones we have licensed. What do they think is realistic? But I do like the idea of kiosks and mobile. And if it's going to be pulled out, making it clear, that's what we want to do. But then figuring out how Mark can get. I don't want it lost in the shuffle. My fear is. This is one of those things that we say we're going to get back to when we don't. I think you have a game plan based on the development of game sense where Mark, you know, did a great job of working collaboratively with the operators come up with that. System and. But however we can be supportive, we're happy to happy to do that. Yeah. This is going to be a big. Last game since you didn't go live until very recently, right? So. Can I just turn to executive director Wells for some guidance here? And then I'll turn back to the commissioners. So. We've got. A rag at miss Lee. I think she said that there's that you have a. Possible fix. Have you shared that with, with, did I say I thought you shared it with director Wells or no, did I misunderstand that? Um, Ms. Tracy has a copy of the red with the proposed sort of sort of revisions removing kiosk and notifications. That's something that we can, I would ask Carrie to share her screen. Oh, I thought I'd heard Karen, my apologies. So. Why don't we look to see what we've got. Thanks. And then commissioners turn back to you. Gary, would you mind sharing your screen? Yep. Thank you. So in these revision, the sort of one revision that I will highlight that is made in this copy that we haven't discussed yet is in 255. Oh, one, you'll see the insertion of who maintain a sports wagering account. Um, you can't implement play management on folks who don't have a play management account. So we just inserted the who maintain a sports wagering account to clarify that other than that, all of the red line that you will see in this version. Um, is made to sort of remove the references to chaos as well as to remove the, the Oh four section on notifications of a crocheting limit. And so these. Sorry. Sorry. Uh, the. I'm presuming there are the edits we made. Oh, two, two and oh, two, three, just based on the comments that we received earlier. Correct. So this doesn't. Yeah, this is the one that we talked about earlier, but it doesn't. To commissioner Skinner's earlier point, it doesn't address the online operators implementation challenges. Uh, this version would just take out any references to the kiosk as well as the. Sorry, I'm having some scrolling trouble with the notification section. Um, do we have to have this regulation in place in order to have proper limits for the statute. Meet the statute rather particularities here that we need. Make sure we meet this. Or to make sure that meeting that. Enhance meeting the statutory moments. Uh, I don't think so. I think you're used the perfect word there. The regulation would really enhance the statutory requirement. Um, I just want to know what also another option on all of this is to sort of. Um, come up with something today or Tuesday or Wednesday that, you know, we think, um, kind of meets the discussion we're having. And, um, begin an ordinary promulgation process where we wouldn't be filing anything by emergency. It just would go out for comment for, you know, two to three months. Um, to commissioner O'Brien's point, just to sort of give operators a sense of what the commission is thinking. Um, just another thought. Commissioners. Commissioner Skinner, commissioner Maynard, Christian Hill, like, Christian Hill, I hear you wanting to put it in a parking lot all together, perhaps. I still feel that way. I think, I think discussions can take place and they can come back to us at a later time. I, I like Carrie's idea of the normal process. And I'll tell you in part why that. I, I, I, I think in the, my worry is in the launch. And, you know, the desire to make sure we're all getting what we want and going forward is sort of now. And so I want to respect the fact that it's not a possibility right now, but it's something that we want. And so if the normal process allows that, you know, vibrant engagement and discussion in the normal reg promulgation process to me, that would be the way to go. And if they come out at the end of the day and say, I don't know why, et cetera, scrap it. Then we scrap it, but it does keep the momentum going. Well, commissioner made it. I just want to hear from him, please. So I guess my question to that carry would be, does anything, is there anything in this reg that needs to be finalized before launch? I don't think so. I think, again, the regulation, you know, further explains the statutory requirement regarding limit setting. So it just flushes out what the, what specifically the commission would like the rules regarding that to be. So I think it's okay if we, if there, if there isn't something, a regulation in place prior to launch. David, Annie, I don't know if you have any other thoughts or disagree with that, but I think. No, and there are limitations that will be in effect. There's BSE and there's a cooling off. Which will be in place. Okay. I've got Joe. He's got his hand up. Right. I just wanted to point out that. 248.16 responsible gaming limits. That paragraph actually. Covers a good portion of the. Where am I a, I also want to note that this is the first time I've seen this. This document wasn't shared with GLI. So I'm. Live. Reporting here. I'm sorry. I mean, it wasn't, it wasn't. Yeah, it wasn't, we weren't consulted. To, to lean on this. So. So a B. E. Wait. Under 248.16 responsible gaming limits, which we already have in there and already had can test for. A B D. And F. Are. Covered. Yes. C is the one that I've brought the examples up about the loss. Stipulation and the problem with velocity. And then E is potentially questionable. But it kind of applies to like. The operators reserves. So the ones that are covered in the other rag are. Cause it's hard to. A B as in boy. Correct. And then. C is. Isn't dog. D is in dog. Yep. And F. And F. Thank you. All right. So C and E. Okay. So the commissioner may not ask the question I asked. This isn't. We're not going to. You may not have our. Policy priorities delineated, but we're not going to be compromising. Launch. I don't think we're going to be compromising. I think I'm not ready to just say. I. I disagree. With the policy. I just don't know if I understand it. So I'm looking for some time to understand a little bit, which means that mark may need to help us a little bit. So I hear Carrie say, well, we can look at it next week. But I don't know if I understand it. So I'm looking for some time to understand. I don't have any information. I need to just understand. You know, the requirement itself. So. That's where I. Yeah, but I, what I feel uncomfortable with is putting it in a parking lot as opposed to bumping it to a date specific. I have a question, Madam chair. Yes. Joe, please. Initially. Is it fair to say that. The. Okay. Taking kiosks off the table. Is it fair to say that the online operators. Are already set up. To. Implement. 2502. Subsection one. A B D and F. Yes. And so would it be a compromise? And this is to my fellow commissioners. To. For now. Put C and E in the parking lot. And move this regulation forward. With the exception of those two subsections. As well as the elimination of 255. For the notifications section. And then. Do a little bit more homework. And then we'll see you at the end of the session. I'll see you at the end of the session. We'll see you at the end of the session. We'll see you at the end of the session. We'll see you at the end of the session. But just the changes that Dave just already mentioned that we discussed earlier. Yes. I'm at that. But the added change would be eliminating. C and E from 255. 021. Right. I'm fine with that. What do you think about that proposal. And then any adaptations? Because it looks like there's some references to. The the implementation, just because I feel like. Again, keeping the momentum is better. If it's all together as one thing, as opposed to a couple of stuff we've plucked out. But I leave that to Mark. If he feels like it's better to have that, those sections in place. Now. Thank you commissioner. Brian. Now operators currently have. Limit setting. In place. And I don't see that changing when they, when they launch in Massachusetts. I think. There are specific. Philosophical approach that. We've adopted it in Massachusetts. I think. Needs to be implemented or reflected in the current play. Management or limit setting technology. And so I do. And would really appreciate a. Or prolonged process to kind of. Figure. Figure that out. And what makes. What makes sense. What makes sense. What. What is feasible. What we need to be working towards. So commissioner Brian. To your point. I do like a little bit of fire. Under myself and our operators to. To push this discussion. I mean, not to keep pulling it back to, to play my way. It was a good process, but there, there wasn't the fire under our feet of a regulation. Which was a different, a different experience than this. So. I want to. I would love. To. Push this out. And make sure that there. Are limit setting features in place that are consistent in Massachusetts. And I think. That's probably in place right now. I would like to continue to evolve this, this type of tool to make sure that we're. Improving this practice in collaboration. With, with our operators and come to a regulation. That works for everybody. So mark, I have to say, I'm not sure exactly what that means. Does that mean that. You need. You'd like some time. To kind of. Do on it. And then. We visit it with us. And. Implement. The regulation. That works. So mark, I have to say, I'm not sure exactly what that means. Does that mean that you need. That works and works for the. Operators. What are you asking? I'm sorry. Actually, after I stopped talking, I realized I wasn't all that clear. I. Two things I could either go. I could. I think commissioner of Brian's recommendation. That. I'm not sure that. Or carried carries recommendation that we adopted. We have a full, a full three months in order to come up. Get feedback, revise this, this. Regulation and come before the commission. At a later date so that it's something that. It is. It's more complete. Or if we wanted to put it in the parking lot. I guess I would just ask the commission to have some. To come up with some type of time table. And accountability for. For our staff, for me and my team. And our. I pledge that I pledge that I can. I will give you a short timeline. You know, I'm not thinking of putting this down months. I'm thinking. Come back in a couple of weeks to us and educate us about the policy. We learn more about the landscape. And then we get. You know, We learn more about the landscape. You know, The reg. Maybe it's an amendment to the reg that commissioner Skinner is just proposing. And, you know, put it in and it might. Evolve differently with a little bit of. You know, the commissioner is really being able to give good input and get some more input from the. The online operators and the chaos. So I just. Think you might get a better. We saw. But I'm not thinking. You know, it's going to be very high. It's going to be a short. A short, short parking time. I'm looking at our GLI experts. Joe and Mike. Yeah, I just, I just want to reiterate that. I double checked and. A B D and F R. Already covered under. 248.16 responsible gaming limits. And. We've already tested. In other jurisdictions that have the, if not exact near same language and adopted regulation. So it's only C then. It was C and. E to some extent. Okay. So still see any. Yep. And so it's already there. In fact. We're going to be testing it. Of the two. In multiple markets and multiple other markets, and we'll be actively testing it. Now for Massachusetts. So what about the O four then 255, Oh, four that. Oh, four is. Massachusetts. And the requirement for notifications. Would be. Specific to mass. And a little bit more cumbersome or. to put in place. In a short time frame, considering they're aligning to launch in a new market, I would say that is a extreme ask. All right. But the MISCA. Okay. And then Mike had his hand up, but maybe he took it down. Went back to the back of the row. Now we've got Dr. Van was up to support Joe. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Director Vandalinden. Yeah, I think the notifications is a perfect example of something that I would like to continue to work with our, you know, with the industry, with our operators on. I think that's a perfect example philosophically. I really like the idea that we're providing people with advanced notification before they actually reach whatever limit or budget that they have set. But clearly as GLI pointed out, there's some issue with implementation. But I think that it's something that we may be able to work on and get to a solution with time. Okay. That sounds good then. What do we think about this? Sorry, go ahead. One thing I want to bring up with notifications, unlike play my way, you know, with sports wagering is if it's tied to a player, account the player has a full transaction history available at all times, deposits, withdrawals, wagers, they can review responsible gaming limits, their balance is clear cut on the screen. So it's not a, oh no, I forgot I spent $100 last week. And, you know, in cash, like on a slot machine, it's all reported in the system and available for the player to see. That page does give that and that's universal, right? Yes. Yeah. And it's required by your regulations already to have an account balance, you know, to have the account history. It's actually a requirement of GLI 33 as well. Mark, I think you were probably imagining it was real time notifications of some sort, but I think the nature of sports wagering makes it difficult with those future bets, et cetera, right? Well, it makes it difficult for specifically, and note that .04 calls back to 02. And it makes it specifically difficult on the technical side for C. And as noted, A and B already exist. Now, the notification layer is certainly an ask and will require additional development. C might be just flat out really complicated logically on the technical side because of the lack of velocity in sports wagering, meaning a bet is placed and it's not instantly verified or well, yeah. A win-loss doesn't happen right away. It's as simple as that. Okay. I'm being really cognizant of time now, guys. It's almost three o'clock and we've got some work to do. So, commissioners, where are we? Do we have a consensus in terms of how to approach this? Commissioner Skinner came up with a good compromise to maybe go forward with what could be implemented and then we could revisit it. We could put this as a side in a very short-term parking lot to have Mark come back and educate us a bit and then see if we want to adopt a regulation, some sort, if we didn't do Commissioner Skinner's approach. Well, we could adopt as is, but I think we're hearing that that's really an implementation challenge. I mean, other than taking kiosks, I think we all recognize kiosks are off the page. So, Commissioner Maynard, are you? Oh, Commissioner Maynard, I'm sorry. Were you leaning in? I couldn't tell who went first, sorry. No, I just think I think the better approach maybe, since this is the first time we're talking about this and it's not critical to launch that we go out on this a little bit and by a little bit, I mean like a week, 10 days, something like that, so that Mark, they can get a better sense of, you know, is C just not realistic? That sort of thing. And then it's still on track. We're not losing it in terms of momentum, but then we're not, we're ideally just doing it once and it may be the reg is done not for emergency, which then even then would bake in once we have a better sense of what it is. I just feel like this is the first time that we're diving into it. So I'm not so sure on it. Today makes the most sense, since we don't need it for launch. Commissioner O'Brien, I think that your, maybe my term parking lot was confusing. It really was short term parking. So probably we're in alignment there. Commissioner Maynard? Madam Chair, I think I would go with the Commissioner Skinner model on this and push through what we can agree to push through that's already being done on the industry and then in a short period, as you've said, revisit these other issues. That's how I would do it. Right. That works for me too, because it's just the issues that are complicated that we've taken out of Commissioner Skinner's proposal. So then the rest stands, right, Commissioner Skinner? So we would, yeah, we'd be putting into the short term parking those the items that are harder to digest. Commissioner Hill? That would be fine. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, what about that, if we moved on something? That's fine. I feel like we keep getting these things like, by the way, this is duplicated in this, this is already covered with that. So I feel like we're going to be cleaning this up a lot and the vote today wouldn't advance anything that needs to get advanced today. But if everybody else wants to go that way, I'm fine with it. That's why I was wondering if there's any other stuff that would advance the, you know, an introduction. Maybe we ask legal, which is easier for you for us to act on a on a scaled down version pursuant to Commissioner Skinner? I mean, it would be, I think, very easy for us to make just really just two additional edits on top of what Kerry showed on the screen a few minutes ago. We just delete 255.02c and we delete 255.02e. Obviously, I have to change some cross references and stuff. But if we did that on top of the edits that Kerry showed, then I think that would comport with what, what I'm hearing the Commission's intentions are. We're not voting on, I mean, if a vote took place, it wouldn't be to file as final, right? Is this would just be to go out for public comment? Is that right? Was this going to be by emergency? You could do whatever you prefer. You could vote to just begin the ordinary promulgation process, which we wouldn't, you know, nothing would be filed, nothing would go into effect. It would just begin all the notice requirements and go out for public comment if you were to choose to do that today. Do I have a motion? I can try to pull one together to spare with me. Can I, before we do that, I mean, I don't know that we got through the rest of the document. So I guess I'm not comfortable making a motion at this time. I think we do need to continue on with the remainder of 255. Madam Chair, I'm going to once again recommend that we table 255. Do you want to make a motion? I would move at this point to table 255 and to bring it back at some point in the very near future. I would agree with that. I think we table it for, you know, a couple of weeks until we get more information on it from GLI and the licensees and mark. Do I have a second? I had to call the discussion guys. Are we moving formally or just talking about it? No, Commissioner Hill just made a motion. Commissioner Hill made a motion. I second it. I say I'm just asking to put a date specific on it. So I was just asking for a two-week date. 14 days. Yeah. 14 days. Bring it back in 14 days. As long as I want to give Mr. Director VanderLinden the time to be able to fully develop his ideas and come back, it's driven not by us, but by him at this point. Yeah, so whatever he thinks is reasonable. That's right. We have an agenda setting. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot happening. I think that we'll let's put it out for 14 days and I'll do the best I can to bring back to the commission as much information as I can. And I guess you can decide if that's enough and how to proceed. Right. That's my only hesitation of putting a date. I want to make sure not. I think I'm hearing Mark say he wants to make sure it's teed up nicely. So we've got a motion to put it on hold. Commissioner O'Brien and I think then, Commissioner Skinner, we can revisit it in its entirety. Again, just to move us along. So I've got a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Skinner, what do you think? Okay, Commissioner Maynard. Okay. Good. So and I vote so we have an all five yeses, correct on on that motion. Thank you. Five zero. All right. Before we move to Sterling Company, I think it is a very related discussion for us to go to temporary prohibition from sports wagering and that's on 254. Number five on three item three. The reason why is because that indicates an amendment that was came out of discussions we've had with the applicants. So why don't we turn to that? Maybe we just put up the language in case somehow. Maybe everybody has it on there. Yes. The packet page 38 contains the proposed amendment to the cooling off reg and it should be provided in red. And so I'm happy to this is fairly straightforward. And we received comments from an operator who expressed concern about providing advanced notification of the expiration of cooling off when we had originally presented this draft, this regulation to the commission. And as it was approved, patrons who signed up to cool off were provided advanced notification of the expiration of cooling off that advanced notification would let them know cooling off is set to expire in 24 hours or 72 hours depending on how long you had signed up for cooling off. And that notification also provided patrons instructions on how to renew cooling off or how to apply to have their name added to the VSE list. And so we heard feedback from at least one operator who expressed concern that providing advanced notification of the end of cooling off may unintentionally create a sense of excitement in a patron to be able to engage in sports wagering again to address this potential externality. We are proposing an amendment here that allows an individual to choose whether or not they'll receive that advanced notification. So if I sign up for cooling off and I think that I am someone who might be susceptible to getting really excited that cooling off is ending and that's going to backfire on my sort of the reason I signed up for cooling off. I can say I don't want to receive advanced notification of the expiration. I would still get notification of the expiration of cooling off after cooling off has completed and that notification will still prompt me to ask if I want to renew cooling off or if I want to add myself to VSE but I don't get the advanced notification that someone might get that would essentially prompt them to just renew it ahead of the expiration. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Maynard. I think I have a question around so it sounds like it's a menu out of options. We heard a lot of discussion when we were doing our evaluations where most operators maybe if all and I'm sure GLI would correct me said, hey, we really take an approach where we don't want to notify them to kind of wet the appetite to perhaps tempt them into coming back into the market. I hear you saying, Annie, that it's a sort of multiple options. Is that something that's being done in any other jurisdiction? Are there any, much to the two hour conversation we just had, are there any restrictions on operators or operators doing this already? It's just going to be hard or easy to implement. So, Commissioner Maynard, you're correct that what we're suggesting here is to again give the consumers more options. If they want to receive advanced notification, if they don't think that's going to tempt them into sort of getting excited for the end of cooling off, they can get that advanced notification. If they think that it could backfire, then they could say, I don't want advanced notification. I am not myself aware of any other jurisdictions that do it this way or any operators who allow for the choice of options. I will allow market GLI to answer that question more thoroughly. Annie is correct. No other jurisdictions. Can I ask a question on that in terms of, would this also be a heavy lift in terms of implementation? The technology is almost the same as the other discussion. Not almost. It technically is the same. Yeah, that's why I said it. Same challenges. Yeah. Can I ask you something? Commissioner Maynard, are you reading it? I'm sorry. Carrie, if you're... No, I was just going to point out that we haven't received any comments from operators on this one. This has been posted since December 15th. Just wanted to let you know that. Well, Carrie, I did, I want to follow up because we did interview applicants and because we spent so much time on this notice provision, I affirmatively asked all the operators, do you give notice? And I stopped asking because their response was like, oh no, that would be an RG problem. Oh, no, I apologize. I didn't mean that we haven't received comment with respect to RG. I meant with respect to their ability to build up implementation like this. Yes. Oh, thank you. Thank you. But I'm hearing GLI say technically it's got the same challenges. So Mark and I had a chance to just speak briefly because Mark said that this is quite consistent with the BSE and I want to put words here Mark, but I'll turn to you to provide notification of the advancing exploration of the BSE. But I did note to Mark and Mark confirmed, I said, is it with the BSE that the communication comes from an RG specialist? This would come from the operator themselves. And I think the operators are uncomfortable with that, that they're pinging someone in the space where they're in a cooling off period. So Mark, if you want to just discuss, I'm just wondering if this is another one that maybe requires just a little bit more chewing on because one, it might be hard to implement anyway. And then we could treat it like we just treated the other one. Yeah. I actually stand by this recommendation for the following reason. I think one, if somebody isn't entering into a cooling off, they're very likely at high risk of gambling related harm. And so the opportunity to provide these individuals with information about extending cooling off, voluntary self exclusion, limit setting features seems like it's a prime opportunity to deliver some information. Delivering it to them in advance of their cooling off period ending makes a lot of sense. It's before they're one step away from being able to place their next bet. So they're still in a state of mind where they can't actually make that bet and may make the decision in a different state of mind to continue that cooling off period or enroll in the voluntary self-exclusion program. And Madam Chair, it would never be our intention to trigger somebody to trigger them. And one, I think, one, this is voluntary to enroll in this notification. And two, I think much like the notification that we send out, the voluntary notification we send out in advance of the end of the voluntary self-exclusion period, it's a carefully worded message that I hope that we would have the same process with our sports wagering operators to carefully word this in a way that would minimize that risk to the degree possible. Can I follow up on my initial question? I just need a hand. I can't see who's speaking. I'm sorry, Commissioner Maynard. So would that, Mark, I'm a little confused with the, because the language of this looks one way, but what you're saying sounds another, like would it be someone from your team reaching out to the patron? Or would it be the operator reaching out to it? Yeah. Commissioner Maynard, I appreciate that question. That is an important distinction. At this point in the voluntary self-exclusion program, it is a message that comes from the gaming commission. For cooling off, this is because cooling off is a function of each individual operator. It seems like it would come from the operator, but I think that the content of the message is what is ultimately important. So my initial reaction to that, Mark, would be I would be more comfortable putting that burden on the commission and us with information provided probably by the operator than I would putting it on the operator and yeah. That's an interesting idea. So this is kind of a question for GLI and something to throw out to my fellow commissioners and Mark. Rather than advanced notification that it's coming up, is it easier to build in a delay and getting off of it? Like if it ends, would you have, you know, almost like a waiting period, like, oh yeah, I want the cooling off period to end? Would it be more doable to have that you'd have to try to affirmatively go in and do that, but you still have to wait 24, 48 hours before you could do it? That doesn't exactly get to what you're looking for, Mark, but yeah, it does feel a little bit different. It is a little different, but I just thought in terms of them being uncomfortable with sending out a message that would be seen as triggering. Quite honestly, I do, you know, I understand a message coming from the operator about the sort of the sunsetting of a limitation, but I just I go back to I think that there's a way in which if it's coming from the customer care team, or if it's coming from the commission, it's somehow an email that when you enroll, I guess it could be an email when you enroll in the limit setting, if you wish to receive an advanced notification from the MGC that your limitation is going to end, that we would have to have a system in place to deliver that message, which perhaps is a solution as Commissioner Maynard said yesterday. I just want to note that that might also, well, that will require a technical challenge for the individual operators to be able to get that data in a timely manner to the commission to implement that ask. Unless they had a form of what we approved saying, please have this be your notification. Well, it's it's because of the rolling nature of the the exclusion. You know, I say like, you know, I don't I don't want to bet on the Super Bowl. So knock me out 30 days, but then someone else says that the next day and the next day and the next day and next is like a it's gonna be a rolling says always going to be like, hey, these these people are coming up in the next week, or whatever, two days, one day, whatever you guys align that to be notified. So it's kind of a Joe, doesn't it feel like it could be somewhat automated? I mean, certainly there would be new names coming in that's kind of what I'm deluding that that is. Yeah. Yeah. The technical challenge. Yeah. I think he's saying it's a challenge. It doesn't mean it can't be overcome. It just will take some time, right? Yeah. I had an exciting idea or thought that builds on Commissioner Maynard's idea that this is perhaps if we can get over that technical issue, it's an it's an excellent opportunity for game sense to be involved with information about RG, who, you know, extending cooling off voluntary self exclusion, etc. But again, there's a technical challenge there. But I do there's a concern about the trigger from an operator. The game sense is an incredibly neutral sort of pro RG solution. So I have a question for Joe, I guess, I would ask, could it be even simpler than perhaps what we're thinking? And again, I'm not saying that I want this to go running out today before launch, Madam Chair, I actually would. My preference is to in so much that things need to be tinkered with that they're tinkered with after launch, because I think a we'll have a lot of data, you know, and we'll have some action, but the I think we're getting smarter every day. But Joe, would it be possible to even make this even simpler, like a link to an MGC website that contains a form that would then go to Director Vanderland's team. And if they elect to touch that link, and they elect to put this information on the form, then we get the data. Like, could it be that simple? Ultimately, that decision would be up to the commission. But what you did start off with was something very similar that I'll note that Kevin said earlier. We, you know, this possibility that we need time to find out what works and what works best. Adding a link to an app or a web web application is a much simpler ask. Technically, and I don't like speaking like that, as you can tell through this whole conversation. On behalf of the operators, but yeah, what that link does after that is is a separate issue. But I will I can confidently say that. Joe, if it makes you feel any better, I knew the answer to that question before. I had a feeling of so. Just to be clear, Joe, right now, implementation would be the same kind of challenge as what we just got done discussing. Could we could we take the same approach with this regulatory change? And to be clear, I guess it came to maybe legal through a comment that I don't know if I ever saw that I might have missed it. But publicly, we did ask for this read to be reviewed because of the input we were getting from the applicants. So I would be wanting to hear more from them as to their involvement and their level of comfort of having to contact someone an account coming off period. Before I adopted this, I liked their input because their reaction was pretty clear. When we asked, Oh, you know, that that didn't ring true to them in their in their good work toward responsible gaming efforts. And so we'd want to make sure we're all aligned philosophically and why it worked. Just imposing on them. Sorry, Terry. Yes. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I just to make a suggestion. So this regulation is currently in effect by emergency. And we had brought it today just to discuss this possible change in case we wanted to put it out for public comment in advance of the public hearing. It will ultimately be coming back to you on February 9th for vote. So what you could do is put this updated language out for comment so that, you know, the non updated version is what is currently in effect, but you could put this version out for comment leading up to the public hearing and up until the ninth so that we do receive that comment from operators. And if, you know, we're not comfortable with the language when it comes on the ninth, we could strike this paragraph when it comes for final vote. But we still would have received some of that comment on the issue. Right now it's written that you can't tell who's sending that notification. Maybe it's if I read it up the top, it would be clearer. And then the other problem right now that I see is it's restricted to 72 hours prior to the expiration of that two week, three week or four week temporary prohibition period. I think we've seen from other, you know, the applicants and now anticipated licensees that they have more flexibility in their coming off periods in that structure. There's no defined unless we unless we're limiting it to 72 hours or one week periods two, three or four. I think one cut up to 365 days or something. We did. And the rationale that we had was to to simplify it to simplify the enrollment process. Yeah, we didn't bring that up to the one of one of the recommendations that I think that we received at the roundtable was let somebody define whatever date it is if they want it and but I think that the concern about that is that there's almost that with that many options with that much there, perhaps it would disincentivize somebody from the program. It would disincentivize what? It would disincentivize them if it becomes too complicated to enroll to come or some and perhaps it would discourage them from the role. So we're we're we're we might be limiting an operator from allowing for up to one year coming off period. Right. Well, I'll tell you when I thought it was coming back, I thought it was going to be to eliminate the notification because of our feedback we got. And now I feel like we're sending an even more complicated reg. So I'm struggling a bit with this. Commissioner that I don't know how you feel, but I'm hearing Kerry say we put this out and get the feedback from them. I think the real problem is too is the implementation and I know Kerry says that we haven't heard I'm going with GLI's best bet though here that they wouldn't they would have a hard time implementing this just like I'm going to restrict for our last one but when we get feedback like next week or something Kerry. Yeah, so sorry. No, go ahead, Joe. I would say I would certainly default to the operator feedback if they're like, yeah, we're okay with it and they're okay with it. So the public hearing right now is scheduled for February 7th, so comments usually close on that day though, you know, it's possible comments would come in afterwards. The only reason I suggest putting this updated language out for comment is so that the operators are aware it's something the commission is considering rather than striking it right now and updating the version that's posted for comment, you know, without any notification requirements in there, but we can certainly do it either way. Again, we don't need a final vote on this right today, that wouldn't come until February 9th. And then I can I stand correct that the second line makes clear that it would be the operator who would be expected to and that would stay. Okay. Director Vandalini, do you want that to stay? I think that it would be I would welcome feedback. Again, I think it's it's the content of this message is is ultimately what's very important. No matter who it comes from, I could absolutely see it coming from Game Sense, putting it outside of the control of the operator. If it comes from the operator, perhaps it still contains Game Sense information and resources that you could link to. And you would imagine you'd say notify you're imagining it's an email and not a notification on the app itself? Yes. Do we need to say that? I would recommend that we say that. Shall email the individual rather than notify? I think that's a technical issue, as well as a communication issue. And yeah, I mean, what if what if they tell us it's easier to do it in the app than an email? Just to be clear, you're going to get in the app, you're going to get the the patron will get a notification with the branding and everything. What's the licensee? Madam Chair, Commissioner Hill used this line earlier and I just feel this way that there's a primetime issue here and that I think all these ideas are great. And sitting here thinking about Mark, when we can sit down and talk about these things further even. But I'm worried about it not being ready for primetime. So therefore, I would what I would do is get more information, get smarter, get information from the applicants about why they gave us the responses they did over the course of the the deliberation periods and then come back to it. Commissioner Maynard, I just want to remind you that this regulation is in effect right now without this amendment. So I think we're sort of saying the same thing in terms of getting feedback. That's why I was just suggesting that, you know, the operators sort of have a sense of what we're looking for feedback on if we were to update the language in the version that's posted for comment. And then when it came back on the 9th, you could strike this paragraph in its entirety and hold on, you know, however you wanted to handle this issue while you get more information on it. Just a suggestion, but we will have to, you know, do something with respect to this regulation when it comes on the 9th for final vote. I guess I would just say we can go ahead with that process, but I just want to be on the record that I'm not necessarily, I'm not there yet in terms of, you know, a yay for it. We can explore it, but I'm not necessarily prepared to adopt this in light of what I've learned. I need more information. And if we're, you know, as long as it's not implicit that we're going forward now with this to get feedback that, do we need a motion to do that today, Carrie? Yes. I don't think you need one. You have one, but, you know, we've been posting these regulations throughout the process for comment even before they've come to the commission. So however you'd like to handle this is perfectly fine. We can leave the version that's posted as is. We can update the version that's posted either way. It's completely fine. And then we'll, you know, sort of tackle how the commission would like to handle this paragraph on February 9th, but it was just a suggestion in terms of comment. Without affirmatively voting for this language that's in red, that wouldn't appear for public comment. It would still be what was there before. Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying I don't think you need to vote to just change the version that's posted on the website for comment, because we've been posting, you know, all of these regs for comment throughout the process. I just had included a motion, you know, if you felt that you wanted to. So the red language could go. Yeah, because if nothing would be happening, you know, formally with it, it would just see that we changed the version that's posted on the website for comment. The version in effect would remain the one without the red language. Thank you. Very helpful. Thank you. Mr. Hill. I think that's a great suggestion. Leave as is, but put up change with the red line up on the website. Let's get some feedback. And on the 9th, we come back and we deal with it. Okay. Do we need, do we have a consensus on that? Yes. I'm going to dare to speak. Commissioner Skinner is chiming in now. Thank you. I saw you, you said yes, Commissioner Skinner. Yes, I've been here. I've been paying attention. Just had a slight setback. And I knew you were here. I just needed your yellow box to show up. That's not interesting. Thank you. I want to make sure you referred. Thank you. So we've got a lot of us agreeing with that. Excellent. Thank you. Oh, just the one, perhaps that one change that we just changed email, notify to email. Sure. And I guess the other, the other changes that were, oh no, we didn't have any other changes, just that one. Okay. I don't know how long the withdrawal of an application will take, commissioners, but we have time time also with respect to hearing on our sports wagering catalog. I think we can go forward. Yeah, I don't think it's very long, but if you wanted to push it to the 24th, I think we can also do that. It's, it's not urgent that it happened today. It's, it's short. I didn't know if commissioners had, I'd love to take care of business if we can commissioners, do you want to just go for it on it? Or do you want to send it to the next day? I'll take feedback. Madam chair. I'm going to be the skunk at the garden party here and I apologize for that. I unfortunately have to leave this meeting at four o'clock, which is fine that there'll still be a quorum. And I really did want to look at the sport list, if possible. Let's turn to the item, item number four. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair, may I, may I ask, should we keep a hand for that rag? Are you planning to come back to it? Or is it moving to the 24th? Can we see, I know that you probably would love to skedaddle and don't ask me how to spell that, but commissioners can remain know how to spell it. Can we see how the discussion goes on items four and see if we can circle back? Absolutely. Commissioner Skinner and I share that as apparently a favorite phrase. So, all right. So I may need to leave by five, so you'll still have a quorum without me, but there's a chance that three of you will just deal with that. Right. Yeah, I'm going to be here till five. We're not going to be here till five as well. Let's go to celebrate yesterday. Let's go. Okay. We're turning to item number four, and we have second director Wells is going to lead us with a great team. Karen. Yes, ma'am. I'm going to turn it right over to Sterling Carpenter, who is going to go through the events catalog with you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. So as we spoke last Thursday, I believe on the 12th, we're here to present the catalog of acceptable wagers events that you will approve for wagering in the Commonwealth. So as you've received several items, this is very long and detailed. I will do my best to keep it very brief and rolling along so that everyone has a firm understanding of what we've gone through prior on the 12th. So what we're looking for here is I'm going to break it down into three sections. I'm going to ask for your approval on wagers, and we will go through all of the wagers that are being brought before us from our licensees. So the licensees placed a request and they asked that the wagers of single game bets, teasers, parlays, over-unders, money lines, pools, exchange wagering, in-game wagering or in-play wagering known as next occurrence, proposition bets and straight bets. All of these were touched in 23N of the statute in the definition of sports wagering. To go along with these, they requested point spreads, pleasers, round robins, cashouts, three ways, spread and handicap totals. I apologize, my cursor of course has just gone away from me. Player game and team props, futures and outrides, yes no wagering and win place each way. So on our catalog and our guidelines, that would fall under section two and we are asking the commission to approve these types of wagers. So these wagers, if approved today, would fall under categories of statistical ways of categorizing and then also you would not be able to use these wagers on any unapproved event. So before we go forward with events and categories, we want to make sure that the wagers are approved. So also I want to highlight that disapproved wager types is any wager that meets the criteria detailed in the section of disapproval in cases of conflicts between the disapproved wager type and an approved wager type above the disapproved one sells supersede. So what I mean by that, if we find the conflict of whether they think that their wager that they're offering meets this criteria, if it doesn't fall under one of these specifically, then it would be considered not allowed. So statistical actions of coaches, officials, referees, like the number of timeouts that would be called on a game, the number of yellow cards issued in a soccer game would not be allowed. The inherent objectionable outcomes, like how many times a player would suffer an injury in a game, would not be allowed. The actions of a person participating in entertainment, how long Lady Gaga will sing the national anthem, not allowed. Any outcome determined solely as a coin flip, any kind of like card game or dice game would not be allowed. The clothing in which the coach would come out wearing wouldn't be allowed. So those are kinds of the outlines of the disapproved ones. We want to look at most of our wagering is must be performed on the field of play. So any awards, which are voted on by a league, you will be asked as a commission, whether to allow or not. Awards of specificity, which awards can either be voted on by the public or by the media are sometimes called into questions, or awards voted on by, you know, any body could be considered subjective, as opposed to other awards like are based on pure statistical output of the performer. So an example of that would be who would rush, receive the rushing award for the most yards in a football game through the entire season. That ward is cut pretty straightforward. It's just whoever has the most yards, the winner of the award. So we go through these wager types and the operation operators must receive MGC approval to offer new events or wager types. So I want to distress this one point in which if you approve or disapprove any wager today, an operator can ask for a wager to be reconsidered through petitioning the commission, or the commission itself could find that one of these wagers is not suitable and have it removed from options. Either way can also be determined at any point in the future. So I wanted to stop here and ask if the commission would like to consider all of these wagers as one or go through or if you would like to just pick and choose if there's any questionable wagers in which you want to talk about. So can I just ask one quick clarify? Absolutely. Maybe it's Todd. The way the operators come, it comes to us, right? The commission, we have to vote affirmatively to change, to expand or reduce this catalog. That's my understanding, but I of course defer to Todd. Yeah, I think that's right. I'm just going to try to pull up the regulation to make sure we have a success. While he's looking at that, I also fail to mention that the operator did ask for one other wager, which has not been offered or placed in the catalog, only due to discussions between GLI and us, that the virtual option that they asked for really bordered on a RNG type of slot machine type setup and not really a sports wager, and it bordered on eye gaming. So we wanted that if they wanted to ask us that they would have to go through you with a great deal of information on how they're going to assure this is not a RNG slot machine. And to be clear, virtual is different from eSports. Correct. Which is also down the line we're going to get to. Joe, did you have something? Interesting. That's right. No, I was just going to climb in and say, yeah, eSports is completely separate from what would be considered a virtual sporting event. There is a stipulation that I think it's electronic. By the way, Todd, I think you're actually looking for 247.01. Yep. Thanks, Joe. And I do have that. When you're done, we can maybe start with that. There is a stipulation that the commission could allow a virtual event to where that RNG would be tested by an ITL. I'd have to go find that immediately, but yeah, they're completely kind of, they're honestly computer-generated sporting events where the goals or moves or points or whatever is determined by a computer RNG. So I'll talk to you. So I guess maybe go ahead. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. Thank you. I was just going to say, in response to your question, Madam Chair, as Joe mentioned, so you start in 247.01 and that's the regulation that covers a lot of sports wagering specific related activity. And it says that the sports wagering operator may offer sports wagering only for those sporting events and wager categories authorized by the commission and posted on the commission's website. And then it goes through a series of things that they can't do and other things similar to what Joe just described. My understanding of what you're doing today is instead of taking in a request from each individual operator, you're looking at commonly allowed wagers and categories and just approving them all holistically. And presumably any operator could come in independently and say, oh, well, thanks for that catalog. Here's another one I would like to be able to offer. And then you would have the ability to do that. But as a threshold matter, it seems to me that anything you approve as part of this catalog, any operator can automatically offer. They don't need separate approval. So that's why it's important. And we talked a little bit about the better issue yesterday. And so to the extent you wanted to carve any of these out for an individual operator, I think you'd want to do that as part of this process. But I think that issue with better was resolved. So you don't necessarily need to carve anything out. But hypothetically, if there were some concern with a specific operator relative to any of these offerings, you would want to say, well, this applies to everyone except for them. I don't believe that's the case. But just to kind of set the foundation here, I believe that's what you're doing here today is you're approving all of these specific wager events and categories for everyone. I see Bruce is nodding up and down. They put it in as a group of request taught all three properties together. Okay. So is this just for category ones? Yes. Okay. Now, this is just for category ones until we apply. So until the category threes and category twos come in in our license. So they're already approved. So when we get all of their up and running, this will also apply to them. So my understanding is then our fandals, our draft kings wanting to add Bandy will then say, can we please have Bandy and we'll follow our regulations to apply to the commission and a request to add Bandy as an event or a wager. Just to finish, I know they're applicable to everybody. These are applicable to everybody once you vote on them. I think the best way to think about it is like, here's your starting point industry. These are the events, the wager types and events that are allowed in Massachusetts and go look at the regulation and petition us for anything additional. That's like, here's your core starting point. And they can choose not to offer. That's correct. Right. Yep. So we can anticipate, I think, let's drill said is that this is our launching pad that we got good input for the three and then we'll get more input and perhaps there'll be collective input from them depending on how they want to approach it to the online operators or individual, figure that out when it comes. Correct. Okay. So for wagers, are there any questions? I hate to. Sorry. No, I don't have to rate. I'm raising my hand. I'm so sorry, Sturrell. No, I apologize. It would be really helpful for me as you, just as a reminder, what did we keep out from very fast with the only? Yeah, the only thing with wagers right now, wagers. So the only thing left out from wagers is the virtual RNG wager. They have asked. Yeah. So we have a memo and I think it's important for us to get this clarity. We have a memo where it says wager types and market types and virtual is under market. I think I understand the difference, but I just wonder, do you have that memo? Yes. So Joe is probably best at explaining that they're kind of, in my understanding, market and wager type is pretty much interchangeable. And they use that. So when you're doing that, you can look at just the individual wagers as they're presented in those definitions. And, you know, you can see where they would have pleaser and teaser. So play on words. They're also very similar, right? They're just like, they're the, technically, the same, just different offerings, right? Yeah, the odds on the on the on the pleaser, hence the name, right? Yeah. So think of it like this, where a wager type is the mechanism of the bet. I want to bet straight up on the Patriots. I want to bet the Patriots to win by 10. I want to bet on Mac Jones throwing over 346 yards. I want to bet on the Celtics to win the NBA Finals, which might be a good bet right now. Sorry, my message is coming through. And then the actual event is the NBA Finals. The actual event is the NFL football game and or league. Those are the mechanism of placing a straight bet can be used across all those events. I think that's probably the best way to, you know, a wager is placed on events, a wager type that is. Yeah, Joe, the chair was also stating those that they submitted their wager types, but also listed sometimes as markets. And they were pretty much interchangeably using a market versus in the wagers. So yeah, I'll be honest. When that was shared with GLI, the and a bit of it was frankly a little confusing. So I would stick with what Sterl has brought forward. Okay, so that means I should be looking at the spreadsheet and not the memo. Well, to the memo lists every single one of those wagers and markets together, right? Okay, and then everyone is just defined. Okay. Okay, excellent. So if there is, if we look at it this way, we all know that the first 11 are all by statute and have been invested that the Senate and House would like those as wagers. So we're good with and I was thinking we could accept all wagers unless there was a problem with any wager that anyone felt there was a problem I could explain or if there was any questions on what our future was or totals or. Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't feel any more prepared to have this discussion than I did last week when it came up for us for the first time. So and I apologize if it's probably just me, but I don't I don't even know what the science is behind any of this. It had it, you know, and so if we can kind of start from there, you know, where this information is coming from why you're recommending it and not other wager types or sports events in the like, I just sure I can try right. So the first 11 that I read off. Can you just point us to the page, because I'm when you say 11 I don't see what one through 11. So page is a page. It's page 2915. It's also on the spreadsheet. Yeah, it's also on the spreadsheet, right? I'm using I'm using the spreadsheet, but you but you guys can it's also on page what Commissioner O'Brien was it. It was 5050. Well packet page 48 has permitted wager and market types. And then 50 starts the catalog of the list. Right. That's that's what I'm that's what I'm looking at. So and I'm looking at that. Is that what was those the items Karen that were that the operators when they came to you and stir on Bruce and all those were the ones that because I know there will only be some why I still I think you're looking at different document but those it says approved wager types include the following and then approved market types include the following that's that's our I believe the page you're looking for is the we use the word approved in the hopes that they would be approved of course if you want to disapprove any one of these is your is up to you that's actually really helpful because I was thinking I don't think we actually approved anything yet but that's today's job right exactly um and so and I'm also hearing you sterl say they kind of combine them wait wager and market so of that list there's one two three four five six seven eight nine ten one there's about 20 some 21 yep 21 so and the one that you are right now the only one you're recommending is to take out the virtual matchups yeah the virtual matchups so in the memo in the original memo where they're all there defined the virtual matchup one was actually folded and read meaning that we did not recommend it at that time because outcomes from each match are generated by a computer of an algorithm that picks a winner on a non-biased way I absolutely remember that discussion so so I could go through the wager types and explain each one if we wish as well totally up to the commission commissioners yes okay so starting from the beginning we have a single game wager is a wager you place as a single bet on a single outcome or event so let's say you see a game and everyone wants to bet on the patriots a single game wager would be for the patriots to win you can do these also when we can when when we get into detail these wagers could be one of two ways the uh traditionally you'll be offered what's called a money line which I can explain now under this or a point spread so that comes as point spread and money line your point spread means we will we will use current terms so the eagles right now are favored by seven and a half over the giants so in this if you're betting the point spread if you place a wager on the eagles the eagles must beat the giants by eight or more points if they do not the wager loses of course every every wager has the mirror of the opposite right so in terms of the giants the giants can beat the eagles to win the wager on the giants or lose by no more than seven and a half points so some operators use this sometimes lines are seven sometimes lines are seven and a half the explanation of this wager is there will definitely be a winner on all point spreads wagers on the giants versus the eagles because they're using a point five which will not happen in regular football okay so for the money line they take that and they take those odds and now if you just place a straight wager on a winner the giants will pay you more money than you wager and in a plus value so if I can explain that a little better if the money line for the giants that you place and you place a hundred dollar wager you could receive three hundred and fifty dollars for that wager if they win opposite you know what sterile I'm going to interrupt because I'm a little bit nervous about this approach in terms of our timing that mission is getting I know we're going to lose Commissioner Hill and now I am I'm a little bit worried about our timing you know we I want to be really respectful of the learning curve here too but by much of this we we did have I just want to be clear on the record we you know we we have had training on this Commissioner Skinner it is constantly you know I'm always and I'm sure you're doing the same thing it's all a reminder for us because we had our GLI training do you want to go through this um at this level is this is this necessary right now for for you to vote I just want to make sure we're all aligned because going through the little will bring us definitely up past the five o'clock hour so Commissioner Skinner yeah I mean just you know I would like to continue on in this vein I mean I need the education I need a refresher acknowledging take the GLI training acknowledging the conferences that we've attended I still feel like in the context of the discussion about what to approve it makes sense to be to have a refresher you know I I can do that you know I just won't vote today that and unfortunately because I don't feel as though I'm ready for that right now right and I'm still respectful of that and Karen where are we in terms of our um our legal team where are we in terms of the need for the Kevlon did you I said Kevlon and I'm not sure the timing of the catalog when does the catalog need to be approved yes so um yeah I'm just looking at the schedule for next week I mean we could sort of put the vote on for Tuesday my concern is that we already posted the meeting notice and I'm not sure this is on the notice so Todd can we theoretically add it to the 24th for Tuesday yeah we could amend that if we should do it today if we're going to do that if the other commissioners are still won't be available to do that just so the right that's just do you know I support that you need it I need two more time to digest this I had more questions than some of the sports themselves but um this is a pretty big vote for us to feel comfortable with and so I think since we can do it on the 24th and amend the notice so that you get what you need I get what I need everybody gets what they need that would be what I would want and I have and I feel very strongly this is a five person vote you know yeah Commissioner Skinner um in Tuesday works or I we can get the amendment would that work and then maybe and I'll tell you uh the tutorial you know we don't get to practice right so it's all mental it's all in our our heads you know it's not reinforced by um being able to practice it's forbidden so um maybe we can all try to figure out how we can be comfortable on the various aspects I've got different questions you've got a refresher and maybe sterile can spend some time with you um Nikita um and then Eileen in terms of the questions on the sports maybe um Sparrow and Bruce can help on that in advance when we can all get some good self-education done we haven't had a chance to breathe and let's acknowledge that you know we're turning to this big piece of work that we really couldn't turn to earlier so in the interest of time and to be fair Commissioner Hill has left I think um thank you I think um I I think we need to just give ourselves that ability to get comfortable and turn to this uh early on on Tuesday's agenda it's not there because I also Commissioner Skinner it's so late in the day if if you're like me trying to still do the mental exercise and we're taking notes from sterile it's not there to either you or sterile but even try to digest it so does that work for you Commissioner? No it does and in the meantime um I can you know I have some availability on Monday hopefully sterile and maybe GLI uh has some availability and I can just get a quick tutorial because it's not I have questions on the actual sports I have questions on the marketing types you know just like soup to nuts I'm looking for you know some education right and and I think another advanced question that I think probably all of us will want to know is just as Commissioner Skinner what was the what's the the rationale for of course why something was excluded and you know the virtual one makes great deal sense we've already excluded that and but anything in terms of games or whatever um questions that we should focus on for next Tuesday commissioners other than that Mr. Hill, Mr. Maynard any particular questions that you want sterile and team to address I think I want to ask for your help or something I'm still no I am still here and I've been working with Bruce and sterile over the last few days so I'm comfortable thank you Madam Chair okay great Mr. Maynard I think I just have an overarching question um Director Bann and sterile um are you comfortable with the types of wagers and what's going to be wagered on I did see the document that had all the pictures of the sports and I appreciate that um and do you feel like you have adequate staffing to oversee it those are my two biggest questions I think those can be answered right now so I can skip them on Tuesday I think for our staffing it's a work in progress right now so that will be developed over the next week or so okay and do you feel comfortable with everything that was given to you so far yes thank you and sterile you too right yes chair I am very comfortable with all the wagers that we I put forth with the help of GLI for approval um I would I would just ask and I know Commissioner O'Brien wants to say something but I would ask that if we're going to table this once again that I at least point out some things that I need to point out to the commissioners to think about on the game on the tab before our next meeting as well but that sounds great okay thank you for that sterile Commissioner O'Brien so to follow up on Commissioner Maynard's question my follow-up to it's a work in progress is if we sign off on the statutory requirements in terms of what absolutely has to be available is the answer to that yes we're ready or is it still a work in progress you mean for as far as the department the book in terms of the book if our catalog is the statutory minimums are you good to go or is it still a work in progress I think we're be a go with that but I think the casinos wants other wagers that are important as well yes no I appreciate that I'm just trying to get a gauge on where the work in progress yeah I I think we're in a good spot right now and I think we can finish this catalog next week and we'll be being really good shape okay thanks okay so sterile if you want to just go over the points that you'd like for us to chew on thank you sure so the catalog will have a guidelines page which will pretty much say what is also available to be wagered on and what will be approved and not approved the first section states that all exhibition preseason regular season all star games all star contest and post season vetting is permitted for the league as long as that league is approved so just remember that when we're approving an event we're approving all of their games right so NFL preseason you don't have to have a separate one it's part also the post season all right sorry start to introduce you in the excel spreadsheet you're speaking to correct where are you looking in the very first tab it says guidelines in common okay what line what row the very top one okay right so I when I say row or if I'm referring to the number it's not the excel row but the big bold number right so in two is what I we were just discussing prior to just those are all the wagers that you will be voting on what I wanted to stress is that when you get down to section four this has to do with accepting of wagers on a draft this will be brought to your attention on whether you wish to accept a draft as in the NFL draft the baseball draft to be wagered upon and then if so we put stipulations there that either you can say yes that we agree that these should be the stipulations voting should stop at a certain time if we approve drafts at specific rounds or even picks before I would I just want to stress that a draft is not a statistical basis of in the box score that the statute spoke about but it is being requested that it be bet on so I you know I really wanted to bring that to your attention that it's up to you to decide whether we will allow it or not so are you raising the possibility that's outside the statute it could be interpreted that way or it could be interpreted as a sporting event since these are all athletes that are going to go into the NFL and participate into sports as opposed if I could just be clear as opposed to allowing somebody to wager on the academy awards which in the definition of sports wagering has no bearing in my opinion as a sporting event hence it's an academy award and it's voting so it's legal Todd um I think Councilor Grossman wants to weigh in on that Commissioner O'Brien because he's looking at the statute I was mine that was my next question yeah please uh Todd I would so whenever this type of question comes up I always look at the definition of sports event or sporting event that's what Sterl was just referring to and it includes a lot of the familiar things but it also I in my opinion injects some discretion on the part of the commission into the calculation so it includes professional sport or athletic events collegiate sport or athletic events a collegiate tournament motor race events electronic sports events so esports like we've talked about and then it says or other event authorized by the commission under this chap and then it gets into the things you can't wager on like these sports from the college sports involving teams from the commonwealth so there is some discretion in there as to what an event is it doesn't say it has to be a sports event so the draft could be included for example they don't seem to be requesting things way outside those bounds but we should kind of consider how far from sporting events we could go eventually they've asked for drafts though did they ask for the academy awards and so the academy awards is not nearly not a sporting event but under that definition would be could fall in that last cause right it seems to me that it would unless there's something else in the statute and I do have to go back through and double check that that would restrict how far a field you could go but I don't remember seeing anything so I think it's just any event that's authorized by the commission presumably that you can ensure the integrity of the process for I mean that's obviously a key part of the the calculation and then with esports last time we spoke about this there's something that we need to do affirmatively to approve the governing body that's right before we could act on that one that's specifically called it here so did we just throw a wrench into the where does that add some clarity this is this is this is why I brought it up these are things that you need to think about because they were requested by the licensees and I'm just presenting to you that they want drafts and I put it in the selection and I can easily hit a button and delete that whole cell so there's no wagering on drafts it's totally up to the commission now also to point out just real quickly is I've placed in here so everyone who goes to the catalog can see the prohibited sports wagering events and wager categories just as an easy uh see a location for them and then impermissible wagers which I read earlier is also listed here for for ease and then of course the box is here by statue is the ncaa sports now we've placed division one and we say the licensees say ncaa sports it is um up to the commission if you want to go past division one once once it becomes really vague I would have to turn to gli in their experience but right now I've looked at other jurisdictions and they distinguish division one is usually what they recommend so I have placed it here but of course that is also up to you but there is no choices on allowing wagering on massachusetts teams it is not allowed by statue unless they are participating in a sporting event in a tournament in which there is a tournament style where they are not the only uh teams playing um so that was pretty much one I wanted to bring up except one final thing since we spoke of the awards but that there is the awards box in section nine is highlighted in red that was that was for you guys to look at if you do awards it lists out the the league's integrity policy it's it's when it's when you're approving awards we have to decide on whether we want it to be pure statistics or if you want it to be subjective I think that's an important thing for the commission to vote on and segregate as you know is it just purely statistics where there is no outcome that's not determined by stats or do you want it to be subjective and then of course the final the final box I'm sorry to cut you off chair if you are speaking with the final one is pool wagering which was discussed previously and how that would be one of the ones where you not only have to look at pools them and those in turn will have could possibly have people that are in the commonwealth going against people outside the commonwealth and how they divvy up their gross gaming revenue in reporting which Derek of course could speak more to would have to be looked at Richard is there a follow-up question that you may have for sterl now or anything that you'd like him to look into and have the team look into before they return to us on tuesday um oh sorry commissure or Brian go ahead so just as a follow-up to your research sterl when you said you were looking at other jurisdictions and how they treat specific things were there other jurisdictions that did um tranches in terms of roll out that did a certain cluster of sort of more established or known so it's and then and then went into like the draft and that you know or did they roll out at once if you have a sense I understand what you're saying um I am oh it's very hard to go backwards and see what they've had previously in speaking personally with Arizona they rolled everything out um I know Colorado was also one that was um looked at by a lot of jurisdictions as being very um progressive in in in that they were listening to the operators and taking it all in and then just putting it all out but they might have started limitedly but they're very extensive wagering in Colorado Joe would probably be more better at the uh answering of that I do know that it's very difficult to find pinpoint go back exact amounts yeah well there's a bit of the just straight up nature of things the repeal of paspa was june of 2018 and you kind of have this rolling across the state's operators and therefore vet types and event types uh continues being added and as the snow wall of events uh moves forward through the uh the different states there's you know a copycat nature happening so you know here we are um that's an in your experience where is it typical for people to start with us with a smaller book and then add in some of these things or is it my experience they did this next day to launch kind of takes their book maybe adds on to it number two number two okay yep I'm sure it can be oh sorry sorry mission me my question was I think you said this earlier but it informs the way I think about this over the weekend the cat threes have not been consulted at all right so there could be what I'm asking is there could be additional types that we're we're not seeing yet um I will note that your cat ones are tied to some tether to some mobile operations and when it comes to the events and the risk management departments the cat one and cat threes that are the same company are the same the same as the same the the amount of data uh in events that they have in their own personal uh uh uh text stacks uh will be the same across uh retail and and in mobile so while technically you've only heard from the cat one operators that narrative is more than likely uh coming across the full catalog and I will note that the ask um that it aligns with both retail and mobile if it's also helpful uh commissioner manorn pretty much mgm the mgm and barstool sports were the ones who or I'm sorry pen entertainment were the ones that submitted this request so you are getting these online platforms providers and I understand that and I understand that joe I was just wondering if you know you're off mute but you're off mute right my computer just got taken away so I am now without my my scrolling document because the very helpful spouse who has served me coffee tonight is now making sure my my home computer gets on next to the property so thank you for your tolerance sorry about that now I just want to make sure that you um that you know that I was on mute but maybe not anyway we're just talking about my sister sorry to interrupt but I was listening um um commissioner manor did that answer your question yeah I just I'm just wondering if we should expect an untat untethered category three who's not in a relationship with a category one to come in and ask for additional yes that's coming already actually I they're already because they're not they're bandy as a sport I guess they put in their catalog as we were testing and I'm like you didn't put that in as a request so it's not and I think we've got an open invitation for them to come in as a as a group or individually so I think we're good on that um Bruce are you leaning in right now uh yeah I I you know I'm getting requests with things all the time but in as new ones start to come online there's nothing that prohibits them from coming and ask us to add additional sports so madam chair can I just ask I'm just curious myself now everyone of course is familiar with the nva nfl nhl and all the familiar leagues I was just kind of scrolling through the tabs and I landed on the biathlon tab and I see that it suggests that the international biathlon union is the official sanctioning body what type of review is like who decided that that is the governing body for biathlon that the commission should recognize only except waiters there I'm not let's go to darts then maybe you're less familiar with darts it's the same question there I was like I am less familiar with yeah I mean how do you how do you know that that is a body with integrity that we should rely on and I'm again I take your answer as far as building up from other jurisdictions and I think that is persuasive but I was just curious where when the who makes the decision as to whether that is the official sanctioning organization so what we did is we requested but I researched all the ones that I could find of their jurisdiction or if we are familiar with the nfl and the shield as they call it right and we are familiar with even FIFA right with all of soccer but when you get down into these other ones we are relying on the operators to provide that they have reviewed and have assured that it has oversight with their games and these governing bodies have I've placed a link to their web page and it will sometimes show their actual organization some are run by presidents some are run by committees some are run by it's different setups so we use those tabs and those links to find it but to to answer your questions specifically we are relying on these operators to assure that these events are on the up and up and we have and each operator all has integrity monitoring by statute and by oversight by regulation that requires all of these events to be monitored and we've actually gotten an alert on Chinese basketball just last Friday so these leagues to be approved one we have to we we rely on the operators a lot and then of course if we have if the commission has any reservations they can X-NAI anything that they want I think X-NAI I don't know if anyone likes that word but it was okay for me very helpful could I ask if maybe we could to the extent you have the chance could explore um now that we know the awards that are outside sporting that's if the operators asked for them just if you could just brief yourselves a little bit on them was it more than the Academy Awards that they asked for? Yes like Nathan's hot dogs and a few other you know the eating contests and so they had they had two eating events and what the Academy Awards I believe and the one final note that we had in that other that I wanted you to just be cognizant of is under the events the operators have asked for chess, cornhole, esports, high-lie and then of course special events including Nathan's eating event and the Academy Awards so those are those things I would really like to bring your attention to um so my follow-up would just be still to um so that we can be prepared to you'll know we're going to ask questions as to if we're keeping them out why is it that we're keeping it out is that you know is there a risk analysis what it is so that we understand our governing body issue or you know just so we understand if we're keeping them out of us got to make sure his follow-up questions on that um because those may not have been in minds of splirting events but certainly within our discretion according to Todd today that we could consider the eating events as long as if we're participating in the eating events we can't have betting on them I just I do want to make sure though that Sterling team have time to answer my questions and commissioner Skinner's questions and all that without adding in you know we can always circle back this is my question I'm just saying I'm just saying the expectation is to vote on all that stuff I don't know we might be well I think the lot to consume no pun intended no but commissioner brian I think the vote is to exclude the academy award so I guess I'm just wondering you know that analysis that's all so it's not adding in it's just to let them know is it an affirmative to say it's not allowed or we just wouldn't necessarily put it in this first catalog so so just to be clear you you can say no to everything you want and then it just doesn't go in the catalog and then two weeks later though you're they're going to come back and ask they'll come back maybe more information I'm just I'm just letting you know yeah yeah then draftings is or any of our other six operators will come back and say we want x y z to be considered yes yep and I only listed those chair just because it's I want to bring attention to it you it's you know up to you look at as a commission to vote on any of these as a yes or no and and I wasn't introducing the academy awards independently they asked for it and so I think your proposal excludes it so that's if it were before because we thought it wasn't included in the statute now I think there may be a complexity that it's included in the statute so why would we exclude you know what would be the next reasoning we were trying just to include sporting events and our recommendations that Todd I think clarified that a little better for us so right so there may be another rationale why you would still want it to be excluded through so that's all I'm asking so thank you can I think about yeah commissioner this back and forth if they could come back march 12th is the academy awards well so throwing that out there yes also there's a great documentary on Nathan's hot dogs that I watched last week on the history channel to build America so if you're interested I heard and I'd like to I'd like to add just that I mean it's it's public record you you can see it actually on the catalog that's published publicly where the academy awards are actually in a rejected category and the Nathan's hot dogs contest is actually in the septic category so and one would argue if it's a sport or not but you're more than welcome to try to eat 74 hot dogs in 10 minutes and see how you do and then you'll quickly find out that there actually might be a sport to it behind that all right so do we have everybody I'm going to take a pass on that one yeah okay exactly everybody has some homework they want to do and then it's just some questions from clarifiers any other questions that anybody has for sterile to address or Bruce's team to address I think we've heard from okay I think what what public facing documents will this discussion culminate in I mean is it the is it this Excel spreadsheet that will ultimately be the catalog for operators to go and see what's approved and what's not both operators and patrons so the patrons can see what they can wait around as well and what's included and excluded and and the intent is right so the intent is also to include excluded events in this document no I don't I don't think that yeah I think it's um we're getting briefed as to what gets excluded from the operator's request just the few things that they're taking out and I don't think there's many that are recommended but I would like to understand the rationale for excluding but I don't think because the universe is so loud you know large I don't think it means it's excluded forever either because they could come back to us uh with that request and you know Bruce to Commissioner Skinner's first question because she asked it last time it's a really fair question right now we have the spreadsheet ultimately does the catalog convert into um some kind of a catalog or a word document or pdf what does it look like I'll I believe they they put it on the kiosk corrects girl the but what they can vote uh uh bet on and stuff and that is what uh uh their selections are oh is no so the this this excel sheet will stay in its form yeah granted um chair to Commissioner Skinner's point if just so that we don't confuse anyone and I've asked the operators as well we don't want chess on here if it's excluded from the way for wagers so I will delete that tab before yeah Mills posts it to the website so only approved events will ever show if there is not an event on our tab it's not allowed in there so it's pretty easy to see for the uh both operator and the patron yep so we'll always stay in an excel format and that's typical that's typical yes it's it's typical in other jurisdictions but if you prefer it in a pdf or a word it just it just reads a little easier for the user if I that's why I kind of broke when when I'm presenting this to everyone I break it down into word documents for understanding but when somebody's familiar with this it's much easier to scan and use the the index that I've created it will jump to any sport that they want to see on what's available and then back to the guide an index so they can hop around the entire document with ease as opposed to scrolling scrolling scrolling scrolling scrolling if it was a pdf that's all so yeah that that makes sense that makes sense but um I'm back to my my original conundrum and and it's actually a request and I think the chair has already made it if we can have a little justification for the next discussion as so you know why you're recommending certain sports and events and not others that would be really helpful okay okay and we will be coming back Tuesday is that plan or coming back on Tuesday okay we're going to amend someone who's going to help amend the agenda to reflect that in our right hand and Crystal Bushman is attending to a family or okay anything further on this item should we turn to I think at this point we will have to um table the withdrawal of an application see amir I want to let our legal team go on that fall commenters I see you're still there thank you so much and uh to um Caitlyn and Carrie and and Judy thank you so much um that makes sense correct commissioners should we go a little however to our floor plan I don't know how mom that let me anticipate that Caitlyn thank you madam chair yes madam chair so at this point at this point I am going to step away from the meeting um I want to thank everybody for all the information that they gave us today um and I look forward to the further discussion of all the issues that we couldn't get to today but are so important to what we're doing so at this point I'm going to step away uh and thank you all thank you commissioner hill we'll be ending shortly um the floor plans I don't know if I think commissioner hill may be actually quite well versed in this I'm not sure if he's been brought up to date but I have done yes thank you I thought so commission hill because you've been working closely on this part of the process um commissioners do you want to um house to stay looking I don't have the agenda in front of me now without Caitlyn um I mean not Caitlyn the crystal pretty lengthy I'm playing it up here madam chair thank you so are we moving to the floor plans we're just deciding commissioners should we go ahead with floor plans I see Jordan saying yes I'm sure Brian yeah I mean I have the agenda for the 24th and yeah the volume of the volume of the descriptions on the page is any indication it's long I know some of these are just final vote on rags but since we're rolling over the book I think we should just get through whatever we can get through in this half hour I don't think this will take real long for you I'm going to actually share my screen on this you see we're right here I'm sure um oh Brian just as Bruce is and is okay though to table the um the one I just suggested I think I'd like withdrawal of an application I'd like to let the team yeah yeah thank you yeah thank you to the legal team I'm sorry we couldn't get to the withdrawal of an application I appreciate you're staying around but I think you should schedule now and have a great weekend okay now we are here we are Bruce you've got our full attention great great I'm going to start with uh ppc floor plan they have 20 kiosks on the gaming floor and five windows uh what I did is you're not getting the view of the whole entire plan because a lot of these include cashier cage areas so I kind of cut these out uh this area let me just make sure I got it okay this is actually near the rendezvous uh bar and on each side of it you can see that they have four kiosks here on this side can you see my cursor we can okay you have four kiosks on this side and four kiosks on this side and then this is right next to the food court and this is where their sports book is there's five windows right here and then there's 10 kiosks along this wall it's pretty straightforward and then when you come in this is where the garage is right here there's one kiosk here at the end of this slot bank and one kiosk there for a total of 20 kiosks in five windows any questions at all on that can you come back to the gesture the memo part of the sure of course one of the windows is ADA acceptable and this what I'm showing you is a temporary counter their their big plan is to build one in fluties but we don't have the floor plans for that yet we'll be coming back to you later when that is all they have all the permits and designs approved so sorry we're gonna hit Mr. Skinner the floor plan that you presented is it those standalone kiosk I guess I'm just trying to understand which which portion of that is temporary it's pretty much the booth but it could affect I doubt if it will affect these kiosks because they haven't submitted the new plan Commissioner Skinner I don't know what they will be moving that will be in the new plan when they had their final sports book their final sports book is going to be over in fluties which will change the seating because that that will be like a complete viewing area and everything with that and I'd be presenting that when we have the new plans so with the five windows are there though Bruce that's what's being built yeah that is is I believe complete at this point but it is that temporary structure they they sent it to us just where it says five yeah and this one's an ADA handicap window built right in there and then the wall with a 10 kiosk that's just that wall existed and they're putting in the kiosk along yeah that's right against the wall this like I say is the food court area that they have okay and this is the the bar lounge in here so this is all seating in here total of eight kiosks and combined they have 20 kiosks on the floor and and all of it's on the existing casino floor yes any questions at all about that commissioners that one's pretty straightforward and commissioner maynard you'll be going down and viewing that in person and look forward to it they're looking forward to having you there so okay the next we go to mgm they have a total of 18 kiosk and seven windows okay they this they have no kiosk off the casino floor okay this is in the high limit area if you remember where that is it's right up uh in the elevated section of the casino floor they have two units right along the slot machines right up there then we go over to uh excuse me uh near the main k cage they have three kiosks along this wall near the main cage right at the end of pit three they have one kiosk near the high limit slots area which is right here four kiosks near the slot bunker in slot zone one okay and this is their uh slot uh excuse me their their sports book area they uh these are their their windows right here they have seven windows this is uh one of their lounges they have four kiosks here this is their uh one of their bars here four kiosk here this is the viewing area with the screen wall to watch sporting events i think that's kind of it right there in the ada one is in the uh ada ones right here actually commissioners questions are you able to orient yourself yeah if yet you want to know where anything is of course this is the uh back corner the main street is actually right out here on this side uh there are restaurants right down on on this side their cashiers cage is down this way bruce any of those walkways um some of the open walkways the the walkways go here but there's nothing really down this way except atm or or so no i'm just worried i know this is a more porous facility than the other two yeah i'm just let me look back here uh these are pretty much in the middle of everything commissioner uh we'll just see if there's any now uh these are more in the middle of the casino okay so you would have to go pretty much uh in you have to go deep into it to get to it yeah uh this is well that's the only walkway that i i kind of seen right in here so you're pretty much in the middle of the casino any questions on that at all i guess my only question is how's compliance been in terms of underage on their floor lately good uh not the best for the last month huh okay i might circle back on specifics with you on that one because we're getting quarterly reports in february right yeah i yeah i think he was supposed to follow up with us after the last one there was some concern to them gm on the last one yeah i think there was an ied report that might be coming your way okay then with on court this also includes uh some square footage changes okay they have a uh on deck they're adding 111 square feet and b1 parking garage they're adding 832 square feet uh over near the elevator lobby they're removing 162 square feet where they're adjusting uh uh where you come in on the elevator to get more space uh to to move some of the machines around atms and so on uh this changes the gaming area from 211 thousand 190 square feet to 211 971 square feet i will kind of show you where this all is they have 118 kiosk and 10 bedding windows uh for their sports book this is b1 uh with parking outside with b1 they will have a guard placed outside here for their quick parking in all time they will also have a guard placed right in here this is uh the the sports uh bedding area in uh the growth in level b1 with 20 kiosk in here anybody that comes into this area will be id through uh their id machine okay this is 800 and this is the same thing 832 square feet of added space this is the elevators to go up okay uh this is right near fratellis and this is where they're removing 162 square feet of casino floor space where they can adjust some of the machines that were causing uh congestion there for patrons coming in and out okay now in the second level this is memoir right here they have uh i think it's eight machines here these machines will not be uh turned on whenever memoir is open this was a request by the state police with uh on court agreed to so they will be non-operational whenever memoir is open i'll show you where's memoir the memoir is all this over here can you see oh it's over near the burger place yeah yeah uh we see if uh i get you a better better one this is actually uh the sports bedding bar the current place which we actually approved maybe a year ago this area is casino floor space uh these are kiosks in here and i actually forgot to write down how many they were but everything that's brown here is a bedding kiosk this are the 10 bedding windows right in here okay more bedding kiosks this is their high uh high roller section and they're all nice comfy seats in here that let you watch the huge uh screen this is another bedding area with all kiosks in here okay this is uh if you on the other side of the casino where the uh uh area is to sign up for uh rewards cards they've changed out the uh automatic games to all bedding kiosks there's uh i believe 40 kiosks in here in that section and that's over near uh game sense actually not too far from there okay uh this is uh upstairs near the poker room you have four kiosks there excuse me i take that back this is near the high limit salons salon one there's four machines up there this is high limit slots up here there's two machines in there this is uh memoir over here and these are the machines that they will be turning off when memoirs open it's right at the top of the escalator right in here and that's actually they're adding i think it's 122 square feet of casino floor space for those machines this is actually already casino floor space but this is outside the poker room and this is gaming space that they haven't been utilizing it used to be part of the poker tournament area but they've added bedding kiosks in here any questions on that that's a lot any of any of that impact the poker offerings no it doesn't really affect them at all just puts kiosks and makes it more convenient for the poker people and have they i'm assuming they've already started construction in the parking garage area i'm i'm just a little dubious on that we needed to do that it's all locked off because we're doing the inspection today but the area is all locked up and everything pending whatever way you guys vote okay i kind of wanted to see that before i voted on it but it's there to see whenever you wanted to go over okay yeah i actually looked at it pretty well today and uh it's not glass enclosed it's actually wall enclosed and great camera coverage in there and it actually looks like part of the building not part of the garage okay and you know how many cars and all that i'm sorry i didn't miss you ryan were there any safety concerns first uh msp ge in terms of the cars being so readily accessible to where people might be walking in with cash and that sort of thing uh you know i i ran this by a couple all the quarry rose who's in charge of the property now and uh you know two of the other g u people everybody was fine with it uh okay that there are no safety concerns with that okay no guaranteed gli will attest to this there were a lot of machines to inspect today so uh i guess i don't know where everyone stands on voting or we do want to vote today right um uh i imagine three separate separate votes sir and and just to remind me because i um let me just to look at encore the it's the it's just the garage area that is not on the gaming floor yet uh that and the uh machines across from memoir oh okay the bird yeah that's right they're not on there's keeno there but there's no other there's nothing nothing else there it's just like that little just bring us to that uh yeah that's right that is not gaming for yeah it's just kind of this right here and you go right down to the gaming floor these elevators go right to the casino for our escalators are they in the bar no what's that are they in the burger bar right here is it in the burger bar or uh no these it's just a sign to where they did i guess they couldn't put them out here but all these are outside the burger bar and then remind me again about 21 and up access to that area how do you get in there yeah pretty much yeah it is except well everybody goes in memoir has to be 21 and everybody up here is 21 there's nothing that uh they don't allow anybody in that area that's not 21 so that burger that burger um when a restaurant can't serve families yeah they they don't allow anybody up in this area at all it's not of age because you have to go through the casino floor or up to the poker floor to do that so 21 and over um i'm sure brian for that it looked i thought it was going to be more a family but it's not yeah so it's it's right in the the hallway area yeah this would this right here would be the smoking deck out here if you can orient okay yeah so it's you know right where you'd go out or go down but you know they get a lot of the poker players walk down this way or you know i guess for the smoking deck more than anything and that burger um i keep on saying that burger i should know the name of it i'm so sorry i should too but is it like it's be burger or something like that or and they have um they have sports events it's all television camera on the wall and everything else yes right so it makes sense that they would want that there yes and when memoirs open those would be closed down correct okay commissioners are you prepared to move on on this i know that we don't have commissioner hill he's authorized us to move ahead like i said i was really hoping to get more visuals on the parking garage area i may just step stain on that one and by the way somebody just texted me and said that's the burger bar that's what i couldn't oh i wasn't far off that i kept on saying the burger place okay the burger bar all right yes the commissioner and brian would you want to move separate on each of these would that be helpful i think you said separately yeah what they're written as one in there oh is it that's that you know what i i lost my i lost my notes i'm so sorry um madam chair i moved the commission approved the floor plan submitted by um the category one sports wagering operator um mg on springfield actually let's start with plain ridge park since it was the first one he's going back uh plain ridge park casino as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today second commissioner skinner i want to ask if you have any discussion you think by you and i was just going to make my comments right before i voted i it's not ideal to be doing any of this uh based on pdx and but i you know we have a time constraint and you know based on ieb's recommendation um you know i'm okay with with taking the vote today which was going to have to ask i didn't quite hear it's not ideal based on the pdf of the floor plan i mean you know i'd love to to visit each of these locations for direct um you know i can i can to be fair to ieb and to bruce we have voted on expansion of gaming plans but in this way without going there or um on visuals just to be clear this is yeah i think it's true but this is brand new um it's sports wagering it's something that we're launching in messages for the very first time i would feel better if i had the time to actually go out and visit each of these locations but again um i'm going to rely on the recommendation of ieb um you know especially since you know g e u has kind of signed on it i'm i'm comfortable with moving forward with the vote today but once again doing it in this manner without having the time to go out and see for myself uh it's not ideal i have to say that in the course of my various visits i have had the benefit of sort of knowing where these might go today i i learned you know precisely where they would go um but but you're right that wasn't part of the overall plan uh i don't know um uh but do you have any follow-up questions for bruce on plain rich to give additional clarity i want to make sure you're comfortable no i'm comfortable as i said given that ieb is is is recommending the approval of the four plans i am comfortable taking the vote okay excellent all right so i have a motion in a second um i will there's no further edits and no further discussion i'll go ahead with the vote with respect to plain rich thank you so much commissional brough hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi and i go yes before zero thank you bruce thank you okay i can make a motion but i want to make sure that no one has any i want to i want to go through the discussion first um if you could just bring it up a little bit a little bit further um commissioners with respect to um mgm 18 and of course we've had this it was presented to us when we you know information my my only concern with mgm and this is just something that i think i i'd like ieb to get follow-up on or maybe i can talk to somebody directly but i you know we have had some issues with the under 21 and how porous the the floor plan is there and so um i'm comfortable moving forward with it given that it's contained within basically their existing area but i would like updates on how they've been doing with the um the under 21's getting on their floor yep we'll make sure that director lilios updates us i'm just asking executive director wells is there anything that additional but anything you'd like to add right now i don't have like i don't have eyes on the crowd so i can't see who's available eyes on the box is this yeah eyes on again i don't have eyes on the crowd i can't see if you're available oh yes so no i don't know if you're able to hear but there were some concerns that we hadn't had the ability to go out and and see the areas but um i i do maybe bruise too you can say whether there's any change from what was proposed when we approve the application for category one license this is a visualization right and now you've been able to be as recommending and have seen the setup in the surveillance yeah i i think things are uh to approve this application are fine uh i i can just say i know that there's uh some things in the works that i'm not at liberty to announce here today that you should speak with director lilios about coming up this week but i don't think it has effect on what you're approving here today well um to be clear what i'm hearing commissioner brian you asked the question about how's your compliance with liners and and so to be clear um is there anything further that you would recommend bruce uh i respect to the plan to assure that um underage individuals are not able to access kiosk do we at one point you had said there would be ids and and and folks i i think i think for what they're proposing here that they will be fine for underage uh uh you know just like they work hard for their cable games and so on director lilios i see you're here you want to chime in i'm trying to um get on video here but i'm having some trouble but i take it you can hear me is that yes i'm not really well yeah um look at my apologies no no problem um uh so it's no i know it's no surprise to you that mgm has reported in the past some of its issues around minors on the floor uh some of it attributable to the uh design of the property and our chief enforcement council team has uh pivoted uh after the license issuances just the other day to start looking at some of the pending uh reviews that we were trying to do and had had a meeting with mgm today about some of its uh compliance around minors on the floor uh so we are working through some of that now but they have you know i'm very encouraged because they are committed to putting up uh additional i don't know exactly what what it will look like but additional barrier you know they put the knee wall up at one point a couple years ago so there will be some additional um you know structural stuff to address the open floor plan aspect of the property which is attributable which contributes at least in part to some of the problems they've been having so this is an active issue that uh you know heather and her team have just turned their attention to since they've been you know able to uh after what we've been working on for the past uh month or so um you know as i said conversations with mgm again today and they did make that commitment around uh around the structural piece and there may be other commitments uh that make sense uh here um i think everybody's putting their heads together uh on that so i hope that's helpful to you i am familiar with uh some of the floor plan uh stuff that bruce is presenting uh to you today and you know to me i see it as part of the uh same floor that they're working with now and uh you know i don't have any specific reason to say but you know you need to put us hold on and hold on that okay thank you laura yeah okay but um thank you i i um appreciate bruce to you adding that the the same safeguards that we discussed as we were going through the uh category one applications that those will be put in place bruce those will be put in place the same ones that you yes often when we review the applications that those are going to be in place to ensure you know commissioner brian and all of us have had a concern about making sure the underage population can't access the the kiosks and staff is is currently monitoring it very closely so i i think we're in a good spot what uh this request is and then of course there's the kyc additional barriers to get over um correct yeah okay so with this respect to this floor plan they're up to eight i think it was eighteen in the application at the end um and they stuck with that plan and there's no expansion of the gaming plan here so do we have a motion with respect to mgm and might have directed a little else's report and bruce's update and i'm chair i can move at the commission approved the floor plan submitted by the categories one sports wagering operator mgm springfield as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today second thank you any further questions or discussion or yes all right mr. brian hi mr. skinner hi mr. main hi and i vote yes now with respect to uncle okay with uncle you have a change in the square footage of their floor space uh v1 and the uh space right outside of uh the uh bar there or the nightclub and this is consistent with their application as well correct so is there any change okay yep that this is what they requested so it's a change in overall square footage and and the two additional spaces there questions if um are uh commissioners no i don't have any questions but just to put a finer point i mean i i did express my interest in seeing or at least seeing photographs of the area in the garage in that area and i i hear the g u has not raised any concern i b has not raised any concerns but the nature of the schedule being what it is did not afford me the opportunity to go out there so without those in the photographs i'm just gonna have stan linda vote comes around i actually i disclosed um that i was going to an event there and uncle and i did go to an event there a few weekends ago um i'm hoping that it was because it was a saturday night and that there was an event in the event space but i had a really really difficult time finding parking and i noticed that a lot of parking spaces were taken up by construction on the b1 level which i assumed because of our positions uh had to do with probably the expansion of the square footage so um i'm going to move today and i am going to vote in the affirmative but i hope that encore is thinking about the patron experience of losing those parking spaces especially at high volume traffic times commissioner skinner um are you prepared to vote today my my concern would be uh if folks need to see it and commissioner maynard did have the opportunity to see it then um i think that there needs to be a visit go see it um um in the affirmative now jean you're you're fine um and again we've heard from geu that um doesn't present any and i think director lilios though not feeling well can attest to that too that i don't believe we've had any i don't believe that bruce would be here advancing this if there were any concerns correct i think that was your point commissioner skinner yeah and that's good enough for me under the circumstances but you know i don't need to reiterate i you know but i will i would feel comfortable having seen uh having performed a visual inspection personally okay um and i'll entertain the motion i don't chair i moved the commission approved floor plan submitted by the category one sports wagering operator on core boston harvard has included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today second any further edits or discussion all right and the one thing i can say is that if there's anything that we we um don't like going forward or there are problems that occur around safety or surveillance our geu team and our gaming division will be on top of it and reporting to us and we will revisit this so commissioner brian i'm staying okay commissioner skin bye commissioner maynard hi and i vote yes so thank you and thank you for the good work to our i e b you've been working all along and i do know that mr hill has been working along with you so um i appreciate that as well commissioner brian i know you're gonna have an opportunity to see it so um you know this is uh implementation of the application at work so thank you very much thank you bruce have an excellent weekend i think you're at on core right now aren't you i'm at on course we speak we've been here for those tests so we should have had you do face time walk over to the garage i i don't like to drive and have you walk over and walk around i got it yeah well i know that's how you and i both see grandchildren sometimes exactly all right all right so um that concludes today's agenda it's quite late five ten on a friday i appreciate everybody's the full attention i want to turn to sector director wells and council grossman do you have anything else for us and thank you bruce anything else for us today not for today okay so the one item we rolled over is on the um the withdrawal of an application we got a lot of work done today thank you everybody um and and thank you to the team who stayed on including trudy thank you so much and um we'll start work on on monday with a around table i think it's late it started noon okay commissioners have an excellent weekend do i have a motion to adjourn move to adjourn thank you thank you commissioner um have some fun enjoy yourselves commissioner bryne hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi and i vote yes thank you everyone four zero have a great week