 And we're good to go. Thanks, Dave. This is a convening of Master's of Game Commission. We've already met this morning to go over our agenda at our agenda-studying meeting, but this is now a full public meeting where you're holding this virtually. So we'll do our roll call, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning again. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning again, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning again, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning again, Commissioner Mayer. Good morning. All right, we'll get started in its public meeting number 499. We are meeting tomorrow. It will be a special number. We have two items for our sports wagering division. And one, it's actually, I want to thank Andrew for coming back. He presented this to us on Thursday. And because a series of questions were raised and our meeting was quite complicated by the number of issues in really time, we weren't able to really get to the end of our discussion. And Commissioner Hill had left a motion standing. So here we are. And I thank you, Andrew, for getting us back on track. Yeah, of course. Good morning again, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Yes, this is a revisitation of an item that was brought to you before last week. But today, we're actually going to start with Deputy General Counsel, Kerry Terese. Kerry was instrumental in providing the revised memo in your packet today, starting on page 3. And she'll be able to help guide you through some of this to start off. Kerry. Thank you. Good morning still, Madam Chair and Commissioners. So there was a little confusion last week over what the exact question was for the Commission's consideration. So what I'm going to do is sort of tee up that question for you, and then I'll turn it back to Operations Manager Stefan to talk about the specific prop bets in the memo. So a request for clarification was received from Fandle as to whether these specific prop bets for the Super Bowl that are outlined in the memo in your packet are authorized under the Commission's existing event catalog. And the reason that may be unclear or may have been unclear is because there are prop bets related to an NFL event, which would be authorized, but they're not direct wagers on the game itself. So of course, as you know, prop bets are specifically identified within the definition of sports wagering in Chapter 23N. And the Commission has also authorized betting on NFL events, and that's included in the event catalog. So what that means is that prop bets on the game or the event itself or specifically the Super Bowl are allowed under the existing event catalog, such as how many touchdowns they're going to be. The question is, as you move further away from the game itself, what types of prop bets are allowed? We would enter a little bit more of a gray area. For example, events that happen on game day at the field, but the wagers aren't on the game itself. Where you authorized betting on NFL events, the question for clarification is, are these prop bets outlined in the memo part of the NFL event itself and therefore already authorized for wagering? Or are they not part of the NFL event and therefore need separate authorization through the petition process? And really ultimately, this is a policy question for the Commission on where you want to draw the line on what is part of that authorized event and what is not. So that's the reframing of the question, and I'll turn it back to Operations Manager, Stefan. Yeah, thanks, Carrie. Yeah, just to reiterate the question or decision before you today is whether a coin toss or similar wagers outlined in your packet is to be considered a prop bet on a sporting event that falls within the definitions of a permissible wager per our approved event catalog. But before we dive back into coin tosses specifically, I'd like to give a few examples of just some general prop wagers just as a refresher. For example, you could wager on in football, how many total passing yards a quarterback will have in baseball, how many strikes will the pitcher throw in a game in almost any team sport, which team will score first or in basketball, how many blocks a player will have in the first half. And there are many, many more prop bets for many more sports. Specifically, as we shift towards the NFL, prop bets can range from total receptions or receiving yards, total rushes or rushing yards, total number of sacks, total field goals, will a certain player record an interception. And again, there are many more. These are just a few. Lastly, I'd like to give just a few examples for this upcoming Super Bowl that we found on some of the operators. Length of longest drive in yards, time of first possession in minutes. Will the miss field goal hit the upright? Will there be an onside kick? Will the opening kickoff be a touchback? Will there be an overtime? Will there be a safety? And I could go on and on and we could be here all day listing all the types of prop bets available. But these are just a few examples. One last thing before we think about coin tosses and these next examples are not necessarily wagers available today, but I am going to try and tie this all together for you. I'd like you to think about a prop wager that could state which team will receive the opening kickoff or perhaps, will the team who receives the opening kickoff win the game? While the opening kickoff itself is a result of an item of chance via the coin toss, it can play a crucial role in determining other prop bets throughout the game and perhaps even the outcome of the game. Now I'm sure everyone is here, is aware of the coin toss procedure and its general rules for an NFL game, but traditionally team captains or sometimes representatives from each team will meet in the middle of the field with the referees to determine which team will kickoff first and subsequently which team will receive the football first. Prior to tossing the coin, the visiting or away team will call either heads or tails. The referee will confirm the decision with that team, the referee will then flip or toss the coin, making sure the coin turns over and then let it land on the playing field. The winner of the coin toss has the option to start the game by kicking the ball to the opposing team or they may elect to receive the ball first. The loser of the coin toss also has the decision to make, which end of the field to defend and that decision could be influenced by weather conditions or the time of day or other factors the team has taken into consideration for that particular matchup. So in essence, the pre-game coin toss could play a major role in the game itself and very well may be considered a part of the game. The question or decision rather for you commissioners today as Kerry has already stated is if these coin toss proposition wagers and perhaps the others highlighted again in your packet already be considered proposition best in a sporting event or would they need to be considered as a new wager category and submitted as such? And again, thank you to Kerry for helping out our division today. Madam Chair. Okay, so I guess I'm gonna turn it to the commissioners, right? For questions, it'd be mindful of time folks because we do have, we're anticipating another good part of our agenda going forward. Commissioner O'Brien, question. Not a question so much as the framing of that issue as far as I'm concerned is these are not profits already authorized, that this is something that goes the field from the game. This is more akin to the conversation we had about well, not a sporting event, an other event that the majority of the board, this commission felt as part of what 23K, what 20 of the end authorizes. But this list for me goes far afield from what's actually the game itself and raises questions for me. I think a lot of us talked about the last two that like the National Anthem, the Gatorade over the coach, that sort of thing. This is coin toss, I guess a question to throw out is this particular request focuses on the Super Bowl. But if the idea is that a coin toss and all of these derivative bets off a coin toss is inherently part of a prop bet, where does it stop? I mean, can they again do a prop bet about a college game in Ohio or Oklahoma or whatever? It seemed the answer would be yes if the interpretation is this is part of the sporting event. I don't think it's connected to a sporting event closely enough that it automatically falls in. I think it's something that would have to come in front of us and we ask questions about same thing about the Academy Award, how judge, how are the results verified? How do you know somebody doesn't know in advance whether they're gonna, you know, somebody may know that they've already strategized in advance that if they win, they're gonna either kick or receive. So things like that to me are not something that you can really verify or subject to abuse because someone might actually know the color of the blazer the coach is gonna wear the color of the Gatorade. So the question before us to me would be, no, it's not part of a sporting event, it's a different matter that may fall under other event that comes in front of us that way. So I just insert this, I believe in June do correct me, but this clarification is strictly asking whether certain pre-game Super Bowl proposition wagers. So it's limited to the Super Bowl for today's discussion. Correct. Correct. And that was the initial request or email that we had received from the operator. My point Madam Chair is that the answer to it though has consequences far beyond just the Super Bowl. Yeah, if I may make one point there, I think to sort of build on what Commissioner O'Brien said, if you were to find that these profits are authorized under your existing event catalog, although their request is for clarification related to the Super Bowl, it would be the same results related to other NFL games because you would be determining that these profits are part of the NFL event. And that's why they're already authorized. Madam Chair. Okay, and just as a clarification, I think those decisions truly are already made by the team, I'm guessing Commissioner Hill, coaches know that if they've got heads or tails, they probably have already made a decision, but the heads or tails is still an unknown, right? What do you think from Commissioner Hill? I have a quick question, Carrie. So I'm leaning toward allowing this to happen, not the Gatorade and not the, there's another one that I'm not... The national anthem length, and you did, we all made that kind of clear. I think there was a consensus at our last meeting on those two, yeah. So Carrie, now I need a process question. Last week and today, I'm ready to make a motion and in that motion, it will say the Super Bowl only. So by making a motion, having the Super Bowl only, how does that affect what Commissioner O'Brien is asking about? Right. I don't think that there's a way that you can say that you are confirming that these profits are part of the NFL event and therefore authorized and limited to the Super Bowl. That would be my reading of it. But as another event, you could, you could say they mint X thousand of these coins, a hundred go to the NFL, nobody knows which one's gonna be flipped. We know it's a good coin, you know, you could come in front on another event like the Academy Awards, et cetera, where we get satisfied that nobody's gonna know the outcome and you can verify this and this is a unique other event. But that would come before us for a vote, would it not? Correct. Correct. So like this one's before us for consideration. Right. But there's two ways to get there. One is it's already okay and the other one is, it's other and you have to vote separately. Michelle Brown, if we could hear from Carrie and then we'll turn back to Michelle. Thank you. Yeah, I was just gonna try to maybe clarify a little more what I had said, I think the distinction is that one avenue you're essentially saying, there's no process required, you're saying, these are already authorized under our existing catalog. We don't really need to take any action. Your motion would just be because there was a request for clarification, you know, you're issuing that clarification. If the alternative is that you find that these are not already authorized under the existing event catalog and would need to come to the commission for review under petition and then you would run through those criteria you've discussed in the past as to whether you want to allow it on a case-by-case basis. That doesn't allow for me to take a vote on it today because you're saying there's a process that they have to go through. Commissioner Hill, this would be what I'm hearing, Carrie, and I'm just gonna, is that, if there are any questions that are outstanding that perhaps Commissioner O'Brien just raised, we could authorize the coin toss issue today and limit it to just Superbowl and revisit it without consequence. Couldn't we Carrie and say that it's just for the purpose of Superbowl and not necessarily make it clear that it's already authorized across? You could certainly do that. And if you were going to discuss multiple profits and some you were going to say are already authorized, you would want to have two separate motions where the coin toss would be its own standalone that you are authorizing wagers on the coin toss for the Superbowl exclusively, again, because they're two separate questions. One is, are these already authorized? And two is, if they're not already authorized, do you want to authorize now? Can I ask the question, do we have, are there bets out there on coin tosses elsewhere where we've been allowing it? No, there are no other wagers on coin tosses. Okay, so we haven't authorized that generally, right? So we don't necessarily need to get to that question today. We could limit our discussion today, Commissioner Hill, because as you put it, the other question may not be ready for prime time. And if we were comfortable with the motion that you started with last week, limit it to the Superbowl, is that what you're, and those are our two choices, Carrie? I don't think that there's a way for you to, so the way that you get to saying that these profits are already authorized is because they're part of the NFL event, which is authorized under the event catalog. So I don't think that there's a way to limit that to the Superbowl only. We can't limit it, right? For today's purpose. Other event. But the other event could be limited, right, Carrie? Well, that's what I'm getting at under the other event. Right, it's not related to the sports where it's an other event. And it would be a new event. But we were on the right side. It would be a new event that you were authorizing today. So you would be either and confirming that these profits are already authorized and or adding this new wager that you're saying is authorized today. As an other of it. Commissioner May, which is where we were leaning last week, I thought. Okay. So essentially Commissioner Hill is bringing up Sue Esponte, a new event himself, right? Essentially what's going on here. I'm just trying to get clarification on, I'm trying to make sense of what I'm voting on if I vote on to move this forward or not move it forward. We are essentially not touching the, is this already allowed right now? He would be making a motion basically to add an event to the catalog, Sue Esponte, because no one has anything in front of us right now. I'm just trying to, this isn't a trick question. This is like, is that what I'm voting on? That's how I look at it. That's how I look at it, Commissioner Maynard. And that assumes that we are all in agreement that this is in fact, an other event. Right. And we do have, we've had conversations in the past about being satisfied in the reg in terms of, is it verifiable? Is it not subject to knowledge in advance? That sort of thing. And so just, Commissioner Maynard, to follow up, to just speak to your inquiry, I'm leaning towards, not allowing this event only because I agree with something Commissioner O'Brien said last week. And that is, I don't think that I, as a commissioner, want to be the one initiating this event on behalf of an operator. We don't have a petition before us for these other events that are related to the Super Bowl. Yes, I am satisfied that we do have the authority because I know we touched on that last Thursday to approve this kind of event as an other event. But I'm just not, I am not willing to, as you've termed it, support Commissioner Hill's Suesponte petition here. So Carrie, there's no way that we can actually say that it is, for the purposes of the NFL, that we can limit it to just the Super Bowl, as opposed to, I see, I mean, Commissioner O'Brien, you're taking ahead, but I see you, but I really am struggling to understand why we can't limit it. So the only way to limit it would be if you were considering it under that option, too, as an other event. I know that just, I mean, Right, right, so I'm just trying to clarify because the clarification question today is, are these already authorized? And if the determination is that they are already authorized, it's because they are authorized as prophets in an NFL event. So I don't know, if you're saying they're authorized in an NFL event, they're authorized in any NFL event, because your analysis would be that they fit within the definition of sporting event in that way. Maybe are we comfortable with that? I mean, what is the risk of being comfortable with coin toss? And Commissioner O'Brien, I'm just gonna turn to Commissioner Maynard first. What's the problem with that around your coin? I can start the conversation on this. First of all, I do believe, and I was not comfortable when we changed the reg, that any commissioner can sue a sponte at an event. I mean, it's just where I come from. I know there's other disagreement from other commissioners, but like, if I'm walking down the street one day and I see an event that I think's interesting, I think I have the right as commissioner to bring it to the commission and say, hey, I wanna do it, right? So with that in mind, with that as my starting point, I'm fine with the coin toss result. I'm fine with the coin toss winner. I don't like the anything that deals with who's going to receive because I think people may know whether they're going to receive or not. Coin toss winner wins the game. That seems pretty, they either do or they don't, right? Coin toss to be retaken is kind of odd, right? Like, well, let's see, you know, I don't know all the factors, Andrew, of when they would do that. Like it lands on its side, okay, but other than that. Yep, I actually read the NFL rulebook on this and it's the coin does not flip end over end, it has to be retaken. Okay, so I'm okay with that, I guess. You skipped the one before. To win the coin toss and win the game. I'm fine with that. The call result is an odd one to me too, but I mean, it seems like. It's not that real. It's like they're really digging in there, right? Like, explain it, Andrew, on exactly what they're asking for. Yep, so if the coin toss team A, let's call result. If they do call heads and it ends up being tails, that's an incorrect toss result. I know, it's just kind of weird, but okay, fine. To offer a way to draw that. And of course we already said no to the Gatorade and National Anthem. That's where I would be if, if I do accept that Commissioner Hill can raise to respond to an event category to be offered just for the Super Bowl. And I would limit that to the Super Bowl. So in other words, I was thinking, is anybody couple expanding it right out to Kerry's point? Option one, if we went the other way, and I see Commissioner Ryan, I'm just gonna. Because it was never option one, Madam Chair, it's option two that Commissioner Maynard just described. And I said, I was asking him to visit option one just now, but it sounds like you only wanna limit it to the Super Bowl as well. So option one doesn't really work. Okay, so. So here's my question on process. And I did say this and I still feel this way. I am not somebody that I do not think this commission should be adding events to the catalog. I hear my fellow commissioners two of whom say, well, I should have the right to do this. If I accept that premise, we still have a process that we put on everybody else. And it's so we can all have the information in front of us that has to do with some of the stuff I talked about, which is this is a special coin. How is it minted? How is it calibrated? Does anybody really know? Is it something that's not subject to cheating that sort of thing? That to me needs to be taken care of to get a vote even on a Suez Fonte. And we don't have that in front of us. Now we have a meeting tomorrow. So this is something that could be put in front of us with that information answered by the licensee who's asking for this. And we add it to tomorrow as another event. And the failure to put it on with enough warning is the event's happening this weekend and they got clarification from us today less than 48 hours before the meeting. Because I do not think that our authority to Suez Fonte raise things means we skip our own process on the reg. The NFL is the event is under the NFL for one event like in the Super Bowl to the Oscars on event, but it's an NFL. It would be one event, it would be another event. The NFL is an existing governing body. But it's related to the Super Bowl. Now some of how they handle it may come into play like these coins are minted every year, we get this many, nobody knows the coin we're using. They're all calibrated. They're out in front being watched doing the flip. You could get all that out there in terms of answering the questions on the regs. Is this chance? How do you validate the results? How do you know if people don't know in advance? That can all be done to me in short order and mark this up as a request even Suez Fonte Commissioner Hale as another event in light of the fact that we are basically getting clarification out to the licensees. This does not qualify as an existing profit. This is another event that would have to be asked for. If we're all in agreement. So, and it sounds like from Commissioner Maynard's remarks that you would see it only not fitting into option one, but option two. Okay. I agree with that read. Okay. Yeah. On that. All right. And then Commissioner Hale, I think Commissioner Skinner has made it clear that it would only be under other event and it's not comfortable with a Suez Fonte. Well, let me make that clear. I'm not suggesting that commissioners don't have the authority to do that. It's just that I wouldn't do it. I'm not interested in doing it on behalf of my operators. That's just one clarification. I also have a question that maybe Carrie can answer on the regulations 247032. And I'll give you a minute to pull that up. It says essentially a proposed new sporting event may be a variation of an authorized sporting event, a composite of an authorized sporting event or a new sporting event. So what did we contemplate by the language composite of authorized sporting events? I mean, just to the extent that it needs to be made clear or it can be made clearer, I think this other event certainly qualifies as a composite of the authorized sporting event. So I mean, even the memo from sports wagering says this is happening prior to the NFL Super Bowl. So I want to be clear on where I stand in terms of whether this was already authorized. I don't think that this fits within what the commission authorized as a prop bet. So the language is here, again, the composite. So we had to contemplate something. And I think this is exactly that. So that's where I stand on this. I'm happy to take a vote. If someone wants to put one up, it's just that Commissioner Bryan also makes an excellent point in that where authorized to do something doesn't mean we should, especially if it means that we're not adhering to our own processes and safeguards to ensure that the integrity is there on these events. Certainly wise words, just because we're authorized doesn't mean we should. So, Commissioner Skinner, thank you for that. Commissioner Hill, you haven't had a chance to really process what you've heard. What are you thinking? I'm still thinking we should allow these bets to happen for the Super Bowl. How we get there, apparently, we don't agree on how to get there. I am concerned. I appreciate Commissioner Bryan saying we could do this tomorrow. I'm not sure how comfortable Council would be with that under the open meeting lot. Todd? Well, it would have to be an emergency. And, you know, it's not an emergency, or is it? I mean, this is... That's the question, I guess, for the Commission is based upon the timing and the evolution of this issue. Is this something... I don't have the definition right in front of me, but... How about Commissioner Updates? If we could get... You know what, Commissioner Bryan, I'm not going to have Commissioner Updates be used that, you know, Commissioner Updates are really not for something for us to take action on out of the blue. We have to be really judicious about how we use that. That's really to help us be informed each other with things that we can't... We want to talk about with each other all together because of the limitations on our conversations. Madam Chair, may I ask you another question? Yes, and I mean, why Todd could look for the emergency. Yeah, I got it here if you'd like to hear. Let's finish that, please, thank you. So it's General Act Chapter 38, Section 18, which has definitions related to the open meeting law and the term emergency is defined as a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action. Sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action. Can we use the fact that we don't have a consensus as a generally unexpected? Yeah, and the problem is they've known that the date for quite some time. So can we talk about these issues last Thursday, last week? Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that. Commissioner Albright, I appreciate that though, because that's very practical, but I think we really have to be, and to those who are in the public, it may sound really nitty, but we have to be fully compliant with the open meeting law. It's as simple as that. Commissioner Hill, so then the question comes down to, normally, oh, you wanted to ask a question of Andrew. Yes, Andrew, what other jurisdictions do not allow the coin toss for betting purposes? Do not allow? Yes, I'm sure of the ones that do not allow. We've only looked at the ones out in Las Vegas that they offer those coin toss wagers. They're the only ones, is that what you're saying? Those are the examples we found as operators in Las Vegas, Nevada, offering coin toss wagers. And I say this as someone who is likely not in favor to vote in favor of this, but I think there's a handful of others that do allow. Most, I believe, do not, but there are more than just Nevada. And I fully appreciate sportsway dreams only looking at that one. We didn't ask them to look at that, but I think there's a few more, Commissioner Hill, but my understanding is the vast majority do not allow it. Is that true, Andrew? I don't have those answers. For some reason, I felt as though we heard differently last week, but I may have misheard. I think we talked about the gatorade color and the odds on the gatorade color, and those were Las Vegas numbers. I mean, just anecdotally, since we're in a public meeting, Maryland allows these Ohio doesn't, right? So it's pretty split and it's, you know, jurisdictions, we respect every jurisdiction that does this, but we regard them and it looks like they split. So if we look, we've got option one off, picking an option two, other event, a question of Sue Sponte. And I take Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Skinner's point very seriously. We have a process in place. We haven't, our red suggests operators, but I don't think that meant that we ruled ourselves out. And I guess if that is what we thought at the time, I think we should have clarity around that regulation because I mean, I myself would think that there might be times where we, as a commission, need to intervene to Commissioner Maynard, to Commissioner Hill's point, or even Andrew. I guess I just wouldn't, I wouldn't want to rule us out altogether, you know what I mean? So, but to the point about the governing body, that's one thing that we always look at, you know, it's a governing body, no. And then what's the other points that we require when there's a new event, Andrew? I'm sorry, Chair, what was the question? When we add a new event on your forms, we ask that the governing body. Yeah, the governing body, if the governing body has been contacted, some integrity controls that have been mentioned, I think I can pull up the form, but there are several other questions that the operator does have to clarify with the gaming commission with us prior to submitting. And Andrew, have you received any information? We have not. And I was going to revisit the question of bringing these back up tomorrow. When we reached out to the operator, they said, thank you for the form, but they will not be submitting and we'll revisit prior to next year's Super Bowl. And I think I mentioned that last week during the commission meeting. Yeah, well, we didn't know, we didn't know that. We heard they declined, but we thought it was because of it being added as a new event. And there wasn't clarity around that. That was one of our only choices now that they didn't submit. And I think I was convinced that they didn't submit because they were seeking clarification as to whether there's permission, existing permission to sort of commissioner Skinner's point. It's under our rights, is it currently allowed? It sounds as though there's been a conclusion now by legal, it is not currently allowed. And so it looks like fanatics or whoever it was, Vandal is a fanatic of Vandal. Vandal. Vandal is willing to wait till next year. Madam chair. Request for clarification. I didn't hear from legal that they have concluded that this is not already allowed. I think that what Carrie, what I heard Carrie say is that if we decided that this was already allowed, that we couldn't limit it to just the Super Bowl. So, and I don't think that there's an appetite by commissioners to open this up to events beyond the Super Bowl. So that's just one request for clarification. The other request for clarification is at some point, I would like to understand this notion of a commissioner Suesponte requesting an event be added to the catalog because I remember, I think distinctly that we had talked about whether any person could petition. And I think I thought that that we subsequently limited that to just any operator. So I just, it would be helpful to understand if we did in fact contemplate a single commissioner raising an event as a request. I agree with you on that. I think if you recall correctly, we were getting requests from new events from integrity monitors and the others. We thought probably limited to the operators. I know there was also a question of whether it's general public and I think ultimately we decided on the operator. What I'm not sure is whether we ever really had a discussion about it coming from the commission itself. So I agree with you commissioners. I agree, Madam Chair. We did because I requested something to be put on and we had this discussion and it was decided that only the operators would be able to come forward. Commissioner Skinner, I'm Commissioner Hill. Yes, and Bruce, you might remember that you and I had a discussion about that and it was decided by the commission that only operators would be allowed to bring forth something. I had requested two or three events from another country that are very popular. They had not come forward by an operator. So I was told that after discussion that only operators should be bringing forward a change in the sports events that we allowed. Correct, Director Ban? That's correct, Commissioner. I know I'm very sorry, Commissioner Hill. I am not recalling this, my apologies. I recall, I don't recall you asking for particular events. I asked before when I believe three or four. Before the body of five or did you go to a sports wagering? This is what started the discussion, actually. Oh, I remember it. Integrity is what prompted my conversation on this. Me too, me too. I don't recall ever going against anything that you brought forward, Commissioner Hill. And if that's your impression and I did that, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. That's okay. I just want you to know that I did request something in the past and was told only operators could bring it forward. Yeah. It sounds like we need to mark that up for further conversation. I think so, I do think so. So Carrie, that too, what I think is a legal analysis and I'm feeling like it may be having shifted to the commissioners analysis. Are you asking us to interpret our regulation to know whether this currently exists is allowed or have you made a legal analysis? I don't think it's a legal question. It's the question as to whether the commission in making its policy, where you want to draw the line as to what is part of the event, the game and what is not. And this is on option two. That would be on option one. That's option one. And then we could, could we limit it to, if we could put it as part of the game, could we limit it? We cannot limit it to, and I see Commissioner Bryant is giving us such great help and I'm trying to put you there on Carrie. Just the neutral lawyer. On option one, you would not be able to limit to the Super Bowl because your determination would be that these types of profits are inherently authorized in NFL events by nature of the definitions and your adoption of NFL events in the event catalog. Option two, again, you would be addressing these as individual new other events and you would sort of run through the criteria. The criteria and what you would want to consider as to whether you would allow them on a case by case basis. So commissioner Skinner, the analysis is tied to, you know, that broader question on option one. Madam chair. Yes. Just a follow-up to commissioner Hill's question. We do have some very helpful listeners today, providing the jurisdictions in which these coin tosses are available and which ones are not available. It looks like roughly 18 or 19 jurisdictions do allow coin tosses and then maybe another. That's actually 22 to another nine or 10 do not allow the coin tosses. Yeah. And one of our friends to the North, New Hampshire allows it. And that's something that I'm always concerned about because a lot of Massachusetts residents will now go up to New Hampshire to make those bets. I see it every weekend. It's up in Seabrook, New Hampshire. So again, it's just something that Commissioner Hill does his Saturday errands to be clear. To be clear. Yeah. I mean, to go back to my trial days and my pellet work, you know, sometimes bad facts make bad law. So I'm not inclined to sort of torture ourselves to get this on a platform in the next couple of days. And I said this at the last meeting that they've been in business for over a year or 10 plus months. They've known this was coming. They've known this was a bet. You have the, the licensee who put the question out first to sports way during saying, we're not going to do it. We'll look at it next year. I hear you from a financial perspective, Commissioner Hill, but I do think procedurally trying to, you know, ignore our own rules and do it. Sue Sponte or broadly define this as part of an NFL event because we just want to want this little sliver to go through to me would be bad, bad law. And I think it's contrary to the interpretation of what this actually is, which is another event which could be considered under the regs. I think the timing of it right now is just not going to happen by the weekend. That's my view. Can I ask a clarifying question from a compliance perspective then? Should we not go through with approving this since it's not really an approval. It's a clarification. The reason for the clarification is because if it were to be offered, we need to know whether we're supposed to look toward that as being okay or not. So by not doing anything, we also still have no answer for ourselves or compliance, if that. Well, the answer would be if we said this is a clarifying event, right, then the answer is the clarification is it's not authorized. And you'd have to come back in front as another event for some of the process of the regs. Would we need to vote on that to say it is not in fact is all I'm asking because the question is it's not in our catalog. Okay, thank you. So Crystal's pointing out that she has a job to do. And so the fact that we're taking no action is that it's not in our catalog. So Crystal's pointing out that she has a job to do. The fact that we're taking no action means that we haven't really clarified for the requester and for our sports imaging division. Think we're back to my, think my original question, because I want to see on option one. And maybe this is a question, Andrew, are the coin costs and the other jurisdictions limited to just a suitable or are they limited or are they allowed as part of the NFL games generally? From what I've found I've seen is the Super Bowl Super Bowl coin toss props. And that was the initial request and clarification. Strictly for the Super Bowl, correct. And because of the way our reg is written or whatever, we can't limit it according to legal today. Without triggering a waterfall and other decisions. Commissioner Hill. Madam chair, let's see if we can close this now. I actually would be willing to make two motions today. One on carried on proposal number one, which I don't think any of us agree on, although I'll vote in favor of it. If I'm making a motion and then I will also make another motion to add this to our catalog. And however you want to vote, you vote. So I'm willing to do two motions to bring this to an end. I'm not sure about those two, how those work together, but I'll turn to legal clarification. Yeah, I think I'm understanding what Commissioner Hill is saying, which is that some of these items, some of these proposed profits, perhaps folks are deciding would it be already included in the existing event catalog and some would be other new events, such as the coin toss that you're just looking. So where there's a list in the memo of various profits, the first motion might include some of those and the second motion might include the rest or others. Is that what you're saying, Commissioner Hill? So let me just read what I think I would say. I would move that the commission confirm that the following profits are authorized for wagering under the commission's existing event catalog. I would list them all as seen here and talked about here. And then the commission would vote yes or no. I suspect the vote will be no. I then would ask the commission if I could move to amend the official catalog of events and wages to include the following super bowl prop wagers as included in the commission's pack and discussed here today. And I would put forth the coin toss result, the coin toss winner, the coin toss winner wins game. And again, if nobody seconds it, so be it. Yeah, I just would point out that I think we've already established procedurally there's a problem with motion number two, just for more I'm sitting. I'm not gonna stop another commissioner for making a motion but that's a motion that would be flying in the face of the rags. And I'm gonna counter but not without appreciation of commissioner Brian's point. I'm just gonna counter so that we're all clear. The counter argument is like, just saying is that she's pointing out that we have in the past expected something from the operators and commissioners pointed out we didn't necessarily expressly allow for commissioners to go to something so as spontaneous. In turn, we also expect the operators to point out who the governing body is, have they been notified and to think also look at various association, other questions answered. Dando hasn't answered those questions, they are willing to wait till next year. But in terms of the procedures, a counter argument would be the NFL is the governing party. I believe they're on notice about this because it's being offered in a bunch of other states. So that counters the process question. And also it's not really a process question under our regs because the reg doesn't contemplate the commissioner coming forward. So processes is already changed. It doesn't expressly say the commissioner can't, although apparently commissioner Hill feels that that's already been decided by the commission, which I don't know. So just counting, just to be real clear on the process issues, I think we've hashed them out. Commissioner Hill, if you wanna make your motion, my concern is the two part, but I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. Let's make the motion and if there's an issue. Yeah. Legal can. Help us. Help me out, okay. So Madam Chair, I move that the commission not confirm that the following prop bets are authorized for wagering under the commission's existing event catalog. The coin toss result of the Super Bowl, the coin toss winner of the Super Bowl, team to receive opening kickoff of the Super Bowl. The coin toss winner wins game of the Super Bowl, the coin toss to be retaken at the Super Bowl, the coin toss call result at the Super Bowl, the Gatorade color over the coach during the, or at the end of the Super Bowl and how long the national anthem will be at the Super Bowl. I can offer a friendly language amendment rather than say not confirm, say clarify that the following are not included. And of course, I would accept that. As a friendly amendment. And with that, I would second. Okay. Any questions on that with the amendment? I have a question. Sure. Commissioner Hill, did you include all of the events in your recitation of the motion? I did. Perfect, thank you. Anything further? Andrew, did I forget any of them? Okay. Just making sure. Yeah, you did. Went to them all. Okay, any further questions? I do. I'm sorry. With Commissioner O'Brien's amended language, your motion, Commissioner Hill, is to clarify that each of the listed events are not included in the catalog as prop nets already authorized. Okay. Okay, anything further? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. Yes, five, zero. Commissioner, did you have another motion that you wanted to go forward? I do. Just bear with me one moment, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would move that the commission amend the official catalog of events and wages to include the following Super Bowl prop wagers as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. The coin toss results, the coin toss winner and the coin toss winner wins game. Madam Chair, I believe because the risk to the public is relatively low given the organization and that many patrons would appreciate the option to wager on those as well as the fact that it would keep patrons in the jurisdiction allowing for them to wager under the laws and protections that we do have here, I would second that motion. Any further discussion? The only thing I would say is, as will be evidenced by my vote shortly, I do not believe that altering our processes for an end result is the wise way to go. As I said, these licenses have known for months if they wanted this clarification. So while it may seem in the last week that we have scrambled a little bit because of the timing of it, I don't think we should be making changes based on a third ask in a timely manner. For the discussion, well, I'm going to be probably leaning with Commissioner O'Brien on this. I am terribly disappointed because I do feel that these should be included. I had thought that our legal analysis would get us there in a different way and I'm mistaken today because we do our sausage making, if you will, in public here. And I do feel that there's two factors we do need to clarify. Commissioner Hill has indicated that we've actually even decided on commissioners moving, as we say, to us one day. And I would support that. What is happening today by Commissioner Hill should be allowed. But it should be with the same guardrails that we've had and expect from the operators around the integrity piece that we outlined. And so we're missing that today, although I'm with Commissioner Maynard, very, very low risk. The deciding factor for me today, too, is that Van Dool has said that they're willing to wait. It doesn't serve their advanced commonwealth's interests like I would like to. Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Maynard just pointed those out. But given our processes and given our expectations of the operators at this point, I just think of our own Commissioner Hill's, which is not quite ready for prime time and I am disappointed. And there's no blame here. It's just quite ready. Okay. So when you hear my vote, that explains it. I wanted to make sure to advocate on both sides so that we're all thinking of these issues. So, and no one else has anything to say. I think we've raised every possible argument. Commissioner Skinner just unmuted. Oh, Commissioner Skinner, I don't know if it's just something else, too. Just to go on record, we have strict rules dictating what comes before us and the factors that are to be considered in deciding any matter, in particular, what events to offer here in Massachusetts. Troubled by the suggestion that some are willing to forego those rules on a whim, seemingly. And no disrespect to you, Commissioner Hill, to you, Commissioner Maynard. I just think this has an element of bypassing the rules that we've so carefully laid out for this industry. And so I'm prepared to vote and full transparency, I'm leaning towards nay. I will be a nay, more than leaning. I've already fallen. We can wait for the order of the vote. Just in case anybody else had anything to say, I really appreciate, Carrie, your guidance helping us think about this. I do think we should revisit this because perhaps Commissioner Skinner, if we laid it out properly of the process could shift, as long as we're all comfortable. But right now it just isn't quite there from my perspective. And I appreciate everybody's thinking here. And Commissioner Hill, I particularly appreciate your willingness to stick with this. And I hope that we've given the right respect for your motion that got dangling last week. My apologies. Okay, with that said, let's get moving. We have a second from Commissioner Maynard. Commissioner O'Brien. Nay. Commissioner Hill. Yes. Commissioner Skinner. Nay. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote nay. No. Thank you. So the motion does not proceed. We are going to revisit this issue. It'll be two yeas and three minutes. Thank you. And to the public, thank you for your help to Andrew. We do look at our fellow jurisdictions. My sense was what came through. And so we can revisit this issue. And thank you to Bandil for helping us do that for the next speaker. All right. With that, we have already off our time people a little bit. So we're just going to have to be some really mindful of our, the operators ahead. Turning to subsection two, well, two B. I want to thank the operators who have come forward for, they've agreed to meet with us, should we so vote to follow up on questions we have raised with respect to potential KYC vulnerabilities that have been reported to us sort of on an ad hoc basis as well as possible proxy wagering. The operators were able to give us a lot of information about the strategies they use successfully to learn about suspicious activity and to intervene. But they also generously offered it if we could meet in executive session, they would like to share their additional techniques. And should we so vote, that's exactly what we can anticipate those conversations. I want to thank them in advance. Before I turn to Crystal, we do have a little bit of a agenda resetting. The names really weren't put in any particular order because we do like to accommodate everyone's schedule. But it would, we'll start with that MGM go to PSI and then Van Gould and Trap Kings and with Fanatics. And we are hoping to have about a half an hour dedicated to each and we are 15 minutes off our schedule. So with that, commissioners, I'll turn to Crystal. She said, I'm going to have a brief introduction. What are you going to add, Crystal? And I know you'll be also shepherding during the executive session, should we go forward? Yes, I'll be brief. I just wanted to thank the operators because many of them did take the time for several enlightening discussions surrounding this particular landscape, but as well as navigating the proposed changes to our underage access recording, which we hope to roll out in a few weeks. These sessions will be kind of the final insight for us on that. And I did just want to note that in these sessions, the operators will provide details for two distinct phases, the KYC process, which is related to the account creation. And then additionally, there are integrated process that relate to the props during the wagering, which may also be referred to as count takeover. There are different terms for that, but they're ready to articulate the prevention and mitigation procedures, relevant themes like degrees of confidence and certainty, establishing risk categories, and of course, leveraging tools like geocomply, their proprietary models and other flying opportunities. So I think they'll all be a little different and that'll be insightful itself. That's all I had to have. Okay. Well, thank you, Christian. Thank you for all your efforts. Commissioner, as you know, if we're going to move forward on an executive session, I need to read this language into the record. The commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with GEL, chapter 30A, section 21A7, and GEL, chapter four, section seven, subsection 26N, the operators, oops, sorry, to review certain materials in connection with what's wagering operators processes and parameters to prevent account creation by underage individuals and to detect account takeovers or proxy wagering as these matters relate to cybersecurity in the commonwealth. And the public disclosure of which is likely to jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity at motion. Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session on the matter and for the reasons just stated by the chair. Second. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? Okay, Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, five, zero. Okay. Tom and Dave, what's next steps? So, Chair, Dave will be moving folks into a breakout room based on the schedule that we had. So we'll start with that MGM. Just a point of clarification for the viewing public on our YouTube stream. I need to add that we do not anticipate reconvening in the public session. So thank you so much, Mills. Tom for that. All right. So we thank the public for joining us earlier on that.