By TheNuts - Nov 04, 2026
Sportsbooks Face Questions Over Betting Limits and Treatment of Winning Customers
As
online sports betting companies face increasing criticism over their use of generous rewards to keep losing customers engaged, attention is shifting toward another controversial industry practice: how
sportsbooks handle customers who consistently win.
Regulators and lawmakers across several states are examining a practice known as "limiting," in which sportsbooks reduce the amount successful bettors are allowed to wager, sometimes making it difficult for them to continue betting.
According to Brianne Doura-Schawohl, director of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, sportsbooks operate under a business model designed to protect their profitability. She argues that this creates an unfair environment, particularly because widespread advertising gives customers the impression that winning is readily achievable.
Last week, a group of U.S. lawmakers contacted major sports betting operators to raise concerns about how vulnerable customers who frequently lose money are offered VIP treatment.
The lawmakers argued that incentives such as invitations to exclusive events, personalized celebrity and athlete videos, and Super Bowl tickets can shift customers' attention away from their gambling losses and motivate them to continue placing bets.
However, customers who regularly win can experience an entirely different approach. Some successful bettors report having their maximum wagers reduced to less than $20, with certain limits dropping below 50 cents.
In a 2023 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, DraftKings acknowledged that it follows an industry practice of setting individual betting restrictions based on customer profiles and the company's assessment of potential financial risk.
Successful Bettors Face Restrictions
When Massachusetts introduced legal sports betting in 2023, professional bettor Mike Manning opened accounts with every available sportsbook in the state.
Manning, who describes himself as a professional or "sharp" bettor, relies on mathematical calculations and analytical models rather than intuition when making wagers.
He initially experienced success across several platforms. However, he eventually noticed that sportsbooks were progressively lowering his betting limits.
Manning said DraftKings restricted him to $25 per wager. At BetMGM, he initially placed bets ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per game, but his permitted wagers were eventually reduced to just $5.
The issue attracted the attention of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in 2024. The regulatory agency requested information from sportsbook operators about their betting-limit policies and how those restrictions were applied to individual customers.
Following an investigation last year, the Commission identified a pattern in which winning customers experienced reductions in their betting limits, while customers with consistent losses were allowed to increase theirs.
Professional sports bettor Gadoon Kyrollos, who has also experienced betting restrictions, described the approach as a "ban or bankrupt" business model.
Manning criticized the difference in treatment, arguing that sportsbooks take advantage of losing customers while preventing successful bettors from continuing to place meaningful wagers.
BetMGM declined to comment on the matter.
Despite the controversy, the number of restricted accounts remains relatively small. According to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, only 0.64% of betting accounts in the state had been subjected to restrictions.
Matthew Litt, a New Jersey attorney specializing in gambling-related cases, explained that limiting customers is generally legal, provided sportsbooks do not discriminate based on legally protected characteristics such as race or religion.
Massachusetts became the first state to require sportsbooks to inform customers when their betting limits are reduced and explain the reasons behind those decisions.
FanDuel informed Manning that its decision was based on an evaluation of his overall betting activity and the potential impact on the company's long-term risk exposure.
DraftKings provided a different explanation, telling Manning that the restrictions were implemented for internal risk-management purposes.
Another bettor, Michael Trevithick of Ann Arbor, Michigan, provided CBS News with a DraftKings betting slip showing that the maximum amount he could wager on the NBA Cup was just 49 cents.
A DraftKings spokesperson stated that the company applies individual betting restrictions to fewer than 0.15% of its accounts. The spokesperson added that these measures are intended to manage business risks and generally target activity that appears designed to take advantage of pricing errors or discrepancies in betting odds.
The company also maintained that these decisions are based on customer behavior rather than whether an individual is winning or losing.
How VIP Rewards Encouraged One Customer to Keep Betting
Chris Swett, a former highly paid attorney from South Carolina, is currently awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty in federal court to four counts of wire fraud and four counts of money laundering.
He admitted to stealing approximately $2 million from his law firm to support his gambling addiction.
Swett said that all of the money he took was ultimately spent on FanDuel.
His involvement with online gambling began after discovering Daily Fantasy Sports, a platform where participants create fantasy lineups featuring professional athletes and compete against other users for cash prizes.
By 2019, Swett was spending between $5,000 and $10,000 monthly on wagers.
He recalled receiving an email from a FanDuel employee explaining that customers spending at least $25,000 per month could qualify for a dedicated VIP host.
The program offered incentives such as complimentary sporting event tickets and free entries into fantasy contests, provided customers maintained sufficient betting activity.
Swett said receiving tickets to his first NFL game made him feel like a high roller.
Although he acknowledged that his gambling had become difficult to control, he said his VIP representative continued offering incentives designed to encourage additional wagers.
In a 2020 email, Swett told his VIP host that he had essentially run out of money for the month. Just two days later, the representative responded by offering a 4% bonus on any additional bets he placed.
Over a two-year period, Swett estimated that he wagered approximately $11 million on the platform and lost around $1 million.
After exhausting his available funds, he said he developed an elaborate fraud scheme involving fake legal invoices to steal money from his law firm and its clients.
He now faces a potential maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
Swett accepted personal responsibility for his criminal actions but questioned the role FanDuel's incentive system played in encouraging him to continue gambling.
He argued that the company's approach appeared structured to keep customers betting even when they were already experiencing serious financial difficulties.