Fantasy league pari-mutuel rules further mulled
Pub Date: 3/1/2008
Analysis
By Cole Boehler
After Gaming industry Association Executive Director Rich Miller announced his resignation from that post Jan. 31, there was concern in some quarters that he might be bowing out from all his other associated responsibilities in the gaming sphere.
And that is a fact, with one notable exception: he agreed to continue with his duties as a member of the Board of Horse Racing's rules committee which has been charged with writing the administrative rules to implement HB616, a law passed by the 2007 Legislature that allows "fantasy sports league pari-mutuel wagering."
Miller is unanimously regarded by colleagues and government officials as the consummate rules guru when it comes to gaming. In addition, he has seen firsthand the trouble that results when a single carelessly chosen word in the rules can be and is construed multiple ways.
So it is no wonder it was Miller, with the aid of board attorney Carol Grell-Morris, who often seemed to steer the committee away from an inclination to "just get 'er done" without the requisite scrutiny to assure every word meant precisely what it was supposed to mean.
In that kind of atmosphere, the work at hand will grind up the hours, but minute by painstaking minute'; it is as much about getting the process right as the final content.
HB616 authorized the merger of three wagering concepts already legal in the state: pari-mutuel, which is traditional race betting'; simulcast, which is a technologically driven race wagering system where players in one location can place bets on races across the country via telephone wires and an integrated "tote" system'; and fantasy sports wagering where players wager a fixed amount at the beginning of a sports season, select and trade athletes from rosters to form a "fantasy" team, then compute individual player stats to determine an end-of-season winner.
The hybrid would essentially allow fantasy sports league wagering to occur on short-term cycles, most likely weekly, whereas current fantasy sports league wagering is run on a single entire season. It would use an integrated computerized "totalizer" or "tote" system to record bets, calculate odds and payout.
When the rules committee met again Feb. 13 at Jorgenson's in Helena, it initially reviewed some significant changes it had made to the second rules draft back on Jan. 16.
Most prominent of those was language to assure there would be competition among prospective automated wagering systems providers, which in turn would assure there was ample opportunity for location operators to participate, should they find the concept a good economic fit with their businesses.
The fantasy sports pari-mutuel wagering system would be available to be operated in any business licensed for Class III gaming in Montana. There was some earlier concern among members of the Montana Tavern Association that the system availability could be restricted, for example, to locations under contract to certain vendors.
The MTA's Mark Staples attended the Jan. 16 meeting and expressed his members' concern and was in turn assured it was the intent of the committee to implement rules that would allow all Class III gaming locations to participate.
So the committee changed Rule III (1) to indicate there could be more than one licensed network provider, and altered (1)(g), which details duties of the board, to read: "solicit non exclusive sites for the network, and contract with all pari-mutuel facilities which have been licensed by the board';..."
The draft rules also seemed to be ambiguous, if not in conflict, when it came to defining "wagering week" versus an "accounting week."
Apparently, "wagering week" would be referred to as "wagering period" to define a game or event wagering cycle, whether for football, baseball or NASCAR, for example, whereas there would also need to be a defined "accounting" or "reporting week" cycle for administrative purposes including calculating handles, determining winners, paying all wagers and sharing the proceeds according to statute.
Considerable discussion during the five-hour meeting was also devoted to hashing out the practicality of having all "odds and combinations" available at betting locations in hard copy form. It seems that was template language grafted from horse racing rules that weren't necessarily applicable in this case.
Since "odds" related to "combinations" change throughout the wagering cycle depending on the individual wagers and total wager pool, posting the data in hard copy was deemed impractical and so a single word, "must," was changed to "may" to skirt the problem.
Miller also pointed out that while odds and combinations change, rosters from which bettors choose their sports participant combinations do not, so rosters certainly could be available in hard copy at the beginning of a wagering cycle.
"Players coming into the location to get rosters will be a primary traffic builder" for customer-hungry locations, Miller said. "Players will demand them, take them home, study them, research them."
Further discussion covered licensing "tote" employees, which Miller said should specifically apply to one designated individual at each location, rather than any employee who might assist a customer with placing bets.
The committee also wrangled with a prohibition against location employees placing their own bets while on shift, and how a bettor, using self-serve wagering terminals, might cancel or change a placed bet and if that was feasible given envisioned technology.
Often all six members of the committee would offer six different suggestions as to which word was precisely the right word, then attorney Grell-Morris would offer a logical solution and all would chime in with their approval.
But by 2:45, productive discussion bogged when the group approached the multiple pages of rules language that would specify the types of acceptable wagering propositions.
For those not familiar with horse race betting or fantasy sports league play, this section is daunting and nearly incomprehensible.
But those who understand these matters are capable of scrutinizing the ins and outs seemingly endlessly.
All, however, seemed to be striving for complete clarity of what is allowable and some, just as importantly, wanted this section to make clear to the public, regulators and other interested parties, that these wager propositions were clearly, legally distinct from illegal "sports book" type wagering.
Members of the committee indicated that to steer clear of possible future legal challenges, the rules covering wagering must clearly allow only bets that do not rely on an actual single player's performance, nor on the performance of a single team, or the winner of any contest, which is what constitutes illegal sports betting.
Only wagers on combinations of players listed on a league roster, which will comprise the "fantasy teams," will be allowed. Points determined by league rules will be assigned to performance factors, and hence awarded to and totaled for a group of players on a bettor's "fantasy team."
These wagers, though, can be configured like traditional horse race wagers which involves terminology esoteric and alien to most laymen - terms not even found in the best word processor dictionaries - such as: exacta, trifecta, quinella, superfecta, daily double, twin trifecta, pick-3 and more.
And when it became clear the 14 pages of rules dealing with specific allowable wager propositions was a massive subject more suited for another day and another meeting, the committee wisely decided to call for the day's adjournment near 3:30 p.m.
The next meeting was not scheduled and was to be announced later.
Source: The Montana Tavern Times, March, 2008, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.