GOOD news for Massachusetts fantasy

[BK METS]

Unlike the idiotic Virginia legislation including season long fantasy, Massachusetts appears to have exempted season long from their new legislation, concentrating more on eliminating college sports and under 21 players. Reading this legislation in full tonight, I personally think it is the best legislation yet by any state and hopefully other states follow suit. Read and see if anyone else sees potential issues. http://WWW.legalsportsreport.com

[Rainiers]

Totally agree that this is way better than the Indiana and Virginia bills recently signed into law.

But I'm stilled concerned about some ambiguity in the language exempting season-long contests in this Massachusetts bill

Exceptions include these kind of season long activities: "The contest encompasses an entire season of the activity in which the underlying competition is being conducted, consists of at least 150 underlying competitions, and the Prize or Prizes awarded, if any, are determined by agreement of the participants only in order to distribute fully the participants’ contributions to a fund established to award a Prize or Prizes for the contest."

The part that says 'ONLY to distribute FULLY...PRIZE OR PRIZES" seems to exempt season long contests with 100% payouts, like leagues between friends. But I'm not sure at all if it legalizes games like NFBC who function with a take of 5-30%, depending on the contests.

[BK METS]

But how would a league between friends consist of 150 competitions? Any pay to play contests consisting of 150 or more competitions is going to need to make a profit. I read it as they want to make sure the prize pool is paid out from somewhere agreed to by both parties and that it isnt a situation where the participants don't receive their prizes.

[Daren E]

I think the 150 competitions refers to the number of games played that count in the contest. Such as # of baseball or football games in the pro seasons.

[Rainiers]

I agree with Darren.

I think more confusing language is to blame for some of us reading this differently. "Underlying contest" is not defined, but when the term is used when defining DFS, it appears to me to mean that Massachusetts means the games or matches that statistics are pulled from, and not fantasy leagues or contests.

So by way of example, this is the way I read and apply the Massachusetts DFS exemption for season long: Say nine of my buddies got together and played a 14 week NFL fantasy contest. It would be based on about 196 underlying contests (about 14 NFL games per week for 14 weeks). So that's more than 150 so we are cool. If we throw all our entry money in a pot and divie it out to the winner(s) at the end of the year we are also cool. If we give 10% to our Commisioner for administration, that is maybe not so cool.

[mattjb]

I agree with Darren.

I think more confusing language is to blame for some of us reading this differently. "Underlying contest" is not defined, but when the term is used when defining DFS, it appears to me to mean that Massachusetts means the games or matches that statistics are pulled from, and not fantasy leagues or contests.

So by way of example, this is the way I read and apply the Massachusetts DFS exemption for season long: Say nine of my buddies got together and played a 14 week NFL fantasy contest. It would be based on about 196 underlying contests (about 14 NFL games per week for 14 weeks). So that's more than 150 so we are cool. If we throw all our entry money in a pot and divie it out to the winner(s) at the end of the year we are also cool. If we give 10% to our Commisioner for administration, that is maybe not so cool.

This would seemingly make post season contests illegal as well.

[EWeaver]

i wouldn't characterize this as good news.

i see issues right away: "940 CMR 34.00 is intended to protect Massachusetts consumers who play Daily Fantasy Sports
contests"

okay, "INTENDED" - does it? no.

Then they define DFS to include all fantasy sports ("Daily Fantasy Sports or “DFS”: Any contest in which the..Prize is
connected to the statistical performance...of one or more persons participating in an...competition...")

to which they apply patently ambiguous exemptions.

doesn't matter for me, i'm not somebody trying to be a legit operator. there is always somebody on the other side to take my wager in the black market.

this shit will be as effective as the war on drugs and will benefit the dark hat operators.

[BK METS]

i wouldn't characterize this as good news.

i see issues right away: "940 CMR 34.00 is intended to protect Massachusetts consumers who play Daily Fantasy Sports
contests"

okay, "INTENDED" - does it? no.

Then they define DFS to include all fantasy sports ("Daily Fantasy Sports or “DFS”: Any contest in which the..Prize is
connected to the statistical performance...of one or more persons participating in an...competition...")

to which they apply patently ambiguous exemptions.

doesn't matter for me, i'm not somebody trying to be a legit operator. there is always somebody on the other side to take my wager in the black market.

this shit will be as effective as the war on drugs and will benefit the dark hat operators.

I completely disagree. Whatever the wording exempting season long from this legislation, I am having trouble finding an issue with the wording of the actual legislation that would exclude season long from being able to continue operating. There isn't currently a licensing fee proposed. What would be the issue, whether in the exclusion part or not? I am not seeing your interpretation.

[Rainiers]

The intent of the law is good. There is a lot to like. It is not a money grab. It's trying to protect participants.

Just could be cleaned up a bit as it pertains to season-long contests. Season-long contests should not, by default, be included in the definition of Daily Fantasy Sports. And a simple mention of allowing collection of monies to support operating expenses and profit for season-long proprietors within the season-long exception would go a long way to clarifying intent.

Nitpicking, I suppose, when we are talking about one of the best state legislation efforts to date. But if it is going to be used as a template going forward, like I hope it does, just some suggestions for simple tweaks to make it better.

I suspect that the bulk of this legislation was drafted by the FSTA. If so, they should have some ability to improve the template going forward to hopefully be used in other states.