You are on page 1of 97

From: Ken Zaita

To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Sports betting
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:47:00 PM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

Why no mobile sports betting allowed? When numerous law firms have said that if the servers are located inside of
the casinos that it would be legal within the parameters of the states constitution. Also no sports betting at Resorts
World in Queens? So basically what this says is that NYC residents should continue to travel into NJ to legally bet
on sports when interested. Completely unfair to the residents of NYC!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Joe Cioffi
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Mobile sports betting
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:50:48 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

I do not live anywhere close to the casinos upstate. To not allow them to have mobile sport betting apps does a
disservice to anyone downstate. I will continue to drive into New Jersey to place bets and would rather the taxes
collected on sports gambling go to my own state of New York. This no mobile betting is so short sighted.

Sent from my iPhone


From: Chris Hoy
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Online sports gambling
Date: Friday, March 22, 2019 11:41:59 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
To whom it may concern,

I am in favor of in person, online, and mobile sports gambling.  I have resided in New York
State for most of my life and have wished each and every year that sports gambling would be
legal.  Please open up all sports.  Especially college basketball, as March Madness is the most
exciting time.

Sincerely, 
Christopher Hoy
From: Patrick Metzger
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Online Sports Wagering
Date: Friday, March 22, 2019 8:49:15 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

There should be online sports wagering because simply having sports gambling in casinos upstate have no benefit to
those who live in the city or on Long Island. I would much rather go to Atlantic City in New Jersey than head
upstate for sports betting. Not legalizing mobile sports betting makes zero sense.
From: @yahoo.com
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Gaming
Date: Sunday, March 24, 2019 3:36:00 PM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

I'm looking forward to placing sports bets at casinos.


Sent from my iPad
From: David Przybylo
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Sportsbooks - Limiting and Banning Customers due to winning
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 1:29:01 PM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
What are the rules and regulations in NYS for banning a sports better. Sports books are notorious for
taking money from sports gamblers. Especially the ones they know have gambling related problems.
Where are the protections in this bill for the sports better that consistently wins? Are they going to
limit them, ban them etc. Where are your rules and regulations or are you going to leave it to the
Casinos
 
I believe that banning and limiting customers that win is a major issue in Las Vegas and will be
coming to every state that has adopted sports gambling. There needs to be a clear, concise and
consistent policy for the protection of the player.
 
It is estimated that less than 2% of sports gamblers win long term. This still presents a problem for
many customers as it sounds like casinos are banning more people than most realize for winning.
 
PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK AND READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE.
 
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/24425026/gambling-bookmakers-growing-us-legal-betting-
market-allowed-ban-bettors
 
Thank you,
 
David. P. Przybylo

 
From: Ben Scaffidi
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: 60 Day Comment Period
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 2:50:17 PM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

Thank you for passing this bill into legislation.  Although probably not directly related to this bill I would encourage
a continued push for online mobile sports betting.  The quickest legal way for me to place a bet will be to drive to
Pennsylvania and login to their mobile apps, so no revenue for New York State.  I would also encourage removing
restrictions on contests in New York or involving New York colleges.  In both cases there are plenty of illegal
options that allow both online and bets on New York colleges/events.  Does not make sense for New York to
exclude that and miss out on revenue.  Thank you.
From: Matt Castine
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Public Comment Period on NYS Sports Betting
Date: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 10:34:28 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
To Whom It May Concern;

I'm a young Republican who lives in Monroe County and I must say that I am TOTALLY in
favor of Sports Betting in New York!  I have a lot of friends who feel the same way.  In fact I
wish more lawmakers would consider passing the Online and Mobile Sports betting. 
Legalizing Sports Betting in NY Casinos is at least a step in the right direction.  While I
definitely plan to visit Del Lago, the closest casino to me for Sports betting, I do think all
casinos in the state should have access to sports betting.  I'm at least happy that Del Lago is
getting access.  I urge all lawmarkers to continue passing legalization of sports betting for
online/mobile betting.

Thank you for your time,


Matt Castine
From: Lou Anderson
To: Buckley, Kristen (GAMING)
Cc: Michael John; Michele.mitchell@sni.org; Jason Crane
Subject: Public Comment - Part 5329 Sports Wagering At Gaming Facilities
Date: Monday, May 06, 2019 1:12:43 PM
Attachments: Seneca Gaming Corp. Public Comment Part 5329 (2).pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
Ms. Buckley:     Attached please find for filing with your agency the comments of Seneca Gaming
Corporation on the above referenced proposed regulations.
 

Lou Anderson
Director of Compliance
310 Fourth Street Niagara Falls, NY 14303

P: 716.501-2399
M: 
W: SenecaCasinos.com
 
 
From: Jack
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Allowing Mobil Sports Wagering In NY
Date: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:53:26 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

I am a Nassau county resident that frequently visits Medowlands NJ to place sports bets . I feel very strongly about
allowing mobile sports betting in NY. Don’t beilive there is a down side NY is losing revenue to New Jersey no
matter how large or small the revenue is it should stay in New York. And the other issue is with gambling
addicts.addicts will find a way to play the same way drunks find a way to drink that should not stop the rest of the
public from doing something they enjoy. Upstate New York is way too far away from Long Island or New York
City to be effective mobile wagering is the only way to keep the revenue in New York if not everyone will continue
to go to the Meadowlands. Thank You ,Jack Malloy
Sent from my iPhone
From: Donald Chlebowski
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: I support legalizing mobile sports betting
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:05:57 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
As a voter in , I support the movement to legalize mobile sports betting in New
York state.
There is a considerable amount of illegal sports gambling in my community and if it were
made legal and bets could be placed from home, it would likely eliminate the negative effects
that illegal gambling has. In addition, it would raise revenue for the state that could be used to
improve infrastructure, create jobs and finance the state park system. 
Thank you, 
Donald J. Chlebowski 
From: John Didziulis
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Sports wagering
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:48:54 AM

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
Greetings,

I am submitting a brief statement for the public comment period regarding sports wagering. I
am a lifelong NYS resident and taxpayer.

 This is a great addition, it will generate revenue for NYS, however, I feel that mobile wagering
should be immediately added.  People in New York City are not going to travel upstate to
make wagers.  They are going to New Jersey, as documented in media reports, and you know
many people will continue to make underground wagers.  Mobile/computer wagering is an
easy way for New York to generate new revenue without raising taxes. 

People are going to bet on sports whether you have mobile wagering, or not.  It's obvious that
those in downstate areas are not going to spend half or all their morning to travel upstate to
Monticello to make legal weekend wagers.  I also think that many people will not travel more
than 5 or 10 miles to make a trip to one of the casinos to make a legal wager.  But if you have
mobile wagering, our state will boost its coffers, with no effort. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that if people bet on their phone from home rather than
travel to the casino, this reduces the carbon footprint.  I also believe that if the server is in the
casino, then the bet is made in the casino, whether done in person or on the phone from a
location off the casino campus, the betting transaction is made in the server, thus balancing
the State Constitutional question. 

Thank you,
John Didziulis
PO Box 107
Spencerport, NY 14559-0107

Ph. 585-225-2340
info@AlbanyUpdate.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

May 17, 2019

VIA E-MAIL (gamingrules@gaming.ny.gov)

Ms. Kristen M. Buckley
New York State Gaming Commission
One Broadway Center
P.O. Box 7500
Schenectady, NY 12301-7500

Re: Sports Betting at Gambling Casinos—I.D. No. SGC-12-19-00007-P

Dear Ms. Buckley:

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (NYCF) is New York’s statewide evangelical Christian
advocacy organization. Please accept this correspondence as a public comment on the proposed
regulations relating to sports betting at gambling casinos.

NYCF urges that the proposed regulations be rejected. The fact that New York’s upstate casinos are
struggling financially does not justify licensing and regulating sports gambling at those casinos.
Sports gambling damages the integrity of both professional sports and intercollegiate sports. It
changes the way sports are played and the way that they are viewed. Furthermore, the gambling
industry enriches the privileged by preying upon everyday New Yorkers—including New Yorkers
suffering from gambling addictions. Instead of allowing another branch of the gambling industry to
set up shop here, state government should seek to protect New Yorkers from it. State government
should not promote a predatory enterprise.

Thank you for your consideration.

In His Service,


Rev. Jason J. McGuire
Executive Director

NEW YORKERS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS

Facebook.com/AlbanyUpdate | Twitter.com/AlbanyUpdate | AlbanyUpdate.com



From: Jason J. McGuire
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: Re: Sports Betting at Gambling Casinos—I.D. No. SGC-12-19-00007-P
Date: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:41:20 PM
Attachments: 5-17-19 Comment on Proposed Sports Gambling Regulations.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

Dear Ms. Buckley:

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (NYCF) is New York’s statewide evangelical
Christian advocacy organization. Please accept this correspondence as a public comment on
the proposed regulations relating to sports betting at gambling casinos.

NYCF urges that the proposed regulations be rejected. The fact that New York’s upstate
casinos are struggling financially does not justify licensing and regulating sports gambling at
those casinos.  Sports gambling damages the integrity of both professional sports and
intercollegiate sports. It changes the way sports are played and the way that they are viewed.
Furthermore, the gambling industry enriches the privileged by preying upon everyday New
Yorkers—including New Yorkers suffering from gambling addictions. Instead of allowing
another branch of the gambling industry to set up shop here, state government should seek to
protect New Yorkers from it. State government should not promote a predatory enterprise.

Thank you for your consideration.

photo Jason J. McGuire


Executive Director, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms
585.225.2340 | Jason@AlbanyUpdate.com
AlbanyUpdate.com
P.O. Box 107, Spencerport, NY 14559

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make
copies thereof.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
51 West 52nd Street
May 20, 2019 New York, NY 10019-6142
+1 212 506 5000
orrick.com

New York State Gaming Commission


c/o Ms. Kristen M. Buckley, Commission Secretary Jeremy Kudon

One Broadway Center


E jkudon@orrick.com
P.O. Box 7800 D +1 212 506 5343
F +1 212 506 5151
Schenectady, New York 12301-7500
(via email to gamingrules@gaming.ny.gov)

Re: Comments in Response to New York State Gaming Commission Proposed Rule Making on
Sports Wagering at Gaming Facilities (I.D. No. SGC 12-19-000007-P), Submitted on Behalf
of Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the PGA TOUR.

Dear Ms. Buckley:

I submit these comments on behalf of Major League Baseball, the National Basketball
Association, and the PGA TOUR in response to the New York State Gaming Commission’s proposed
rules on sports wagering at gaming facilities. See New York State Gaming Commission, Proposed Rule
Making, Sports Wagering at Gaming Facilities (I.D. No. SGC-12-19-00007-P) (published in the New York
State Register (Mar. 20, 2019), and available at https://www.gaming.ny.gov/proposedrules.php). Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on these important proposed rules.

We appreciate that the proposed rules reflect a strong desire by the Commission to promote safe
sports wagering at New York casinos. Indeed, the proposed rules include several requirements that are
necessary to protect consumers and the integrity of sports. As a starting point, we encourage the
Commission to adopt this suite of rules, including:

 requiring that casinos report bribery, dishonesty, suspicious betting activity, and reasonable
suspicions of sports event integrity issues to the Commission (Proposed Rule § 5329.26);

 requiring that casinos report unusual betting activity to an approved integrity monitoring provider
that must, in turn, share the information with other casinos and, in certain instances, report
suspicious betting activity to the Commission (Proposed Rule § 5329.27);

 prohibiting athletes, coaches, referees, and other insiders from betting on their sports (Proposed
Rule § 5329.19(b));
NY State Gaming Commission
May 20, 2019
Page 2

 requiring Commission approval before casinos can offer any bet they have not previously offered,
and imposing minimum requirements that betting outcomes be reliable, independent, and
verifiable (Proposed Rule § 5329.13); and

 requiring that casinos collect and retain granular, transactional betting data and share their data
with the Commission (Proposed Rule § 5329.10(b)-(n)).

Nonetheless, we have significant concerns that we urge the Commission to address in the final
rules. We view each of these concerns as critical to protecting the integrity of our sports and maintaining
public confidence in our athletic contests.

First, the final rules should require greater cooperation between casinos and sports leagues. The
Commission has appropriately proposed that casinos report fraud, bribery, and suspicious betting to the
Commission, and work with integrity monitoring providers to evaluate unusual betting activity. These
measures, however, do not afford the leagues access to the information that they need to protect the
integrity of their sports. The final rules should require that casinos and integrity monitoring providers also
report integrity-related abnormalities to the relevant sports leagues. In recognition that the leagues are in
the best position to detect and address integrity issues across casinos and jurisdictions, the Commission
should also require that casinos share pseudonymized, bet-level data in real-time with the relevant sports
governing bodies.

Second, the final rules should establish a clearer process for leagues to work with the
Commission to secure restrictions on the types of wagers that may be placed on their events. Because
certain types of bets may carry an unacceptably high risk for manipulation and different sports will be the
subject of different bets that carry these risks, each league is uniquely positioned to assess integrity risks
for its sport. Each league must have an independent ability, formalized in the final rules, to work with the
Commission to identify and potentially opt out of wagers that pose unusual integrity risks. Just as
importantly, the rules should give appropriate weight to the leagues’ assessment of integrity risks.

Third, the final rules should prescribe which data sources casinos can use to settle certain bets;
specifically, the rules should require casinos to use official league data to settle in-game wagers. As
proposed, the rules preclude the Commission from authorizing betting on “an event whose outcome
can[not] be verified” or where the “outcome of the wager” is not “generated by a reliable and independent
process.” Prop. Rule § 5329.13(b)(1)(i)-(ii). The only way to set odds on, take, and then verifiably and
reliably settle in-game bets is to use data produced and distributed by sports governing bodies in real
time. The Commission should therefore expressly require that casinos use official league data sources
for bets that are not based on the outcome of an athletic contest (e.g., a game’s final score) or that are
placed after the contest begins. The alternative—permitting casinos to use unofficial or pirated data
sources for these bets—creates a higher risk of inconsistent betting results and resulting damage to
consumer confidence.
NY State Gaming Commission
May 20, 2019
Page 3

Our comments below explain in more detail why these features are necessary to protect against
corruption and to foster the growth of a healthy sports betting market in New York. We thus urge the
Commission to amend the final rules accordingly. We have enclosed proposed amendments for your
reference and convenience.

Protecting the integrity of sports: mandating cooperation and coordination between casinos and
the leagues.

Our comments reflect the fundamental principle that protecting consumers and sports requires
the participation of all stakeholders, including the Commission, New York casinos, and sports governing
bodies. To that end, each stakeholder must have access to the tools and information necessary to fulfill
their unique roles in ensuring that New York has a healthy sports betting marketplace. We have identified
three areas in which the proposed rules fail to ensure that the leagues have the tools and information that
they need to safeguard their sports.

A. Real-time information sharing is necessary to detect corruption and abnormal


patterns across jurisdictions.

The Commission’s proposed rules recognize the importance of using technology to identify
potential corruption based upon abnormal betting patterns. They do so by requiring that casinos collect
and retain betting data, establish internal controls for reviewing betting information, and monitor for illegal,
suspicious, and unusual betting activity. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rules do not require that
casinos share betting information with the entities that are best positioned to detect corruption across
casinos and jurisdictions: the sports leagues.

Sports governing bodies and their stakeholders have the most to lose from the integrity risks
inherent in sports wagering, even when it is regulated. They also have resources that no casino has in
terms of investigative reach and authority, including access to teams, referees, players and other insiders,
and their visibility into betting activities across jurisdictions. At bottom, however, the leagues’ ability to
detect and act on suspicious betting activity is limited by the quality of information they have about the
relevant betting markets. It is essential that the leagues have real-time, pseudonymous account-level
betting information to fulfill their obligation to protect the integrity of their sports.1

It is therefore necessary for casinos to share information with the leagues. This is especially
important because sports betting in the United States is legalized and regulated at the state level, with no

1
European authorities have already recognized the importance of sharing information with sports governing bodies. The Council of
Europe’s Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, for example, requires that member states facilitate the
“[e]xchange of information between competent public authorities, sports organisations, and sports betting casinos.” See Council of
Europe, Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, ch. 3, art. 12 (2014), available at
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/09000016801cdd7e.
NY State Gaming Commission
May 20, 2019
Page 4

interstate system that requires the collection and monitoring of data on a nationwide basis. Analyzing
betting activity in just one state may not reveal abnormal patterns that are occurring across multiple
jurisdictions. In the absence of an interstate system, it is imperative that states like New York require that
casinos share data with the leagues so that they can fill the gap. The less information the leagues have
about bets taking place in New York, the less effective the leagues' integrity detection capabilities across
jurisdictions will be.

B. Casinos must report suspicious betting activity to leagues so the leagues can take
immediate remedial action.

The proposed rules anticipate that casinos will detect suspicious betting activity or may become
aware of sports integrity issues, and so require that casinos immediately report that suspicious activity to
the Commission. And for betting activity that falls short of being “suspicious” but is concerning enough to
be “unusual,” the proposed rules require that casinos report the unusual betting activity to a third-party
integrity monitory provider. We are hopeful that in all of these circumstances, casinos and the
Commission will act quickly to stop suspect wagering or void suspicious bets for the protection of
consumers. Nonetheless, casinos, and even the Commission, despite its broad enforcement powers,
cannot take immediate action against insiders who may be involved in illicit betting activities. Only sports
leagues can fill that role.

The Commission’s rules, however, do not require that casinos or integrity monitoring providers
notify sports leagues about unusual betting activity or reasonable suspicions that betting activity has
affected the integrity of a sports league’s event. To ensure that there are no gaps in our mutual effort to
protect the integrity of sports, it is necessary that casinos also report sports integrity issues and
suspicious and unusual betting activity directly to the sports leagues. That mandate would recognize that
the risks of betting corruption are not limited to the participants in a sports wagering pool—corruption
imperils the integrity of sports generally. Leagues need this information so that they can take immediate
action.

C. Casinos must cooperate in sports leagues’ corruption investigations.

As legal sports betting expands, the leagues will invariably undertake more investigations to
determine whether insiders have engaged in impermissible betting-related activities. These
investigations are essential to guard against sports corruption and integrity risks, and to enforce the
leagues’ internal rules relating to sports betting, which are critical to the protection of competition integrity.
But the leagues' efforts will be stymied if they cannot receive relevant betting information from casinos,
i.e., when a suspect bet was placed, how, and under what circumstances. Unfortunately, the proposed
rules do not provide any procedure or list any circumstances under which a casino must share
information with a league or otherwise cooperate with a league’s integrity investigations, making it
considerably more difficult for the leagues to identify insider corruption. The final rules should therefore
NY State Gaming Commission
May 20, 2019
Page 5

require that casinos cooperate with leagues when they are investigating suspected integrity and betting
violations.

The Commission should adopt procedures for leagues to participate in restricting bets that pose
unusual integrity risks.

The proposed rules recognize that casinos should not have sole authority to determine what
types of bets they will offer, or on which sports. The proposed rules thus require that casinos seek
Commission approval before offering new types of bets and afford leagues a limited opportunity to explain
why certain bet types are contrary to public policy. While this is an important integrity measure, it is
inadequate to protect sports leagues. The proposed rules do not create a meaningful procedure for
sports leagues to participate in the bet approval and restriction process—not even the modest step of
giving the league notice of proposed new bets and an opportunity to comment on them. The final rules
should, at a minimum, include leagues in the contemplated approval process.

However, we believe the final rules should go further. The final rules should not just give the
leagues an opportunity to participate in the approval process; they should give the leagues a clear
mechanism to affirmatively seek restrictions on certain high-risk bets and—just as importantly—afford the
leagues’ conclusions considerable weight in the Commission’s decision-making process. A healthy
sports betting market will involve wagering on all manner of sports and athletic contests; neither casinos
nor the Commission will be able to assess risks for every sport and event—especially as the menu of in-
play bets expands. By contrast, sports leagues are intently focused on identifying and reducing integrity
risks for their sports. The leagues know better than any other organization what types of bets pose the
highest risks to the integrity of their contests. For that reason, to fully protect sports integrity and maintain
public confidence in sports outcomes, leagues should have the express right to make applications to the
Commission to identify and potentially opt out of wagers that pose unusual integrity risks.

Official league data: A healthy betting market requires accurate, reliable data.

Statistics and data have always been part of the foundation of professional sports. Sports
governing bodies invest, on an ongoing basis, substantial time and resources into creating proprietary
data systems that yield accurate, fast, and sophisticated data feeds. The sports leagues—and their
teams and athletes—have the most direct interest in accurately recording what happens on every play, in
every game, and throughout the season. Leagues’ official data feeds provide the richest suite of betting-
related information to operators and they do so faster, more accurately, and more reliably than any
unofficial or pirated alternative.

New York should require that casinos use official league data to settle in-game bets. The
alternative is for casinos to rely on unofficial or pirated data feeds to set lines and settle bets. Official data
sources are so much faster, more accurate, and more reliable than unofficial data feeds that using the
latter will put consumers who place in-game bets at risk, and the final rules should therefore prohibit it.
NY State Gaming Commission
May 20, 2019
Page 6

Just as the Commission regulates what dice and cards casinos can use in their facilities to avoid
manipulation and ensure consumer confidence, it should do the same in sports betting and specify what
data casinos can use to determine certain wagering outcomes.

The leagues recognize, however, that it is not necessary to settle every bet with official league
data. The final outcome of a sports contest—the final score of a baseball or basketball game, or the final
standings of a golf tournament—is public knowledge and is readily available from reliable sources. Thus,
New York needs only to require that casinos use official league data to settle in-play bets that require
accuracy, certainty, speed, and depth of information. To that end, the Commission should adopt a two-
tier data requirement, in which casinos may rely on any data source to settle bets on the final outcome
that are placed before the contest begins (Tier 1 bets) but must use official data sources for all other
wagers (Tier 2 bets).

Indeed, official data is superior to unofficial data sources in every way that matters for building a
robust sports wagering market that protects consumers:

Accuracy and Security. Official data is the sports governing body’s “official record.” The leagues
must be as accurate as possible to meet the expectations of their stakeholders (the teams, players, and
referees) and fans for reasons that are entirely unrelated to sports wagering. Unofficial data sources, by
contrast, frequently use low-paid pirates and scrapers whose goal is to quickly collect as much
information as they can see in a venue or on a screen. These unofficial data providers serve only the
betting market and do not have any of the external demands of accuracy that the leagues have. And
because leagues do not verify or even check unofficial data feeds, they are susceptible to manipulation—
or even falsification—by distributors or rogue employees who work for them.

Speed. Unofficial data takes a slower route to the casino than official data feeds. The production
of an unofficial data feed involves aggregating information from a television broadcast, data pirates who
surreptitiously log information from the crowd of a sporting event, or other online sources. That process
takes time, which is critical for in-play betting markets that move—and require operators to move—at a
fast pace. Even the five-second delay in a live television feed makes it much harder for casinos to offer
in-play bets on a consistent basis with reliable odds. This delay also creates information lags that are ripe
for exploitation by parties with access to more immediate information than ordinary bettors. Official data
sources, by contrast, operate in real time and faster than any of the alternatives. This ensures a better
consumer experience, more in-play betting opportunities, and less informational disparities among bettors
and sportsbooks.

Depth. Official league data includes all league statistics, whether public or proprietary. Unofficial
data only collects information that scouts, "courtsiders," and "scrapers" can quickly gather by watching the
game or tournament on TV or in-person. Unofficial data aggregators do not have the capacity,
technology, or access to generate deeper statistics and analytics that the leagues already generate and
will continue to expand in the future. This matters to casinos, consumers, and the state because so-
NY State Gaming Commission
May 20, 2019
Page 7

called “in play” wagers—wagers placed after the contest has started—are highly popular and profitable in
mature markets.2 For a casino to offer the variety of in-play bets that consumers expect, they must use
robust data sets that unofficial sources cannot accurately, reliably, or timely provide. Permitting these
bets but requiring that operators rely on official league data appropriately balances the legislature’s dual
purposes of creating a robust, revenue-generating betting market with the need to strictly regulate gaming
to maintain “public confidence and trust.” N.Y. Rac. Pari-Mut Wag. & Breed. Law § 1300(3), (10), & (11).

Certainty. Relying on a league’s official record of play creates betting uniformity across the
marketplace. As sports betting moves beyond outcome-based bets, the risk of disputes and irregularity in
settling bets increases exponentially. Consumers have a right to know how their bets will be settled and
to have confidence in that process. If they do not, the state’s regulated betting market will continue to
have some of the same reliability concerns that are a hallmark of the offshore, illegal market, and bettors
will have less of a reason to shift their activities to the legal market.

***

Thank you for considering our comments. I would of course welcome the opportunity to discuss
the leagues’ concerns with you further and to provide any additional information that might assist the
Commission as it finalizes the proposed rules.

Sincerely,

s/ Jeremy Kudon

Jeremy Kudon

Encl: Proposed Rule Amendments

cc: Bryan Seeley, Esq., Major League Baseball


Dan Spillane, Esq., National Basketball Association
Mr. Andy Levinson, PGA TOUR

2
See United Kingdom Gambling Commission, In-Play (In-Running) Betting: Position Paper, at §1.4 & n. 2 (Sept. 2016), available at
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/In-running-betting-position-paper.pdf.
Suggested Proposed Final Rule Amendments
Submitted on Behalf of
Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the PGA TOUR

May 20, 2019

§ 5329.1. Definitions.

Unless the context indicates otherwise, the following definitions and the definitions set
forth in Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law section 1367 are applicable
throughout this Part:

(a) Automated ticket machine means an electronic device that, at a minimum, is used for
the execution of permitted wagers placed by a patron directly and permissible redemption
of winning wagers within a sports wagering lounge or other location within the gaming
facility as approved by the commission.

(b) Event number means a set of alphabetic and/or numeric characters that corresponds
to a sports event or occurrence within a sports event.

(c) Integrity monitoring provider means a vendor approved by the commission to receive
reports of unusual betting activity from sports pool operators for the purpose of assisting
such operators in identifying suspicious betting activity.

(d) Oddsmaker means a person licensed as a casino key employee or as an employee of


a casino vendor enterprise licensee responsible for the final approval of all odds
established on any wager made pursuant to Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding
Law section 1367 and this Part.

(e) Official league data means statistics, results, outcomes, and other data relating to a
sporting event obtained pursuant to an agreement with the relevant sports governing
body, or an entity expressly authorized by the sports governing body to provide such
information to casinos, which authorizes the use of such data for determining the outcome
of tier two wagers.

(fe)Operations wagering manager means a person licensed as a casino key employee or


as an employee of a casino vendor enterprise licensee responsible for the operations of
sports wagering at a casino.

(gf) Parlay card means a physical instrument offering a multi-contest wager.

(hg) Parlay card wager means a transaction on the outcome of a series of three or more
sports events with a predetermined fixed payout.

1
(ih) Prohibited sports pool participant means any person whose participation may
undermine the integrity of wagering on a sports event or the conduct of such sports event
itself, or any person who is prohibited for other good cause, including, without limitation:

(1) any individual placing a wager as an agent or proxy;

(2) any athlete whose performance may be used to determine, in whole or in part, the
outcome of such wagering;

(3) any person who is an athlete, player, coach, referee or other game official,
physician, trainer, team employee or governing body employee, in any sports event
overseen by such person’s sports governing body;

(4) any person with access to material, non-public confidential information about a
sports event that is the subject of such wagering;

(5) a person identified to the commission by a sports governing body that the
commission agrees is a person who should be a prohibited sports pool participant;
or

(6) any person who holds a position of authority or influence sufficient to exert
influence over the participants in a sports event that is the subject of a wager, if such
person is not otherwise described by this subdivision.

(j) Sports governing body means the organization that prescribes final rules and enforces
codes of conduct with respect to a sporting event and participants therein. Notice to a
sports governing body as may be required under these rules shall be provided by
electronic means to the address provided by the sports governing body to the Commission
for such purpose.

(ki) Sports pool vendor means a licensed casino vendor enterprise that operates on behalf
of a casino or assists a casino in the operation of a sports pool.

(lj) Structured wager means to place knowingly a series of wager in any amount, at one
or more facilities, on one or more days, in any manner, to circumvent knowingly the
recording and reporting requirements of section 5329.22 of this Part. The wager or wagers
need not exceed the dollar thresholds in section 5329.22 at any single facility in any single
day in order to constitute structuring within the meaning of this definition.

(mk) Suspicious betting activity means wagering activity that might be related to an
attempt or effort to fix the outcome of a sports event, or any portion thereof, or occurrence
within a sports event.

(nl) Suspicious wager means a wager that an operator knows or has reason to suspect is
being attempted or was placed, including, without limitation:

2
(1) in violation of or as part of a plan to violate or evade local, state or Federal law or
regulation prohibiting wagering on a type of sports event; or

(2) in violation of or as part of a plan to violate or evade local, state or Federal law or
regulation prohibiting wagering by, or on behalf of, a prohibited person, as defined in
subdivision (b) of section 5329.19 of this Part; or

(3) by a person who has no business or apparent lawful purpose in placing such wager
or is not the sort of wager that a particular patron would normally be expected to place.

(o) Tier one wager means a wager that is determined solely by the final score or final
outcome of the sporting event and is placed before the sporting event has begun.

(p) Tier two wager means a wager that is not a tier one wager.

(qm) Wager means a transaction placed by a patron on an authorized sporting event or


events or an occurrence or occurrences therein.

(rn) Wagering cashier means an employee of an operator or sports pool vendor who
accepts wagers at a sports wagering lounge.

(so) Wagering platform means a computer or other system approved by the commission
that registers sports wagers and computes the wagering and payoffs in sports wagering.

(tp) Wagering ticket means a physical record issued and maintained by the wagering
platform that evidences a sports wager.

3
§ 5329.10. Sports pool system requirements.

(a) Submission to laboratory. Prior to operating a sports pool, all equipment and software
used in conjunction with its operation shall be submitted to a licensed independent gaming
test laboratory for review and approval.

(b) Server and wager creation. The server or other equipment to accept wagers at a sports
pool shall be located within the casino. In creating wagers that will be offered to the public,
a sports pool operations manager may receive advice and recommendations from any
source or entity in other jurisdictions and may take into consideration information in regard
to odds and wagers placed on sports events.

(c) Risk management framework. A sports pool system submission shall contain a
description of the risk management framework, including, without limitation:

(1) user access controls for all sports pool personnel;

(2) information in regard to segregation of duties;

(3) information in regard to automated risk management procedures;

(4) information in regard to fraud detection;

(5) controls ensuring regulatory compliance;

(6) description of anti-money laundering compliance standards;

(7) description of all software applications that comprise the system;

(8) description of all types of wagers available to be offered by the system;

(9) description of all integrated third-party systems; and

(0) description of the method to prevent past posting.

(d) Data retention. A sports pool system shall maintain all transactional betting data for a
period of 10 years.

(e) Information recording. A sports pool system shall be capable of recording the
following information for each wager made:

(1) description of event;

(2) event number;

(3) wager selection;

(4) type of wager;

4
(5) amount of wager;

(6) date and time of wager;

(7) unique wager identifier; and

(8) an indication of when the ticket expires.

(f) Tickets. Each ticket a cashier or automated ticket machine generates shall include:

(1) all of the information set forth in subdivision (e) of this section;

(2) name and address of the party issuing the ticket;

(3) a barcode or similar symbol or marking as approved by the commission,


corresponding to the unique wager identifier;

(4) method of redeeming winning ticket via mail; and

(5) identification of the cashier or automated ticket machine generating the ticket.

(g) Vouchers. Sports pool vouchers issued by a sports pool system shall contain the
following information:

(1) date, time, and location of issuance;

(2) amount of the voucher;

(3) unique voucher identifier;

(4) expiration date of the voucher;

(5) name of permit holder; and

(6) an indication that the voucher can be redeemed only in exchange for a sports
wager or cash.

(h) Voucher redemption. If a sports pool system issues and redeems a sports pool
voucher, the system shall be capable of recording the following information for each
voucher:

(1) amount of voucher;

(2) date, time, and location of issuance;

(3) unique voucher identifier;

(4) expiration date of the voucher; and

5
(5) date, time, and location of redemption, if applicable.

(i) Required system functions. A sports pool system shall be capable of performing the
following functions:

(1) creating wagers;

(2) settling wagers;

(3) voiding wagers;

(4) cancelling wagers;

(5) processing lost, destroyed or expired wagering tickets;

(6) preventing any sports pool wager in excess of $10,000 or making a payout in
excess of $10,000 until authorized by a supervisor; and

(7) maintaining the following:

(i) description of the event;

(ii) event number;

(iii) wager selection;

(iv) type of wager;

(v) amount of wager;

(vi) amount of potential payout;

(vii) date and time of wager;

(viii) identity of the cashier accepting the wager;

(ix) unique ticket identifier;

(x) expiration date of ticket;

(xi) patron name, if known;

(xii) date, time, amount, and description of the settlement;

(xiii) location where the wager was made;

(xiv) location of redemption; and

(xv) identity of cashier settling the wager, if applicable.

6
(j) Voided and cancelled wagers. When a sports pool wager is voided or cancelled, the
system shall indicate clearly that the ticket is voided or cancelled, render such ticket
nonredeemable and make an entry in the system indicating the void or cancellation and
identity of the cashier or automated process.

(k) Past posting and known event outcomes. A sports pool system shall prevent past
posting of wagers and the voiding or cancellation of wagers after the outcome of an event
is known.

(l) Self-authentication. A sports pool system shall, at least once every 24 hours, perform
a self-authentication process on all software used to offer, record and process wagers to
ensure there have been no unauthorized modifications. In the event of an authentication
failure, at a minimum, the system immediately shall notify the casino operations wagering
manager using an automated process. The operations manager shall notify the
commission promptly of the authentication failure. The system shall record the results of
all self-authentication attempts and maintained such record for a period of not less than
90 days.

(m) Controls. A sports pool system shall have controls in place to review the accuracy
and timeliness of any data feeds used to offer or settle wagers. In the event that an
incident or error occurs that results in a loss of communication with data feeds used to
offer or redeem wagers, such error shall be recorded in a log capturing the date and time
of the error, the nature of the error and a description of such error’s impact on the system's
performance. Such information shall be maintained for a period of not less than six
months.

(n) Commission access to data. Consistent with existing commission authority, the
operator shall provide access to wagering transaction and related data the commission
may deem necessary, in a manner approved by the commission.

(o) Real-time data sharing with sports governing bodies. If a sports governing body has
notified the Commission that real-time information sharing for wagers placed on its
sporting events is necessary and desirable, operators shall share in real time, at the
account level, and in pseudonymous form, the information required to be recorded
pursuant to subdivisions (e) and (i)(7) of this section with the sports governing body or its
designee with respect to wagers on its sporting events. Such information may be used
by a sports governing body solely for integrity purposes.

(po) Sports pool system. A sports pool system shall be capable of preventing any sports
pool wager in excess of $10,000 or making a payout in excess of $10,000 until authorized
by a supervisor. A sports pool system shall be capable of maintaining the following:

(1) description of the event;

(2) event number;

(3) wager selection;

7
(4) type of wager;

(5) amount of wager;

(6) amount of potential payout;

(7) date and time of wager;

(8) identity of the cashier accepting the wager;

(9) unique ticket identifier;

(10) expiration date of ticket;

(11) patron name, if known;

(12) date, time, amount, and description of the settlement;

(13) location where the wager was made;

(14) location of redemption; and

(15) identity of cashier settling the wager, if applicable.

(qp) Redeemed lost tickets. For all lost tickets that are redeemed, a sports pool system
shall record and maintain the following information:

(1) date and time of redemption;

(2) employee responsible for redeeming the ticket;

(3) name of patron redeeming the wager;

(4) unique ticket identifier; and


(5) location of the redemption.

§ 5329.13. Wager types.

(a) Approval of wagering menu. An operator applying for licensure shall submit to the
commission the types of wagers such operator would like to offer and the sports leagues,
associations or organizations on whose contests the operator wishes to offer such
wagers. Each type of wager and each sports league, association or organization on
whose contests such operator wishes to offer wagering is subject to commission approval
and may be subject to such conditions as the commission may determine. After licensing
of an operator, commission approval is required before such operator is permitted to offer
any type of wager not previously offered by such operator, or an existing wager type for
a sport, league, association or organization on whose contests the commission has not
previously authorized wagering. To obtain commission approval, an operator shall

8
specify the underlying sport and sports league, association or organization upon which
the proposed type of wager is based, provide rules for the wager and demonstrate that
the new type of wager will comply with Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law
section 1367 and this Part. An operator shall provide notice to the relevant sports
governing body at the time that it submits wagers for approval by the Commission.
Following review of the proposed wager type, the commission shall inform all operators
and the relevant sports governing body whether the proposed wager type is approved or
denied or whether additional information from such operator is required.

(b) Limitations on wager type.

(1) No wager type shall be approved unless:

(i) the event on which the wager is based is an event whose outcome can be
verified;

(ii) the outcome of the wager can be generated by a reliable and independent
process;

(iii) the outcome of the event is not affected by any wager placed;

(iv) the event is conducted in conformity with all applicable laws, rules and
regulations; and

(2) An operator shall not offer wagers on:

(i) any prohibited sports event, as defined in Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and
Breeding Law section 1367(1)(f);

(ii) any horse race;

(iii) any amateur or youth sports event, except collegiate sports events approved
by the commission;

(iv) any event that is not a sports event; and

(v) any sports event on which the commission deems wagering to be contrary to
public policy, either on the commission’s own initiative or upon commission
affirmation of a request by a league or governing body that governs such sports
event, so long as such request has been made in writing to the commission at least
60 days in advance of such sports event with an explanation of why wagering on
such event should not be permitted as a matter of public policy.

(c) Variations on wager types. An operator may introduce variations of permissible


types of wagers by seeking commission approval. An operator is not required to amend
a previously approved submission to describe a variation if approved by the commission.

(d) Sports governing body applications and official league data.

9
(i) A sports governing body may apply to the the Commission, either on its own
initiative or in response to a request for approval of a type of wager, to restrict,
limit, or exclude wagering on its sporting events. An application made by a sports
governing body upon its own initiative shall be made at least 30 days in advance
of the such sports event. An application made by a sports governing body in
response to an operator’s approval request shall be made no less than 14 days
after receiving notice of the approval request. The Commission may deny the
sports governing body’s application only if it deems the application arbitrary and
capricious. If the Commission denies the application, the sports governing body
shall be afforded reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard and offer proof
in opposition to such determination. In the event that a sports governing body’s
application is submitted in relation to an emergency situation, the Chair of the
Commission may temporarily grant the application until the Commission makes a
final determination as to whether such application is arbitrary and capricious.

(ii) A sports governing body may notify the Commission that it desires to supply
official league data to operators for determining the results of tier two wagers.
Within 30 days of such notification by a sports governing body, operators shall
use only official league data to determine the results of tier two wagers, unless
the operator demonstrates to the Commission that the sports governing body or
its designee cannot provide a feed of official league data to the operator on
commercially reasonable terms.

(ed) Conditions placed on wager type. The commission may approve conditionally a
wager type or the use of a wager type for a particular sport, league, association or
organization as the commission may deem advisable, such as establishing a limited trial
period for a type of wager or imposing limits on a particular wager, to protect the wagering
public, the integrity of wagers, the integrity of the sports event upon which a wager is
based, in whole or in part, or for any other reason consistent with the policies underlying
article 13 of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law or this subchapter.

(fe) Withholding of approval. The commission may, in the exercise of discretion, withhold
approval of any proposed wagering type that directly or indirectly violates any requirement
for permissible wagers or that the commission determines to be contrary to public policy.

(gf) Information to commission. An operator shall comply with every commission request
for information about any type of wager that such operator proposes to offer to the public.

(hg) Wagering tournaments. No wagering tournament shall be conducted without prior


approval of the commission. An operator shall submit the rules of any proposed wagering
tournament for commission approval no later than 30 days prior to the anticipated start
date of such wagering tournament.

§ 5329.26. Duties to report.

(a) Dishonest or unlawful acts. In the event that an operator or its employee, sports pool
vendor or employee of a sports pool vendor, becomes aware, or reasonably suspects, a

10
person has obtained a personal benefit or a benefit for another person by a dishonest or
unlawful act affecting the conduct of a wager or a sports event, the results of which formed
the basis, in whole or in part, of a wager; and/or there has been an unlawful act that has
affected a wager or a sports event the results of which formed the basis, in whole or in
part, of a wager, such operator, operator’s employee, sports pool vendor or sports pool
vendor’s employee shall give promptly the commission and, if the dishonest or unlawful
act potentially affects the conduct of a sports event, the relevant sports governing body a
written notice advising the commission and relevant sports governing body of all material
facts known about the matter and any documents or other evidence in the possession or
control of such entity or person in connection with the matter.

(b) Bribes. If an operator, operator’s employee, sports pool vendor or sports pool vendor’s
employee is approached with an offer or promise of a bribe or with a request or a
suggestion for a bribe or for any improper, corrupt or fraudulent act or practice in relation
to a wager or a sports event relating to a wager or with a suggestion that any wager or
sports event relating to a wager be conducted otherwise than in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the commission, it shall be the duty of such person to report such
suggestion, offer, promise or bribe promptly to the commission and, if the bribe potentially
affects the conduct of a sports event, the relevant sports governing body. Failure to so
report shall subject such person or persons and such operator and/or sports pool vendor
associated with such person to the penalties and other actions the commission may take.

(c) Suspicious activity. An operator shall report promptly to the commission and, if the
suspicious activity potentially affects the conduct of a sports event, relevant sports
governing body any other suspicious activity involving such operator in the operation of
sports pools, whether such acts are committed by such operator, operator’s employee,
sports pool vendor or sports pool vendor’s employee, or whether such acts are committed
against such operator or sports pool vendor, including, without limitation, criminal activity,
financial irresponsibility, fraud, misrepresentation, security breaches, breach of
confidentiality of a patron’s personal information or any violation of article 13 of the Racing,
Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law or this Part.

11
(d) Sports event integrity. In the event an operator or sports pool vendor becomes aware
of or reasonably suspects that the integrity of a sports event or occurrence within a sports
event has been affected or compromised by wagering activity, such licensee or vendor
shall report to the commission and relevant sports governing body promptly all facts and
circumstances relating to such awareness or suspicion.

(e) Money laundering. In the event an operator becomes aware or reasonably suspects
that there is a fraudulent or suspicious transaction in the operation of sports pools that
may involve money laundering, or an activity similar to money laundering, as set forth in
section 5315.17 of this subchapter, the operator shall report promptly in writing the
suspicious activity to the commission. Nothing in this section shall relieve the operator
from any related reporting requirements under any other local, state or Federal laws. Such
operator shall make available to the commission any documents or access to computer
or other data systems that the commission may request in connection with the matter.

(f) Suspicious betting activity and suspicious wagers. An operator:

(1) shall file with the commission a report of any suspicious betting activity or
suspicious wager, if such suspicious betting activity or suspicious wager involves or
aggregates to more than $10,000 in funds or other assets;

(2) may file a report of any suspicious betting activity or suspicious wager, without
regard to the amount, if the operator believes that such reporting may be relevant to
the possible violation of any law or regulation; and

(3) shall file any report pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subdivision no later
than two calendar days after the initial detection by the operator of facts that may
constitute a basis for filing such a report. If no suspect was identified on the date of
the detection of the incident requiring the filing, an operator may delay filing a report
for an additional seven calendar days to identify a suspect. In no case shall reporting
be delayed more than nine calendar days after the date of initial detection of a
reportable transaction. In situations involving violations that require immediate
attention, an operator shall notify commission staff immediately, in addition to timely
filing a report.

(g) Retention period. An operator shall maintain a copy of any report filed and the original
or business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a period of five years
from the date of filing the report.

§ 5329.27. Sports pool integrity; confidential information

(a) Identification and reporting of unusual betting activity. Each operator shall have
controls in place to identify unusual betting activity and report such activity to an integrity
monitoring provider, or to the commission if the commission so directs.

(b) Notification to all operators and reporting of similar activity. Each integrity monitoring
provider shall share information in regard to any unusual betting activity with the relevant
sports governing body and each other

12
integrity monitoring provider working with other operators in this State and shall provide a
report of such unusual betting activity to all participating sports pool operators. Each
sports pool operator shall review each such report and notify the integrity monitoring
provider of whether or not such operator has experienced similar activity.

(c) Suspicious betting activity identification and notification. If an integrity monitoring


provider finds that previously reported unusual betting activity rises to the level of
suspicious betting activity, such integrity monitoring provider immediately shall notify all
other integrity monitoring providers, each sports pool operator, the commission, the
appropriate sports governing authority and, if so directed by the commission, other
regulatory agencies.

(d) Suspension of wagering. A sports pool operator receiving a report of suspicious betting
activity shall be permitted to suspend wagering on events related to such report, but may
cancel related wagers only upon commission approval to do so.

(e) Commission access to monitoring system. Each integrity monitoring provider shall
provide the commission with remote access to the following information of such provider:

(1) all reports of unusual betting activity;

(2) whether the unusual betting activity was determined to be suspicious betting
activity; and

(3) the actions taken by the integrity monitoring provider.

(f) Information sharing. The commission and sports governing bodies may share
information in regard to the integrity of sports events.

(g) Hardware access. The commission may require a sports pool operator to provide any
hardware necessary to the commission for evaluation of a sports pool offering or to
conduct further monitoring of data provided by the system of such operator.

(h) Confidentiality. All information and data received pursuant to this Part by the
commission related to unusual or suspicious betting activity shall be considered
confidential and shall not be revealed in whole or in part, except

(1) upon the lawful order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

(2) as otherwise required by these rules; or

(3) with any law enforcement entity, team, college or university, sports governing body
or regulatory agency that the commission deems appropriate.

13
§ 5329.31. Duties to give evidence and cooperate with investigations.

(a) It shall be the duty of each operator and each employee or other person associated
with each such licensee to report promptly when requested or ordered to do so by any
official of the commission in furtherance of an investigation or hearing pursuant to this
subchapter and to testify under oath concerning any facts within such licensee’s or such
person’s knowledge and to produce any books, records, written matter or other evidence
within such licensee’s or such person’s possession or control relevant to such matter

(b) Operators and integrity monitoring providers shall cooperate with investigations
conducted by sports governing bodies or law enforcement agencies, including but not
limited to providing or facilitating the provision of account-level betting information and
audio or video files relating to persons placing wagers.

14
From: Green, Nicholas G.
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Cc: Kudon, Jeremy
Subject: MBA, NBA, and PGA TOUR Comments on Proposed Rules
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 7:43:45 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
J Kudon to NYS Gaming Commn re Sports Wagering Rules 5.20.19 with Enclosure.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
Dear Ms. Buckley,
 
Attached please find comments submitted on the NY State Gaming Commission’s
proposed rules on sports wagering at gaming facilities, submitted on behalf of Major
League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the PGA TOUR.  Please let me
know if we can provide any further information or if you have any questions.
 
Best,
 
Nick Green
 
Nicholas G. Green
Of Counsel
Public Policy Group

Orrick
New York
T +1-212-506-5373
ngreen@orrick.com

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a
communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message
from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=484fe23a-146aee59-484d1b0f-


0cc47aa88e08-ace9754a6948cd07&u=http://www.orrick.com/.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy
policy at https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=39ca6fdf-65ef63bc-39c896ea-0cc47aa88e08-
661215d4f4b372a0&u=https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
From: Stacey Rowland
To: lot.sm.NewYorkLotteryRules
Subject: SGC-12-19-00007-P
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 4:52:45 PM
Attachments: doc03317120190520133636.pdf

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.

Attached please find our comments to the proposed sports wagering regulations. The summary below
outlines such comments.

5329.1

(c) Changed “unusual” to “suspicious. Suspicious betting activity is defined in the regulations, this
provides consistency.

(h)(3) added an apostrophe

(h)(5) added an apostrophe

5329.9

(a) “deleted “or other location”- typo

5329.11

(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k) changed “cage” to “finance”, provides consistency.

(i)(5) deleted “duplicate” as only a single form is needed to forward to audit. Deleted last sentence,
currently the fill in receipts are sent to audit at the end of each day and there for there are no receipts to
deposit in the lock box. Deleting this section provides consistency with current practice.

(j)(4) Deleted "racetrack" since wagering on horse races is prohibited

(k) Added a minimum amount for the variance to be reported to the commission, as some variances could
be 1 cent. In addition, setting the minimum amount is consistent with the current practice.

5329.12

(a)(8) added an apostrophe

(b)(2)(v) and (e). The term “public policy” is undefined and too broad for regulations, as regulations are to
provide more specific guidelines.

5329.17

“deleted “or other location”- typo

5329.19

(b) added an apostrophe

5329.20 added an apostrophe

(a)(1) added “cash” as the Bank Secrecy Act requires this process only for cash wagers. This is
technically correct and provides consistency.
(c) and (d) amended this section to reflect the practice for wagers listed on a single ticket. Our kiosks are
not set up to provide single tickets. In addition, issuing separate tickets is an inconvenience to our
guests, as it would require patrons to make multiple purchases at the window or the kiosk. Also, single
tickets will significantly increase the wait time and will lead to a decrease in revenue. Our multiple bet
tickets will have a bar code that will be able to read which wager is being redeemed. We also changed
the language to reflect that in most circumstances, we will not receive the redeemed ticket.

We changed” one year and a day” to “seven days”, which is the current practice. And these regulations
also require this data to be kept for ten years.

5329.22

(b) and (d) changed “24 hour period” to “gaming day”

(b) and (c) added the word “cash” in from of wagers to reflect the requirements under the Bank Secrecy
Act and the current practice.

5329.24

Deleted “determined” and added “approved”. The operators should set to cash reserve amount and that
amount should be approved by the commission.

5329.27

Throughout this part, the term “unusual betting activity” is used, however this term is not defined in the
regulations, the term “suspicious betting activity” is defined and by changing “unusual” to “suspicious”
provides consistency and clarity.

5329.31

Changed the title of this part

Respectfully submitted. Thank you

Stacey Rowland
Vice President and General Counsel
Rivers Casino & Resort
1 Rush Street
Schenectady, NY 12305

https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=da915623-86a9f141-da93af16-000babd9f75c-
febb110f541403cd&u=http://www.riverscasinoandresort.com/

You might also like