The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) held a long-awaited public roundtable Tuesday to seek more transparency from sportsbooks on how, when and why they set betting limits on some patrons.

“I’ve been made aware that 10 active operators in the commonwealth, after initially signaling that they would attend and actively participate in this public roundtable, decided not to,” said Jordan Maynard, the interim chair of the MGC.

Maynard said the sportsbooks instead requested a private executive session in place of a public roundtable “as they felt that some information would be too sensitive to reveal in public.” The MGC, though, is required by Massachusetts law to hold their meetings in an open forum, except in some special circumstances.

According to the MGC, sportsbook operators including BetMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars, Fanatics and PENN Entertainment (ESPN BET) informed the commission of their decision to withdraw within 72 hours of the public meeting. Only one sportsbook operator that is not yet live in the state, Bally Bet, sent a representative. Bally Bet will not be available in Massachusetts until June.

In addition to Bally’s representative, Justin Black, the meeting was attended by the commission members, their legal counsel, a professional gambler representing the perspective of sportsbook patrons and two gambling industry consultants.

After an hour of conversation, the commissioners expressed frustration at the pointlessness of having the roundtable without the operators present.

“This was not a good use of our time today, given that we didn’t have our primary stakeholders as part of the discussion,” said Commissioner Nakisha Skinner. “I hope we can work to change that going forward.”

Commissioner Brad Hill said he felt “anger” for “not being able to get a lot more information that I thought we would be able to get today to start this conversation.”

The Athletic reached out to BetMGM, FanDuel and DraftKings for comment. BetMGM directed us to their public statements on the issue and DraftKings has not responded as of publishing.

A FanDuel spokesperson shared the following, which they also shared with MGC: “We do not believe that we can have a meaningful discussion in a public forum about our wager limits and risk management processes. Risk management, similar to trading (i.e., setting prices) is a core part of our business and our value proposition as a sportsbook, and it is critical for FanDuel to maintain confidentiality over our proprietary systems. We respectfully request the opportunity to meet privately in Executive Session to discuss these matters and provide the level of information necessary to properly understand our approach.”

So what was the meeting about? The issue of player limits is one of transparency. Sportsbooks in Massachusetts are legally allowed to set limits on individual patrons. But the MGC is concerned that there isn’t enough clarity or communication on when and why a player might be limited — and that sportsbooks are limiting players simply because they are winning.

“The MGC was made aware of reports from consumers and media coverage that some operators limit bettors who routinely win,” Maynard said. “Some claim they were not in violation of house rules, state laws or regulations, or other authorized acts when they were limited.”

In short: Are there patrons who are wagering honestly who are being limited? The MGC’s motivation behind the question is whether these betting limits will drive patrons to illegal markets. “If we have operators limiting patrons who are playing by the rules, that limitation will naturally incentivize those players to turn to the illegal market,” Maynard said.

The commission was aiming to have sportsbook operators answer five guiding questions on the issue of player limits:

1. Please detail how and why a patron may be limited on your platform, including how you may limit patrons on an individual basis.
2. Please explain the experience of a patron once they become limited.
3. What are the responsible gaming implications if patron limits are more heavily regulated?
4. What would be the impacts to the industry if allowing limits on individual patrons was prohibited or limited by law or regulation?
5. What are other jurisdictions and/or other sports books doing?

Jack Andrews, a professional gambler and part of sports betting company Unabated, gave the perspective of sports bettors. He shared how sportsbooks often don’t communicate to players that they have been limited, why they are being limited and how long the ban will last. Unlike at brick-and-mortar casinos, where a player might be limited at one table but not every game, sportsbooks set limits that are “pervasive across the board.”

“The house has the edge, this is gambling, but a lot of users feel that things don’t cut both ways,” Andrews said. “Limiting is just an example of that.”

The commission received dozens of stories from sportsbook users about similar experiences. In the words of Commissioner Skinner, the MGC sees it as an issue of “fundamental fairness.”

Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a consultant in the problem gambling space, shared a case from Washington, D.C., where a sportsbook claimed a betting limit was placed due to problem gambling, but that turned out to be untrue.

“This is the first time people who are being limited feel like they’re being heard,” said Dustin Gouker of Closing Line Consulting.

The commission ended with a promise to continue the conversation — with sportsbook operators involved.

“This is day one of this conversation for me,” said Commissioner Eileen O’Brien.