DraftKings CEO: We don't want "profitable" players

[The Buzz]

In case you missed it last week, DraftKings CEO Jason Robbins caused quite a stir in U.S. sports betting circles when he said the following at Canaccord Genuity Digital Gaming Summit in Toronto:

“Usually, what we see in research is that most players favor one app and direct the vast majority of their game play there. And the ones that don’t are more the ones that you really don’t want, they’re bonus hunters and odds shoppers, and it’s a very small fraction of the audience. It’s less than 10% of the audience. But those are not the most profitable customers for obvious reasons.”

“This is an entertainment activity,” Robins said. “People who are doing this for profit are not the players we want.”

The comment immediately drew fire from sports bettors (mostly on Twitter) insulted at the idea that a sportsbook wouldn't want to take action from a "profitable" player. But there were some who defended Robbins, including Darren Rovell from the Action Network, who wrote:

He said it because he’s at a summit with an audience made up of analysts and investors, and the biggest threat to his public company is the lack of belief that the promotional money being spent is going to yield profitability.

The market is down on that idea. Even with $2 billion in cash, investors are worried about bleeding money and whether DraftKings can get to profitability three years into entering a state. DraftKings stock has slumped 34% in the last month alone.

Being frank about what their research has borne out and how the company achieves profitability is more important to voice transparently here than it is to worry about the perception from a vocal few who criticize the company for not being a true book and for cherry picking customers.

Elsewhere, Jeff Edelstein from the Sports Handle wrote that he wished all sportsbook operators would "come clean" like Robbins:

But you know what? I’m glad Robins said these things, and I wish all the other sportsbooks would show their cards and stop pretending they are a capital-S sportsbook when, in fact, they are … well, something a little bit different.

There is a pretty big difference between books that take all action and let everyone bet up to the same limits, and books that actively seek to cut out the winning players and the sharp bettors.

One is a traditional sportsbook, the other is … something close, but not quite.

And while we’d all like all sportsbooks to be like Circa, a few facts get in the way of this. One is obviously the fact DraftKings — and virtually all the other new-fangled books — are publicly traded companies answering to shareholders. The entire goal here is — you know — making money.

Read more opinion and backlash about the comments here: https://www.legalsportsreport.com/60...ng-for-profit/

[Former Member 14]

they’re bonus hunters...<snip>... and it’s a very small fraction of the audience. It’s less than 10% of the audience.

Granted sportsbooks are different in comparison to casinos. However where they do not differ is, "bonus hunters".

So what % of referred casino players are actually bona fide bonus-hunters?

Programs/casinos are always sprouting off about "advantage players" (aka bonus hunters), but they continue to offer bonuses. If it's such a BIG issue, offer some other incentive to players. However, they don't.

Like so many other loads of Horse$hit we, as affiliates are feed, seems bonus hunters only make up a small % of the overall player base.

Appears we've all been sold yet another pup!

[Sherlock]

Bonus hunters in casinos (nearly) do not exist anymore. It is just mathematics and no player can beat it unless the casinos do some crazy mistake or intentionally rogue.

With sportsbooks it is a different game: it is possible to do the odds arbitrage, even when for years it is extremely tough and this is why I stopped betting on sports. With sportsbook (= combination of bets at different bookies) it is also possible to do bonus hunting.

The most profitable always was to combine both methods.

In the ancient times a few players made millions this way. Now millions of players make few money. But it is costly for the bookies.

It is obvious and always was that bookies do not want profitable players (unless they are Pinnacle or something like that). What is crazy is that they openly talk about it. It is pretty counterproductive to signal that you can win money while at the same time the CEO is saying that anyone making money will be shown door.

It is a strange times now when everyone needs to say the deepest truths about himself. Also this shows another reason why PLCs are not the way to go for gambling industry.

[MJM]

We covered this issue a bit too, hope you don't mind me dropping it here

https://www.bettingusa.com/draftking...s-controversy/

[Sherlock]

I really do not know what is this all about.

I stopped being professional gambler over a decade ago (long time before DK even existed), when every book started to behave this way in sportsbetting once they realised they are losing a lot of money.

DK is a sht company. But anyone who will not kick out people who can count will be bankrupted, if they have no sharp odds which is prohibitively costly. The analogy with all-you-can-eat pub is stupid. Professionals are not people from which the book can make money; unlike a pub who can still make money by adjusting the eating rules to people with big appetites.

If the professional is spotted and limited, but he is still betting, it means it is worth of his time and that it will cost the bookie some money. The only way is either to ban him completely or set his limits ridiculously low, which is the same. The pros will not bet for 1 USD because it is not worth of their time.

There is no mutual benefit in gambling industry like at restaurant business, where both owner and customer can get some benefits. Long term in gambling the money is either taken by the house or by the pro-players. Yes, there is the excuse that regular players have their "fun" by gambling. Maybe pros might use the same excuse telling, that bookies trying to catch them under fake identities have another kind of fun.

I do not know why I have to explain the obvious. Maybe because US bookies are bit behind. In the ancient times was really confusing to know who is the pro and who is just a whale and thank god for that for myself. Similarly was confusing to know what are the correct odds and which big player is just chasing the steam. But for over a decade this is easy to spot; it is easy to detect the pros by backward analysis. And therefore it is inevitable that the pros will be smashed and killed.

Give me unlimited or "reasonably limited" accounts at any bookie and I will destroy the book within a year.

[Former Member 14]

Bonus hunters in casinos (nearly) do not exist anymore. It is just mathematics and no player can beat it unless the casinos do some crazy mistake or intentionally rogue.

You know that, I know that, and probably other affiliates know it too. BUT, and here's the rub... Programs and casinos still use this BS against players they do not want to payout. They also use it against affiliates, for example, to void a CPA deal.

While I'm sure some affiliates are rogue, same with players BUT not all are.

Hence, bonus-hunter/abuser rule is a scam, used to steal the rightful winnings of a player and or affiliate. Either way it's a load of Horse$hit.

I don't profess to know the #ss side/end of a sportsbook or sports betting, so I wont comment. I'll leave that to you