Few online sports betting players use self-exclusion, despite surveys suggesting high rates of problematic play.

A 2026 report from a state in the U.S. said nearly 300,000 online sportsbook patrons did an account “cool off” lasting for at least three days, while fewer than 500 made a more serious commitment to self-exclusion for at least a year.

This data indicates that some users try to keep their gambling at manageable levels, but may not adequately address it. One study found it can take years for a person with problem gambling to seek help.

The fiscal year figures come from Massachusetts, one of the few states that releases “cool off” data. Like many states, Massachusetts regulates apps such as FanDuel, DraftKings, and BetMGM.

Self-exclusion adds your name to a state list to block betting apps for at least a year. It doesn’t apply nationally and excludes unregulated platforms like prediction markets, but it helps many people.

RG Tools Usage

According to the state, about 1,123,000 patrons used “play management tools,” which also include deposit and wagering limits, to help control, moderate, or stop sports gambling.

In Massachusetts and other states, regulations require licensed mobile sportsbooks to offer voluntary, opt-in deposit limits and wagering limits for daily/weekly/monthly periods. 

They must also provide account self-suspension (“cool off”) of at least 72 hours on request.

Voluntary play management tools may achieve higher participation when users must opt out. However, one study found that even prompting gamblers to set voluntary deposit limits did not reduce subsequent net loss.

Sports Betting ‘Cool Off’

The state reported that 293,400 of the 1.1 million patrons who used “responsible gaming” tools chose a cool-off self-suspension. This may indicate a more serious sports betting problem.

In Massachusetts and other states, these tools are opt-in and voluntary, which may undermine their effectiveness.

The effectiveness of voluntary self-suspension tools is not well established. There is little evidence that they produce lasting changes in gambling behavior. In contrast, evidence suggests mandatory breaks can reduce gambling intensity, at least in the short term.

A user who chooses a cool-off on one online sportsbook can simply switch to another.

Sports Betting Self-Exclusion

A total of 458 patrons in Massachusetts self-excluded from state-sanctioned sports gambling during the fiscal year. The 458 comes from 88 self-excluding from sports betting only, plus 370 selecting sports and casino gambling self-exclusion.

This self-exclusion data raises questions about how to make it more widely used, given the demand for short-term account restrictions.

In Massachusetts, self-exclusion lasts one, three, or five years, or a lifetime. The term does not expire automatically. Removal only happens after completing reinstatement.

Real Win or Industry PR?

Are these industry data points meaningful, or are they just PR?

It’s a positive development that some users are apparently proactive in making an attempt to mitigate their gambling. Awareness of one’s own problem gambling is a crucial first step.

The fact that patrons use these tools shows widespread concern. It also shows the addictive nature of betting apps, which use habit-forming features.

This data can support the argument that online betting apps should not be allowed to advertise during live games or use celebrities to promote their products.

We don’t know how effective these tools are for reducing harm among more than 1 million Massachusetts patrons. Without data on spending or long-term behavior changes, real harm reduction cannot be assessed.

The use rate of existing responsible gambling tools doesn’t yield meaningful data for gauging population-level harm reduction. The limited effectiveness of these tools means such data could function more as industry PR.

Proposed 2026 legislation in Massachusetts aims to bolster regulations and strengthen sports betting self-exclusion. Other states with legal sports betting, such as Colorado, are considering similar safeguards.

States like Massachusetts should act soon to enhance player protections.

In 2026, the nonprofit Center for Addiction Science, Policy, and Research gave Massachusetts a “D” for its gambling regulation. This negative score followed the state auditor criticizing gambling regulators in 2025 after a four-year audit.

Sports Betting Self-Exclusion Final Thoughts

In 2025, Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Jordan Maynard told The Guardian that state-by-state regulation is a “highway without speed limits, cars without seatbelt dingers.”

Maynard acknowledged the industry could use federal regulation.

The SAFE Bet Act, reintroduced in 2025, would establish uniform standards for online sports betting. The legislation could also create a national self-exclusion list.

Massachusetts data on the use of problem gambling tools indicates that users seek help, but states lack control over the industry. Policymakers should push for federal regulations.

Image by Dim Hou from Pixabay