Leading sportsbook operators in Las Vegas indicate that they foresee no immediate changes to Nevada’s betting regulations, even amidst a surge of betting scandals igniting national attention and prompting new restrictions in other jurisdictions.
Recent sports betting controversies have impacted major leagues such as the NBA, NCAA, MLB, and UFC, leading to a U.S. Senate inquiry labeled as a “new integrity crisis.” Following this trend, MLB has implemented a nationwide limit of $200 on pitch-by-pitch prop bets after allegations of Cleveland Guardians pitchers, Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, accepting bribes to influence individual pitches. Similarly, the NFL has reinforced limitations on specific prop bets.
Despite these developments, Nevada bookmakers assert that the state’s existing framework is functioning effectively, with no changes anticipated. “Operators should retain the freedom to determine the markets they wish to offer, along with their respective prices and limits,” stated Chris Bennett, director of Circa Sportsbook, in an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Bennett emphasized that integrity threats are likely to emerge wherever financial motivations exist that could sway game outcomes. He further noted, “While setting bet limits and restrictions might diminish some undesirable actions, it simultaneously restricts operators’ ability to compete freely.“
Bennett remarked that any potential future interventions would mostly focus on prop bets linked to college or amateur athletes, who are particularly susceptible. However, detailed “micro bets,” commonly found on platforms like DraftKings and FanDuel, are not available at prominent Nevada sportsbooks, including Circa and the Westgate SuperBook.
John Murray, vice president of race and sports at Westgate, believes that having skilled staff is critical, rather than imposing new restrictions. Recently, Westgate removed a UFC fight from their offerings after identifying suspicious betting patterns.
“As long as you have a knowledgeable team capable of detecting these issues and communicating pertinent information effectively, there’s really no need to modify your wagering menu,” Murray added.
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred mentioned this week that he does not foresee additional constraints on baseball prop bets. “Monitoring betting behavior… is absolutely crucial,” he stated. “We are generally prepared to proceed under the current regulations.“
In an NFL memo released to teams this month, it highlighted four types of prohibited prop bets, including those associated with officiating decisions and player-specific outcomes from individual plays. NCAA President Charlie Baker commended this stance, cautioning that such bets could lead to exploitation of student-athletes.
Nevada regulators have not called for modifications to in-game or prop betting features. The Nevada Gaming Control Board assured that it maintains “regular and open communication” with professional leagues to guarantee “the fairest, safest, and most secure betting options.”
Murray cautioned that banning prop bets could drive customers towards illegal betting options, noting that NFL prop wagers constitute over 60% of Super Bowl betting volume. Furthermore, he argued that many suggested prohibitions—such as bets on interceptions or missed field goals—depend on variables that are too unpredictable for effective regulation. “I don’t foresee that happening,” he mentioned.
Even if certain wagers become restricted, Murray stated the overall effect on sportsbooks would be minor. “Would it actually impact their business significantly? It would just be one less option among hundreds on the betting slate,” he noted.
“Most casual bettors prefer combining their favorite players for touchdown bets, and I believe that will continue to be the main source of betting revenue,” he concluded.