According to the latest financial report from the Michigan Gaming Control Board, the state experienced an increase in its sports betting handle in November.
Bettors collectively wagered a total of $584 million, marking a 6% increase from the $551.1 million reported in October and 17.3% when compared to the $498 million recorded in Nov. 2022.
This is the highest figure the Great Lake State attained in 2023, setting a new handle record. This achievement stands in stark contrast to July’s record-low handle of $200.8 million. The state has processed $4.05 billion in wagers throughout the year.
Michigan Monthly Revenue Declines Compared to Previous Month
While November marked a milestone with a record-breaking handle in the state, the excitement failed to translate into revenue growth.
Despite the surge in handle, the gross gaming revenue took a significant hit, plummeting to $37 million. This figure reflects a 19.1% decline from October’s revenue of $46.1 million.
In a year-over-year comparison, the state experienced a downturn of 12.9%, resulting in a decrease of approximately $5.5 million compared to the corresponding month in the previous year.
The decline in revenue is directly attributed to the operators’ hold rate, which stood at 6.3% for the state. This hold rate represents Michigan sportsbooks’ lowest performance since June 2022, where the win rate settled at 5.4%. Comparatively, October displayed a more favorable win rate of 8.4%, with an even higher win rate of 8.6% in Nov. 2022.
Michigan’s operators paid $856,825 in tax revenue to the state’s coffers, of which $323,590 was earmarked for local entities.
Michigan Online Sports Betting Nets $568.8 Million in Revenue
Of the total handle of $584.1 million reported in November, online operators emerged as the primary contributors, accumulating $568.8 million. Meanwhile, retail locations contributed $15.3 million to the overall handle for the month.
FanDuel emerged as the frontrunner among sports betting operators, boasting the highest handle of $213 million in reported bets. With a hold of 4.6%, FanDuel generated a revenue of $9.7 million during this period.
DraftKings secured the second position with a handle of $151.9 million within the market. Despite ranking second in handle, DraftKings emerged as the top revenue earner for the month, boasting $10.6 million in revenue with a 7% hold.
Following the lead was BetMGM, processing bets totaling $77.8 million and achieving a revenue of $4.5 million. Penn Entertainment’s ESPN Bet recorded a handle of $49.9 million, boasting the highest hold rate at 12.2%, which translated to revenue of $6.1 million, surpassing BetMGM in earnings despite a lower betting volume.
Securing the fifth position in the rankings was Caesars Sportsbook, with a betting handle of $37.3 million and a revenue of approximately $2.0 million.
Michigan’s Rising Market: Daily Fantasy Sports
Michigan has rapidly evolved into a flourishing center for daily fantasy sports. In the span from January to October, the dynamic duo of DraftKings and FanDuel collectively amassed over $7 million in adjusted revenue from their fantasy contests within the state. However, the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) has yet to unveil the adjusted revenue figures for fantasy contests in November.
Michigan’s daily fantasy sports outcomes emerge in the wake of regulatory modifications. October witnessed the implementation of fresh guidelines by the board, stipulated in the Fantasy Contests Consumer Protection Act.
These new regulations establish a comprehensive framework governing fantasy sports contests within the state, prioritizing consumer protection and fairness. The rule amendments aim to foster a regulated environment, ensuring transparent and equitable gameplay for participants engaged in fantasy sports activities.
The committee’s recent amendments include a ban on fantasy contests that simulate or mirror sports betting activities. This new stipulation has triggered a wave of discontent among Michigan residents and fantasy sports operators alike, sparking a flurry of criticism and opposition.
About the Author
