Traditional Gambling Companies Enter Prediction Markets, Aiming for a 'Dimensionality Reduction Strike' Against Wall Street Traders

比推Publicado em 2026-02-12Última atualização em 2026-02-12

Resumo

Traditional sports betting giants DraftKings, Fanatics, and FanDuel are entering the prediction market space, leveraging their expertise in odds-making to compete with Wall Street trading companies. These firms are establishing or planning associated market-making entities to provide liquidity and set odds on prediction platforms, viewing their experience in pricing complex, interconnected outcomes as a key advantage. On the other side, Wall Street firms like Susquehanna and Jump Trading are expanding into sports prediction markets, though they face challenges due to limited experience in sports event pricing. Sports betting involves dynamic risk factors such as injuries or weather changes, requiring sophisticated models and data analysis—areas where traditional bookmakers excel. However, Wall Street firms are actively hiring sports specialists to bridge this gap. Competition is intensifying as both sides vie for market share, which may compress profit margins due to narrower spreads. Despite this, betting companies remain confident in their ability to succeed, citing their deep industry knowledge. Over time, the competitive strengths of both groups may converge as talent and strategies blend.

Author: Sportico

Compiled by: Azuma

Original title: Traditional Gambling Giants Enter Prediction Markets, Aiming to Outmaneuver Wall Street


With the explosion of prediction markets, two groups are closely watching—one from Wall Street and the other from Morton Street (the headquarters of gambling company Fanatics). On one side are professional financial trading firms, and on the other are traditional gambling service providers. Both believe they have what it takes to become top predators.

Gambling Companies Enter Market Making

Three traditional sports gambling service providers—DraftKings, Fanatics, and FanDuel—have all ventured into prediction markets to counter the threat this emerging trend poses to their core businesses. After experiencing a shift in investor sentiment, these companies are accelerating their efforts and view their extensive experience in the gambling industry as a potential competitive advantage.

DraftKings, Fanatics, and FanDuel have all started or plan to offer "odds" through affiliated market makers on their prediction market platforms. This is similar to their traditional sports gambling operations, but the key difference is that in prediction markets, they must compete with third parties who can also place orders.

Based on discussions between Sportico and executives from relevant companies as well as industry analysts, there is no consensus that gambling companies directly engaging in market making can achieve higher returns than professional financial trading firms. However, gambling companies remain confident in the profit potential of market making.

Peter Jackson, CEO of FanDuel’s parent company Flutter Entertainment, stated during the Q3 earnings call in November: "The core capability required for market makers is the ability to accurately price complex and interconnected outcomes. This is exactly what our core business does every day."

Fanatics already has an active affiliated market maker named Morton St. Market Maker LLC—a nod to its parent company’s office location on Morton Street in New York City, within walking distance of some of its Wall Street competitors. Morton St. Market Maker provides odds for both buying and selling contracts on Crypto.com, the underlying prediction market platform integrated by Fanatics.

Meanwhile, DraftKings and FanDuel have both hinted at the existence of affiliated market-making teams that trade against their clients. However, it remains unclear whether DraftKings or FanDuel have formally established such entities.

To ensure all users can quickly enter and exit positions at near-fair prices, market makers typically need to provide liquidity on both the "YES" and "NO" sides during specific periods. Their profits come from the small spread between the "buy now" and "sell now" quotes. For example, if a user buys a contract for the New York Mets to win at $0.50, and the market maker previously acquired the contract at $0.47 through a limit order, the market maker earns $0.03.

Wall Street’s Counter-Encirclement

On the other side of the gambling companies are professional trading institutions from Wall Street.

Although Wall Street firms like Susquehanna International Group have extensive experience in financial derivatives market making, some industry insiders interviewed by Sportico noted that Wall Street is indeed less adept at setting odds for sports events compared to traditional gambling companies.

Alfonso Straffon, who has worked in market making for both Wall Street junk bonds and sports gambling, said: "I would caution Wall Street firms not to underestimate their opponents. The sports gambling ecosystem has been around for a long time."

Sports events present more complex risk management challenges for market makers, especially during games, where any development—such as injuries, weather changes, or coaching decisions—can drastically alter the true value of bets. "Parlays" introduce additional risks, and a single mistake can lead to significant losses. If exchanges support leveraged trading, these risks will be further amplified.

Advanced data models and the ability to access information before the public—both strengths of traditional gambling companies—are crucial for mitigating risks.

However, this does not mean gambling companies are guaranteed to win in prediction markets. Another founder of a sports gambling company tends to believe that, with deeper capital and experience adapting to different financial markets, Wall Street will ultimately achieve higher returns.

Wall Street firms like Susquehanna and Jump Trading, which lack long-term sports experience, are racing to hire market makers specializing in sports. Prediction markets such as Crypto.com and Polymarket have also posted related job listings for their affiliated trading departments in recent months. Rothera, owned by Robinhood, mentioned an active affiliated market maker in its rulebook (sources suggest it may be Susquehanna). According to a Bloomberg report this week, Jump Trading is simultaneously investing in Kalshi and Polymarket.

Sportico previously reported details about Kalshi Trading (Kalshi’s affiliated market-making arm), which is also working to弥补 its lack of sports experience. Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara stated on X that Kalshi Trading was not profitable in sports业务, with sports accounting for "less than 6% of its market-making volume in November."

Competitive Advantages May Gradually Converge

Market making is not a highly profitable business. Having multiple companies compete to price the same prediction market naturally compresses the spread that can be profitable. In other words, the more market makers there are in a prediction market, the less profit can be made per bet.

However, although prediction markets with affiliated market makers may wish to limit the number of market makers, the reality is far more complex. A lack of institutional capital support could lead to insufficient overall market liquidity, which would negatively impact the user experience unless affiliated market makers inject significant capital (and assume corresponding risks) to fill the gap.

This means gambling companies will inevitably compete with financial institutions on the same field, vying for order flow from retail bettors.

Ultimately, as Wall Street institutions hire talent with specialized sports backgrounds (and vice versa), the competitive advantages of both sides may gradually converge. But for now, at least, gambling companies entering prediction markets are confident in their chances of success.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

BitPush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

BitPush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7611525

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat are the two main groups competing in the prediction market, as mentioned in the article?

AThe two main groups are professional financial trading firms from Wall Street and traditional sports betting service providers.

QWhich traditional sports betting companies have ventured into the prediction market?

ADraftKings, Fanatics, and FanDuel have ventured into the prediction market.

QWhat is the name of Fanatics' affiliated market maker, and what is its name derived from?

AFanatics' affiliated market maker is named Morton St. Market Maker LLC, derived from the street where its parent company's office is located in New York City.

QAccording to the article, what core competency do betting companies believe gives them an advantage in market making?

ABetting companies believe their core competency is the ability to accurately price complex and interconnected outcomes, which is a fundamental part of their daily operations.

QWhat challenge do Wall Street firms face when entering the sports prediction market, as per industry insiders?

AWall Street firms lack long-term experience in setting odds for sports events, which presents a significant challenge in managing the complex risks associated with in-game developments like injuries or weather changes.

Leituras Relacionadas

AGI is Just One Step Away

The article discusses Anthropic's release of the Fable 5 model, a heavily restricted version of its powerful Mythos model. Initially unveiled in April, Mythos reportedly identified over 10,000 high-risk vulnerabilities for 50 enterprise clients, causing significant concern. Due to its dangerous capabilities in areas like autonomous cyber-attacks and biochemical weapons design guidance (classified as CB-1 level), the unaltered Mythos 5 remains limited to about 200 vetted entities like government agencies. Fable 5, released with a safety classifier, demonstrates extraordinary performance, leading benchmarks in coding (SWE-Bench Pro), software engineering, and research. It exhibits true "long-horizon agency," autonomously planning and executing complex, multi-step tasks like migrating 50 million lines of code in a day, moving beyond simple question-answering. The article positions Fable 5 at OpenAI's Level 3 ("Agent") and progressing toward Level 4 ("Innovator"), suggesting AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is within reach, potentially 18-24 months away. To mitigate risks, Anthropic implemented a two-layer safety "cage": a silent routing system that redirects dangerous queries to a weaker model, and a mandatory 30-day data retention policy for all Mythos traffic to detect patterns of malicious use. Despite its high cost ($10/$50 per million input/output tokens), the model targets the enterprise market, where its unparalleled productivity and defensive capabilities against AI-powered cyber threats justify the premium. This signals a market maturation where top-tier AI becomes a strategic, high-value tool for businesses, potentially widening the gap with consumer-focused models and accelerating the rise of "one-person companies" while disrupting labor markets.

marsbitHá 1m

AGI is Just One Step Away

marsbitHá 1m

AI Investors' 2026 Anxiety: When Models Devour Everything, What Moat Is Left for Startups?

In 2026, a wave of investor anxiety questions the defensibility of AI startups as models improve, fearing that most companies are just "thin wrappers" destined to be absorbed by foundation models or chipmakers. The author argues against this despair, positing that true moats lie not in benchmark performance but in areas models cannot easily reach. The logic of despair is that if models excel at all measurable tasks, only compute and cutting-edge model weights hold lasting value. However, the essay contends that the most valuable work is inherently "untrainable." Benchmarks measure what can be measured and thus optimized for, but real-world correctness often resides in private, complex systems. Examples include legacy codebases, intricate legal transactions, or hospital workflows. This kind of correctness is proprietary, costly to establish, and cannot be validated quickly—it requires time and trust within an organization. As models commodify visible, measurable tasks from both above (labs absorbing scaffolding) and below (saturation by cheaper models), value shifts to "untrainable ground." This encompasses work where correctness is a private truth, locked behind integration barriers, licenses, liability frameworks, and entrenched user habits. Trust and adoption are slow, human-centric processes that smarter models cannot accelerate. Successful companies defend their position by embedding deeply into client operations, owning the definition of "good" within a specific domain (e.g., Harvey in law, OpenEvidence in medicine), and pricing on outcomes rather than tokens. While labs compete fiercely, they are incentivized to keep the application layer vibrant. The future belongs not to those competing on generic benchmarks but to those navigating unscoreable terrain, doing the "unsexy work" of translation between models and messy human realities. The most cited benchmark scores are thus maps of territory about to become worthless, signaling who will lose the right to define what counts as good.

marsbitHá 1h

AI Investors' 2026 Anxiety: When Models Devour Everything, What Moat Is Left for Startups?

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片