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

比推Опубліковано о 2026-02-12Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-12

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

NVIDIA Begins Adding Soap to the Bubble

NVIDIA is taking on a dual role: not just as a leading chip supplier, but as a massive capital allocator across the entire AI supply chain. In 2026, the company has committed over $40 billion in investments within five months, targeting everything from optical fiber manufacturing and data center operations to foundational AI model development. This investment spree, described as a systematic "sprinkler" approach, primarily funds companies that are major buyers of NVIDIA's own GPUs. Critics, including analysts from Goldman Sachs, label this a "circular revenue" loop—comparable to a supplier financing a customer to buy more of its products. A prominent example is NVIDIA's investment in OpenAI, which is expected to generate around $13 billion in revenue for NVIDIA, much of which may be reinvested back into OpenAI. While CEO Jensen Huang dismisses the "circular financing" critique as "absurd," arguing the investments are confidence votes in long-term generational shifts, some analysts express discomfort. They note that while investments in critical supply chain components like optics are strategically sound, funding new cloud providers like CoreWeave feels like "pre-paying for your own GPUs." The strategy carries significant risks. If the AI investment cycle turns, the market may question how much demand is genuine versus artificially sustained by NVIDIA's own balance sheet. Despite posting record-breaking earnings—$215.9 billion in annual revenue and $120 billion in net profit for FY2026—NVIDIA's stock fell after its report, signaling that "beating expectations" may no longer be enough to assure investors about the duration of the AI spending boom. The article concludes that while a bubble isn't necessarily a fraud, NVIDIA's actions resemble adding soap to a bubble—making it appear more robust and durable. This creates a complex scenario requiring extreme冷静 from investors to distinguish between real structural growth and financial engineering.

marsbit13 хв тому

NVIDIA Begins Adding Soap to the Bubble

marsbit13 хв тому

Short Positions Have Been Squeezed Out: Will the Next Leg of the U.S. Stock AI Rally Continue in Seoul?

"Short Squeeze Exhausted: Will the Next Leg of the AI Rally Continue in Seoul?" A Nomura report suggests the US AI stock rally, which saw the S&P 500 rise ~16.6% in 28 days largely driven by 10 key stocks, may be pausing. The fuel from short covering, CTA fund positioning, and volatility-control strategies is nearing its limit. For the rally to continue, new momentum from retail and sentiment-driven FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) is needed. South Korea's market provided a potential answer on the very day the report was published. The KOSPI index surged 4.32%, triggering a buy-side circuit breaker, led by massive gains in chip giants SK Hynix (+11.98%) and Samsung. This surge is characterized by retail "hynix FOMO" and overseas funds precisely buying into AI themes via chip-focused ETFs, shifting from broad Korean market ETFs. The Korean rally is a high-beta extension of the US AI capital expenditure story, as major cloud providers plan massive infrastructure spending, directly benefiting memory chip leaders. However, this linkage also implies vulnerability. The sustainability of this next leg depends on whether US tech stocks correct, the trajectory of US inflation (with upcoming CPI data key), and geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz. Seoul has emerged as the new epicenter of the AI trade, but its fate remains tied to these broader macro and market dynamics.

marsbit18 хв тому

Short Positions Have Been Squeezed Out: Will the Next Leg of the U.S. Stock AI Rally Continue in Seoul?

marsbit18 хв тому

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are undergoing a radical financial transformation due to AI. Their traditional "light-asset, high-free-cash-flow" model is being dismantled by staggering capital expenditures on AI infrastructure—data centers, GPUs, and power. Combined 2026 guidance exceeds $700 billion, a 4.5x increase from 2022, causing free cash flow to plummet (e.g., Amazon's fell 95%). To fund this, they are borrowing unprecedented sums through long-dated, multi-currency bonds (e.g., Alphabet's 100-year bond). The world's most conservative capital—pensions, insurers—is now funding Silicon Valley's most speculative bet. This shift makes these companies resemble heavy-asset industrials (railroads, utilities) rather than software firms, threatening their premium valuations. Historically, such infrastructure booms (railroads, fiber optics) followed a pattern: genuine technology, overbuilding fueled by competitive frenzy, aggressive debt financing, and a crash triggered by financial conditions—not technology failure. The infrastructure remained, but many original builders and financiers did not survive. The core gamble is a "time arbitrage": using cheap debt today to build scale and lock in customers before AI capabilities commoditize. They are betting that AI revenue will materialize before debt comes due. Their positions vary: Amazon is under immediate cash pressure; Meta's path to monetization is unclear; Alphabet has a robust core business buffer; Microsoft has the shortest path from infrastructure to revenue. The contract is set: the most risk-averse global capital has lent its time to Silicon Valley, awaiting a future that is promised but uncertain.

marsbit1 год тому

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片