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

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit2 год тому

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit2 год тому

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手2 год тому

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手2 год тому

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit4 год тому

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit4 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片