In the current landscape of American sports betting, winning too much is often a liability. While most industries reward their most successful customers, the legacy sportsbook model operates on a paradox: the “sharp” bettor—the individual who consistently identifies mispriced odds—is viewed not as a valued client, but as a threat to be neutralized.
This structural tension was the focal point of a recent discussion at Consensus Miami, where industry leaders argued that the only way to fix the system is to stop treating sports betting as a gambling vice and start treating it as a financial asset. Jacob Fortinsky, co-founder and CEO of the sports betting platform Novig, contends that the industry is overdue for a regulatory pivot from state-licensed casino oversight to a federal financial product framework.
The shift is not merely a matter of semantics. By framing sports event contracts as binary financial instruments, proponents argue they can move the industry away from the “house always wins” mentality of the casino and toward the transparency and efficiency of a commodities exchange. Fortinsky estimates that sports betting is already a $2 trillion global asset class, yet it remains dominated by legacy operators who prioritize the protection of their margins over market efficiency.
The Penalty for Proficiency
For professional traders, the current state-led regulatory model creates an environment where skill is punished. Adam Mastrelli, founder of 57 Maiden—a firm specializing in AI-driven trading strategies for prediction markets—provided a stark example of this friction. Mastrelli noted that he and his partner were banned from two major sportsbooks within two months of trading because their strategies were too effective.
“It’s like LeBron James getting kicked out of the NBA for being too good,” Mastrelli said, describing a common practice among traditional sportsbooks to limit or ban “power users” who consistently beat the closing line.
This practice exists because traditional sportsbooks act as the counterparty to every bet. When a bettor wins, the house loses. In contrast, an exchange model like Novig’s allows users to trade against one another. In this ecosystem, the platform facilitates the trade rather than betting against the customer, removing the incentive to ban winning participants. Mastrelli’s firm eventually migrated to Novig, citing the lack of fees and the ability to create synthetic positions—tools more common in equities trading than in traditional sports betting.
The Decay of Alpha
However, the transition to a financialized market brings its own challenges, specifically the erosion of “alpha”—the edge a trader has over the market. Mastrelli observed that as markets become more efficient, the window for profit narrows. Of 154 proposed trading strategies his firm tested, only three currently remain profitable. Interestingly, he noted that the WNBA provided his most profitable season, suggesting that less-liquid markets often harbor the most significant pricing inefficiencies.
A Regulatory Clash: States vs. The Federal Government
The path to federalizing sports betting is fraught with political and legal hurdles. Currently, most operators navigate a patchwork of state laws or utilize a “sweepstakes model” to operate in jurisdictions where traditional sports betting is restricted. Novig is currently live in 35 states under this model but is working to transition to a federal Designated Contract Market (DCM) framework, which would theoretically allow it to operate across all 50 states.
The drive for federal oversight stems from a perceived lack of interest in innovation at the state level. Fortinsky recounted a “wake-up call” during a regulatory attempt in Colorado, where he claimed officials were less concerned with consumer protection or market efficiency and more focused on the immediate generation of tax revenue.
This tension is escalating into a broader legal battle. A series of pending lawsuits involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Kalshi, and Robinhood are currently testing the boundaries of what constitutes a “gaming” product versus a “financial” contract. Fortinsky believes this conflict is inevitable and likely to reach the Supreme Court within the next few years.
| Feature | Legacy Casino Model | Financial Exchange Model |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation | State-level Gaming Commissions | Federal (CFTC/DCM Framework) |
| Counterparty | The Sportsbook (The House) | Other Market Participants |
| Winning Bettors | Often limited or banned | Encouraged as liquidity providers |
| Revenue Source | The “Vig” (Overround) | Transaction or Membership Fees |
| Market View | Wager/Gambling | Binary Financial Instrument |
Why Sports May Be the Safest Bet
While prediction markets often focus on high-stakes political outcomes or macroeconomic events, Fortinsky argues that sports are actually the safest vertical for financialization. Political contracts are frequently plagued by concerns over insider trading and manipulation by actors with non-public information about government proceedings.
Sports, while not immune to manipulation, offer a more transparent set of variables. Mastrelli compared the maturation of these markets to the equities exchange, where institutional giants like AQR and SIG compete in a robust, enduring environment. The goal, he suggests, is to build systems capable of maintaining an edge even as the market reaches peak efficiency.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Trading in prediction markets and sports betting involves significant risk of loss.
The immediate future of this regulatory shift depends on the outcome of the ongoing litigation between the CFTC and prediction market providers. A ruling that favors the classification of these contracts as financial instruments could trigger a mass migration of capital from state-regulated sportsbooks to federal exchanges. The next major checkpoint will be the upcoming filings in the CFTC vs. Kalshi proceedings, which will likely set the precedent for how “event contracts” are treated under U.S. Law.
Do you think sports betting should be regulated like the stock market? Share your thoughts in the comments or share this story on social media.
