rob

I find some of the responses to @mattkalish's posts on @Kalshi (mainly from the people who have been restricted by the likes of @DraftKings) really odd. Speaking as someone who was (back in the day) limited on every major UK book (and only had @Betfair as an option), I can understand the frustration, but to then make the argument that PMs are superior as they, in theory, allow all participants makes no sense. One of the things exchanges/PMs always end up doing is revealing the true hierarchy of participants. We saw this all the time at @PokerStars - people would simply not sit at/leave tables when they knew they were facing comparable or superior opponents. All those people who have had a bit of success with a "sophisticated" model that spots a pricing inefficiency when teams play at altitude, or think that sitting court side gives you an edge on in-play tennis markets, eventually find themselves proverbially looking across the spread at the likes of a Starlizard. At that point they learn the difference between the sort of people DK prefer to restrict and the entities they really, really want no action from. With exchanges, ultimately the uniformed liquidity dries up (it always does), the informed liquidity becomes hyper cautious and sports betting has always been a game of relative skill. When the revenues drop, the PMs will have to squeeze their remaining customers - the very same people who are ranting at Matt about being restricted.