Share 
Bonus TL;DR
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer labeled sports prediction markets “criminal” and a “scam” during a New Normal webinar, arguing there is no functional distinction between a $10 sportsbook wager and a $10 event contract.
- Dreitzer rejected operator arguments around peer-to-peer trading and price discovery, warning that platforms are “gaslighting” casual bettors while trying to bypass state-level gaming oversight and tax frameworks.
Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer called prediction markets and sports-event contracts “criminal” during the New Normal webinar, escalating Nevada’s criticism of products the state says are effectively sports betting.
The comments matter because they come as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission moves to overhaul how event contracts are regulated at the federal level. Dreitzer argued Nevada regulators see no meaningful distinction between a standard sportsbook wager and a sports-event contract, and he said the state was the first to successfully challenge Kalshi, which he said no longer operates in Nevada.
Dreitzer says sports-event contracts are ‘the same exact thing’ as betting
Dreitzer said the CFTC has been working “in lock step” with designated contract markets, or DCMs, as prediction markets push further into sports-related products.
“I think it’s important to understand, in a very detailed way, what their claims are and why they make no sense,” Dreitzer said. “The first claim is, of course, that they’re different. From our perspective, the same exact thing.”
He also rejected the idea that event contracts differ from sportsbook wagers because they are structured differently. Using an NFL example, Dreitzer said a $10 bet at an online sportsbook is no different from a $10 sports-event contract.
In one of his sharper lines, Dreitzer said prediction markets have created an “untenable distinction without a difference” and compared their defense to “telling me that I’m looking at two apples, but they are trying to gaslight me to convince me that one of the apples is a banana.”
Nevada rejects peer-to-peer and price discovery arguments
Dreitzer specifically attacked two common arguments made in support of prediction markets: that they are peer-to-peer rather than gambling, and that they provide price discovery.
“The first claim is that this is peer-to-peer, so this is not gambling,” he said, before adding, “Which obviously is a nonsense claim.” He pointed to horse racing, bingo, online poker, and the lottery as examples of other peer-to-peer gambling formats.
He also said claims around price discovery are “fictional.” According to Dreitzer, prediction markets operate more like a hedge fund or other DCM to casual users and are “knocking the socks off of the casual bettor.”
“Secondly, they say that what this means is that this allows them to have price discovery because it’s peer-to-peer, but the only price they are discovering is the maximum amount they can gouge individual casual bettors on their DCM,” Dreitzer said. “There is no price discovery. That is a fictional notion.”
Dreitzer further said cash-in, cash-out features do not set prediction markets apart from regulated sportsbooks. “That doesn’t make it different. It’s still sports betting,” he said.
What to watch after the CFTC proposal
Dreitzer’s remarks followed a CFTC regulatory proposal that would define event contracts as swaps under federal law while prohibiting traditional gambling. The source material does not specify a timeline for any final federal action.
What is clear is that Nevada is maintaining its hard line. Dreitzer said the NGCB identified sports-event contracts as a “scam” from the beginning, and his latest comments suggest the state-federal fight over prediction markets is far from settled.
Source: As reported by gamingamerica.com.
