Prediction-market users overrate maths skills, AGA study finds

Prediction-market users reported confidence in their mathematical ability comparable to that of sports bettors, but scored more like non-gamblers on objective math tests in an American Gaming Association-commissioned study. The mismatch raised consumer-protection concerns, and prediction-market users tended to overestimate their mathematical skill.

The study, “Playing the Numbers: Financial Literacy and Numeracy in Gamblers and Non-Gamblers,” found that gamblers generally displayed higher financial literacy than non-gamblers. Sports bettors outperformed every other measured group in both financial literacy and mathematical capability, and had a more accurate view of their own skill than prediction-market users.

Researchers surveyed U.S. adults online through Prolific from July 15 to July 21. After screening, the sample included 3,149 people, including 537 sports bettors, 574 prediction-market users, 557 casino players, 495 iGaming users and 986 non-gamblers. The stated margin of error was plus or minus two percentage points at a 95% confidence level.

The findings challenge the view that people who gamble necessarily misunderstand money or odds. They also identified a positive correlation between financial literacy and responsible gaming, although the research framed that connection as a basis for further study rather than a solution to gambling harm.

Casino players recorded the highest positive-play scores, despite sports bettors’ stronger financial-literacy results. Andrea Dassopoulos of UNLV’s International Gaming Institute told VegasInc that financial literacy was only one part of consumer protection and should be paired with safer product design, limits and other tools.

The study warned that marketing sports wagering as an investment or a way to trade against peers can encourage consumers to believe they have an analytical edge and to misjudge risk. It said gambling should be presented as entertainment rather than a money-making strategy.

The results come as prediction markets reshape sportsbook habits for some users, as this publication reported in September. The AGA has also filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey’s request for the Supreme Court to decide whether states can regulate prediction markets including Kalshi and Polymarket.

That dispute has split lower federal courts. The Third Circuit affirmed that Kalshi was subject to federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulation rather than New Jersey gaming laws, while the Ninth Circuit upheld a ban on Kalshi offering sports-betting contracts in Nevada. The NFL and a coalition of 39 states and Washington, D.C., have separately supported New Jersey’s petition.

Polymarket has since announced a Trust & Safety Center with voluntary self-exclusion, deposit limits and mental-health resources. The AGA said regulated gaming spends about $472 million a year on responsible-gaming programmes and initiatives, while more than $130 million in annual gaming taxes supports problem-gambling services.