Kalshi Rebuffs Think Tank Claim Regular Traders Lost $584 Million on Platform

The Roosevelt Institute estimates that from July 2021 through May 2026, what it deems “casual” or “ordinary” traders on Kalshi lost $583.5 million on the yes/no exchange. Not surprisingly, the prediction market operator takes issue with that figure and other claims laid out by the think tank.

Amid rapidly expanding volume on all-or-nothing exchanges, considerable ink has been spilled on the purported lack of success of retail traders, particularly on Polymarket — Kalshi’s nearest rival. The progressive Roosevelt Institute acknowledges not as much attention on the topic has been devoted to Kalshi, but the think tank claims that analysis of Kalshi data highlights a “systematic wealth transfer” from market makers to market takers.

In prediction market parlance, makers provide volume and liquidity while takers are the market participants accepting the pricing laid out by makers. For its part, Kalshi says Roosevelt made some egregious errors in its study, including conflation of “maker” and “taker” with “professional” and “casual.”

Roosevelt, which said its initial examination of Kalshi is the first in a four-part series, analyzed 400 million trades on the platform from July 2021 through May 2026, noting sports event contracts accounted for 279.2 million of those trades and the mean bet size was $75.20.

There’s No House, Says Kalshi

While there’s been debate about the rate at which retail traders lose money on prediction markets compared to traditional sportsbooks, it cannot be argued that on yes/no exchanges, there is no house.

The Roosevelt Institute acknowledges that sharp bettors, some with significant financial and technological resources, trade on Kalshi, potentially putting smaller retail traders at a disadvantage, but that doesn’t mean the prediction market operator is acting as a house as do standard sportsbooks.

Said another way, a bettor that loses a sports wager on say DraftKings loses their money to that company. A trader, professional or retail, that takes a loss on a prediction market loses to the trader on the other side of the transaction, as is the case in traditional financial exchanges.

Kalshi says there’s a vital distinction between the existence of a house and the exchange model it runs on, adding that distinction is willfully obfuscated by Roosevelt.

Claims of Casino Industry Talking Points

With prediction market volume booming and the industry increasingly going mainstream, there’s been an uptick in claims that the anti-prediction market crowd, be it politicians, regulators, or institutions, is doing the bidding of the casino industry.

Kalshi believes the Roosevelt study shows a “worrying pattern of casino industry capture,” including hallmarks such as misunderstanding basic mechanics of casinos versus financial exchanges, false demographic representation of successful Kalshi traders and “ignoring key market dynamics of non-price sensitive users.”

The event contracts platform also says Roosevelt is using “patented casino industry talking points” when it implies prediction markets aren’t regulated. Kalshi and its counterparts are federally regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The prediction market operator also claims the Roosevelt Institute appears to be “working in conjunction” with “dark money” groups and “fringe” media outlets with track records of laying out inaccuracies about the prediction market industry.