Street Magic

About Street Magic

Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, also co-authored the aforementioned Protect College Sports Act with Washington Senator Maria Cantwell. As cloture motion for floor debate of the act began this week, Cruz has expressed optimism that the bill will be signed into law.

The proposed bill seeks to prevent student-athletes from trading on prediction markets, but does not set any explicit standards on player harassment.

Separately, the two senators wrote a formal letter to a bevy of pro sport leagues last October requesting additional details on the leagues’ interaction with integrity monitors on suspicious wagering.

About Street Magic

Takers is a prediction market industry colloquialism for the market participants that swiftly fill buy and sell orders, thus removing liquidity from the marketplace. Conversely, makers are the market participants viewed as liquidity providers and professional or sharp money.

“Recent launches, including customizable same-game parlays (SGPs), further support our view that Prediction Markets (PM) are increasingly converging with traditional sportsbooks,” observes Macquarie analyst Chad Beynon. “As a result, we now estimate total US PM taker volume to reach $190 billion in 2026E (vs $169 billion prior).”

If the research firm’s $190 billion taker volume estimate proves accurate, it’d represent a more than eightfold increase from the $22 billion taker turnover seen last year.

About Street Magic

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.