Burry Buys Flutter and DraftKings, Betting on Tighter Prediction Market Regulation
Miles Bennett
Michael Burry — famed for calling the 2008 mortgage crisis — disclosed stakes in Flutter and DraftKings, arguing that prediction markets will be regulated and taxed, removing the main competitive threat to traditional sportsbooks.
What did Burry buy, and at what price?
He bought Flutter at roughly $107 a share and DraftKings at just above $26, together forming one full position.
The weighting is approximately 60% Flutter, 40% DraftKings; he may size each up to a full position independently.
This means → Burry is not picking one over the other. He treats both as two legs of the same bet — a wager on the whole sector benefiting from a regulatory shift.
Why does he think now is the time?
Both stocks have fallen sharply this year: Flutter is down roughly 50%, DraftKings about 21%. Prices already embed heavy pessimism.
Burry sees Flutter's business scale as solid despite past capital misallocation; DraftKings is at an operational inflection point.
In plain terms = the companies' problems are known and priced in. What the market has not priced is a specific "cure" he believes is coming.
What is that cure — and why do prediction markets matter?
Prediction markets — platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket that let users bet on any event — are the primary competitive threat to both companies.
These platforms operate nationwide under the CFTC's regulatory framework, bypassing state gambling taxes and creating a regulatory-arbitrage advantage over traditional, heavily taxed sportsbooks.
Burry's view: the current political environment will not tolerate a system where one set of betting operators pays tax and another does not. Prediction markets will eventually face equal regulation and taxation.
This means → if prediction markets lose their tax-free edge, Flutter and DraftKings see their competitive pressure drop sharply.
What else is Burry doing?
He added to his JD.com (京东) position at $27.58 a share, calling it a top-three holding.
He argues that as AI and memory-chip enthusiasm fades in South Korea and Japan, capital will rotate into Hong Kong and mainland Chinese equities.
This reflects a broader portfolio-level thesis: the market is shifting away from "AI hype" toward neglected value plays.
What determines whether this bet pays off?
The core variable is singular: whether prediction markets actually get brought under the same regulatory framework as traditional gambling.
If regulation lands, Burry bought at depressed prices and the thesis plays out. If prediction markets keep their lighter regulatory treatment, the competitive pressure on both companies persists.
In plain terms = this is not a bet on "the companies get better." It is a bet on "the competitor gets leashed" — the outcome sits in Washington, not in quarterly earnings.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.