61% of Americans Call Prediction Markets Gambling: Poll

A poll conducted by Ipsos in conjunction with the American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM) reveals that 61% of Americans classify prediction market event contracts as gambling, nearly eight times the 8% who see them as a form of investing. The survey, reported on March 18, 2026, exposes a sharp disconnect between how the prediction market industry positions itself and how the American public actually perceives it. With regulatory debates intensifying and insider trading concerns mounting, the findings carry real weight for anyone tracking where this sector is headed.

Americans View Event Contracts as Gambling

The Core Finding: 61% vs 8%

The AIBM/Ipsos poll asked Americans how they view purchasing event contracts on prediction markets, and the result was decisive. Sixty-one percent said the activity is closer to gambling, while just 8% placed it in the investing category, according to the poll [1]. That gap, nearly eight to one, directly contradicts the narrative pushed by prediction market platforms that position themselves as next-generation financial services or fintech companies.

The financial risk perception is equally striking. Among those who have heard of prediction markets, 91% of Americans overall and 88% of young men view purchasing event contracts as financially risky, placing it on par with investing in cryptocurrency and placing a sports bet, according to the AIBM/Ipsos survey [1]. That comparison to cryptocurrency is pointed, given that some prediction markets are currently offering event contracts tied to digital asset prices that expire in just five or 15 minutes.

Those short-duration contracts often lead to poor outcomes for retail traders, according to reporting cited in the source material, because those traders lack the technology to compete with professionals [1]. The poll data and the product reality appear to reinforce each other.

Who Is Actually Using Prediction Markets

Despite the skepticism, 41% of respondents reported using prediction markets to try and make money, according to the AIBM/Ipsos poll [1]. That is a substantial share of the public engaging with a product most of them simultaneously classify as gambling rather than investing.

Young men are a notably active demographic. The poll found that men ages 18 to 24 are nearly twice as likely to participate in sports betting and prediction markets as the general public [1]. This demographic skew matters because it shapes both the user base and the regulatory conversation around who needs protection.

Familiarity Gap vs Sportsbooks

Prediction Markets Remain Far Less Known

Despite frequent headlines from major prediction market platforms, the AIBM/Ipsos poll confirms that public awareness remains low. Only 21% of respondents said they are somewhat familiar with prediction markets, compared to 35% who said the same about sportsbooks [1]. That 14-percentage-point gap shows sportsbooks still hold a significant recognition advantage.

Even among the most engaged demographic, familiarity stays below a critical threshold. Among men ages 18 to 24, familiarity with prediction markets is still below one-third at 29%, though notably higher than the general public, according to the poll [1]. The industry has room to grow in public awareness, but that growth comes with the challenge of overcoming a gambling-first perception.

Geography Does Not Drive Awareness

One finding that cuts against conventional assumptions: prediction market familiarity does not differ meaningfully between residents of states where sports betting is legal and those living in states where it is not permitted, according to the AIBM/Ipsos data [1]. Other surveys have suggested prediction market response rates are elevated in states without legal sports wagering, but the AIBM/Ipsos poll does not support a strong geographic split in awareness.

The same data notes that many bettors in states without legal sports betting say they will convert to traditional sports betting once their states approve it [1]. That signals prediction markets may be a temporary substitute for some users rather than a preferred long-term product.

Regulation: A Nation Divided

The AIBM/Ipsos poll reveals that Americans are split on how prediction markets should be governed, but a gambling-style framework leads the preference. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said it would be a good idea to regulate prediction markets similarly to gambling entities, while 52% said event contract exchanges should be regulated like financial services firms [1]. Both options command majority support, which reflects genuine public ambivalence about where this product category belongs.

Thirty-seven percent of respondents said the industry warrants a fresh set of guidelines entirely, and a quarter said it should be banned outright, according to the poll [1]. That 25% prohibition figure is notable: one in four Americans would remove prediction markets from the market entirely, a position that would have seemed extreme just a few years ago.

Insider Trading Confidence Is Near Zero

Perhaps the most damaging finding for the prediction market industry involves trust around insider trading. Just 9% of all respondents said they are confident that prediction markets could prevent individuals with non-public information from unfairly profiting on the platforms, according to the AIBM/Ipsos survey [1]. That figure rises to 27% among prediction market users themselves, but remains low even within the platform’s own user base.

For context, 13% of all respondents expressed confidence in online sports betting platforms on the same question, and 30% were confident in the stock market [1]. Prediction markets score lower than both on this trust metric, which is a significant problem for an industry trying to claim legitimacy as a financial product. The insider trading issue is described in the source material as an increasingly hot-button issue drawing political scrutiny [1].

What This Means for Bettors

For anyone who participates in online betting or gaming, the prediction market debate is worth watching closely. The AIBM/Ipsos poll data shows that most Americans already apply a gambling framework to event contracts, which means regulatory pressure to treat these platforms like gambling operators is backed by clear public opinion [1].

If prediction markets are eventually regulated as gambling entities, the consumer protections, licensing requirements, and oversight standards that apply to traditional betting platforms would likely extend to event contract exchanges. That shift would affect how these products are marketed, who can access them, and what safeguards exist for users. For players already familiar with regulated online casino and betting environments, those standards represent a baseline of accountability that prediction markets currently lack in the eyes of most Americans surveyed.

Key Takeaways

• 61% of Americans view purchasing event contracts on prediction markets as closer to gambling than investing, according to the March 2026 AIBM/Ipsos poll [1].
• Only 8% of respondents consider event contracts comparable to investing, making the gambling-to-investing ratio nearly 8 to 1 [1].
• 41% of respondents reported using prediction markets to try and make money, despite the dominant gambling perception [1].
• Just 21% of Americans are somewhat familiar with prediction markets, versus 35% for sportsbooks [1].
• 59% favor regulating prediction markets like gambling entities, while 52% support regulation similar to financial services firms [1].
• Only 9% of all respondents are confident prediction markets can prevent insider trading, compared to 13% for online sports betting and 30% for the stock market [1].
• Men ages 18 to 24 are nearly twice as likely to participate in sports betting and prediction markets as the general public, per the AIBM/Ipsos survey [1].

Frequently Asked Questions

The Bottom Line

The AIBM/Ipsos poll, published in March 2026, delivers a clear verdict from the American public: prediction markets are gambling, not investing. With 61% holding that view and only 8% taking the opposing position, the industry’s fintech branding has not translated into public acceptance as a financial product [1]. The near-zero confidence in insider trading prevention, at just 9% of all respondents, adds a serious trust deficit on top of the classification problem.

Regulatory pressure is building from multiple directions. A majority of Americans support both gambling-style and financial services-style oversight, which means policymakers have public backing for action regardless of which framework they choose [1]. The 25% who want prediction markets banned entirely signals that the industry cannot afford to treat public skepticism as a temporary awareness problem. The data suggests it runs deeper than that.

Sources

1. [1]: Casino.org – AIBM/Ipsos poll data on prediction market perceptions, familiarity, regulation preferences, and insider trading confidence, reported March 18, 2026.