Techno Tumble

About Techno Tumble

Eilers & Krejcik Gaming (EKG) estimates that bettors will plunk down $40.5 billion on the NFL this season through regulated channels. Traditional sportsbooks are projected to capture $31.7 billion of that total, compared to a handle analog of $8.4 billion for prediction markets—a 79% to 21% split in favor of legacy operators.

Handle analog is a metric used as a cleaner comparison between sportsbooks and prediction markets because the latter’s volume doesn’t compare evenly with sportsbook handle.

Based on its projections, EKG sees the overall sports wagering industry growing 8% year-over-year, outpacing the current baseline growth rate of 5% (a figure that strips out temporary boosts from the 2026 World Cup).

How to play Techno Tumble

The factor that led some operators to drop out of the licensing race could be the “uncertainty” created by regulations that “didn’t seem set in stone”, says Leckert.

“Some of them [investors] that were looking at Japan were looking at a big IR licence or nothing. With Tokyo and Yokohama being out of the mix, maybe some weren’t as interested anymore and decided to sit back, and wait and see how regulation and licensing shake out.”

One concern for operators is “the short duration of licences and renewal of licences”, notes Leckert. For operators, the casino business licence is renewable every three years, while the IR development-plan authorisation runs for 10 years, in contrast to the 18-year IR licence term in the Philippines, for instance.

What is Techno Tumble?

“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.

The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.

“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”