In the buzzing digital landscape of India, a new form of engagement is capturing the attention of millions: opinion trading. Imagine watching a cricket match and having a strong conviction that a star batsman will score a century, or follow election coverage and feel certain about a particular party’s victory. Now, imagine a platform that allows you to back that conviction with money, turning your insights into potential profit. This is the world of opinion trading, a dynamic and often controversial intersection of finance, gaming, and social prediction.
These platforms present users with simple binary questions about future events: “Will India win the upcoming T20 match?” or “Will the Sensex close above 75,000 points today?” Users select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and place a stake. But behind this simple facade lies a complex ecosystem that has ignited a fierce debate across the country: Is this just a new name for gambling, or is it a legitimate, skill-based activity deserving of recognition and regulation? As this sector grows to include over 50 million users, the question is no longer academic—it’s a critical legal and economic issue.
How Opinion Trading Works: Beyond a Simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’
At its core, opinion trading is a gamified information market. It resembles a blend of fantasy sports, strategic investing, and prediction markets (a term often used interchangeably). Platforms like Probo, SportsBaazi, and MPL Opinio list events across a wide range of categories, including sports, finance, politics, and even weather.
The process is straightforward:
1.Event Listing: The platform proposes a question about a future event. For instance, “Will India score more than 300 runs in today’s DI match?”
2. Price Setting: Each outcome, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, is assigned a price, typically ranging from ₹0.1 to ₹9.9. The sum of the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ prices usually equal ₹10. The initial price reflects the perceived probability of the event. If a ‘Yes’ is priced at ₹4, the market is implying a 40% chance of that outcome occurring.
3. Stake Placement: A user, let’s call her Priya, believes India is in great form and will easily cross 300 runs. She decides to buy 100 units of ‘Yes’ at ₹4 each, investing a total of ₹400. Another user, Rohan, is sceptical and buys 100 units of ‘No’ at the corresponding price of ₹6, investing ₹600.
4. Price Fluctuation: This is where the “trading” element comes into play. As the match begins and India’s openers put on a blistering partnership, the likelihood of scoring over 300 increases. The market reacts in real-time. The price for ‘Yes’ might surge to ₹7, while the ‘No’ price falls to ₹3. At this point, Priya could sell her 100 units for a profit of ₹3 per unit (₹7 sale price – ₹4 purchase price), securing her gains before the event even concludes. This ability to trade in and out based on shifting probabilities is a key feature that proponents argue distinguishes it from a one-time bet.
5. Settlement: Once the match ends, the final outcome determines the settlement. If India scores 315 runs, the ‘Yes’ option is settled at ₹10, and ‘No’ at ₹0. Priya, if she held her position, would receive ₹1,000 (100 units x ₹10), earning a profit of ₹600. Rohan would lose his entire ₹600 stake.
To create the feel of a financial market, these platforms deliberately use investment-related terminology like “portfolio,” “profit,” “loss,” “stop loss,” and “trading,” blurring the lines between gaming and financial services.
The Core Debate: Deconstructing the Skill vs. Chance Argument
The legality and social acceptance of opinion trading hinge on one fundamental question: Does success depend primarily on skill or on pure chance? While detractors label it as gambling on uncertain external events, a growing body of research and legal precedent suggests a more nuanced reality.
A landmark March 2025 study by researchers at IIT Delhi, titled “Quantifying Skill on Opinion Trading Platforms,”[1] systematically dismantled this question. The study analysed user data to evaluate opinion trading against four established criteria used to define a game of skill.
1.The Predominance of Skill Over Chance
The first test examined whether informed choices lead to better outcomes than random guessing. The study’s models confirmed that skilled players—those with domain knowledge about an event, such as a cricket enthusiast who understands player form and pitch conditions—earned significantly higher returns. To validate this, a “skill dilution test” was conducted where outcomes were artificially randomized. In this scenario, the performance of skilled players collapsed, proving that their success was tied to real-world analysis, not luck.
This “predominance test” has strong roots in Indian jurisprudence. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana[2], the Supreme Court ruled that while a game may involve both skill and chance, the crucial factor is which one predominates. It classified Rummy as a game of skill because strategic decisions about which cards to hold or discard give players overarching control, despite the initial randomness of the deal. Similarly, in K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)[3], the Court deemed horse racing a game of skill, as success requires a deep analysis of the horse’s breed, the jockey’s record, and track conditions. Opinion trading, its proponents argue, fits this same mold: while the event’s outcome is uncertain, the ability to forecast probabilities, analyse data, and trade strategically is a clear demonstration of skill.
2. The Consistency of Performance
If an activity is based on luck, success should be randomly distributed. A lottery winner is unlikely to win again next week. However, in skill-based games like chess or poker, top players consistently outperform their peers. The IIT Delhi study tracked traders’ Win Rates (WR) and Return on Investment (ROI) monthly throughout 2024 and found remarkable consistency. The Spearman correlation—a statistical measure of consistency—between adjacent months was strong (between 0.5 and 0.6). Even between distant months like January and December, the correlation remained high (around 0.59), indicating that top performers maintained their edge over the long term. This persistent success pattern strongly suggests that outcomes are driven by repeatable skill, not random chance.
3. The Learning Effect Over Time
A key indicator of a skill-based activity is the potential for improvement with practice. The study tracked 37,000 new users over their first 720 trades. The data showed a clear upward trend: as users gained experience, their win rates and ROI steadily increased. This highly significant correlation between experience and performance confirms a distinct learning curve, a phenomenon absent in games of pure chance.
4. The Existence of a Skill Gradient
Finally, the researchers sought to prove a “skill gradient”—the idea that a hierarchy of players exists based on their level of skill. They developed the Opinion Trading Score (OpTraS), a rating metric inspired by the Elo rating system used in chess. OpTraS factors in a player’s success (profit and ROI), engagement (number of trades), and adroitness (ability to make strategic exit trades). When players were grouped by their OpTraS ratings, higher-rated users consistently and significantly outperformed lower-rated ones over a nine-month period. This demonstrated not only that skill exists but that it is measurable and varies across the user base.
Drawing Parallels: Lessons from Fantasy Sports
The journey of opinion trading mirrors that of another digital gaming giant: Fantasy Sports Leagues (FSL). A decade ago, platforms like Dream11 faced similar legal challenges, with petitions arguing they constituted gambling. However, Indian courts consistently ruled in their favour.
In Varun Gumber v. Chandigarh (2017)[4], the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that fantasy sports involve substantial skill. Players must analyse vast amounts of data on player statistics, form, and even pitch conditions to draft a team within a limited budget. This active, data-driven decision-making was deemed far removed from a passive game of chance. This precedent has been upheld across the country.
The parallels with opinion trading are striking:
- Data Analysis: Fantasy sports users analyse player stats; opinion traders analyse event probabilities, market sentiment, and real-world data.
- Strategic Decisions: Fantasy users optimize team selection; opinion traders make strategic entry and exit decisions based on fluctuating prices.
- Performance Hierarchy: Fantasy platforms have leaderboards showing consistently successful players; opinion trading has the OpTraS score, proving a similar skill gradient.
Just as courts recognized the predominance of skill in fantasy sports, the legal arguments for opinion trading follow the same logical path.
The Global and Indian Regulatory Landscape
A Global Perspective
Globally, prediction markets operate under varied regulatory frameworks.
- United States: In the U.S., these platforms are generally treated as a form of binary option trading. They are overseen not by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates derivatives and futures contracts. Platforms like Kalshi operate under CFTC oversight but face strict rules, especially concerning politically sensitive events.
- United Kingdom: The UK employs a dual system. If a platform offers products structured like financial instruments (e.g., spread betting), it falls under the purview of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). If it more closely resembles betting on event outcomes, it is regulated by the Gambling Commission, which mandates betting licenses and responsible gambling measures.
The Indian Conundrum
In India, opinion trading currently exists in a regulatory grey area. The governing law, the Public Gambling Act of 1867, is archaic and ill-equipped to handle modern digital gaming. While it prohibits games of chance, games of skill are exempt.
This ambiguity has led to several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in various High Courts, arguing that opinion trading is a game of chance. These cases have now been consolidated and transferred to the Supreme Court in the matter of Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati v. Union of India & Others[5], which will be pivotal in determining the industry’s future.
Meanwhile, regulatory bodies have taken differing stances. In a circular dated April 29, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) clarified that these apps do not fall under its jurisdiction as they do not involve securities. Conversely, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has raised concerns about misleading advertisements that blur the lines between gaming and finance, often targeting uninformed consumers.
The Path Forward: Regulation Over Prohibition
With a market projected to reach USD 7.6 billion by 2028 and over USD 120 million in projected revenue for FY 2024-25, opinion trading is no longer a niche hobby; it is a burgeoning sunrise sector. It has attracted over 35 global investors and is creating new digital employment opportunities.
Given the strong evidence of skill, strategic depth, and a clear learning curve, a blanket ban would be a regressive step. It would not only stifle a data-driven innovation in the gaming economy but also push the activity underground, stripping away any potential for consumer protection.
The prudent path forward is regulation, not prohibition. A clear regulatory framework could address the legitimate concerns while harnessing the sector’s economic potential. Such a framework should include:
- Clear Guidelines: Defining what constitutes a game of skill versus chance.
- Consumer Protection: Mandating robust age verification, responsible gaming messages, and transparent disclosure of risks.
- Advertising Standards: Enforcing ASCI’s guidelines to prevent misleading marketing.
- Nodal Agency: Appointing a specific government body to oversee the sector, ensuring compliance and fairness.
By creating a regulated environment, India can foster responsible growth, protect consumers, and establish itself as a leader in this innovative new field. The debate over opinion trading is more than just a legal squabble; it’s a reflection of how we adapt our laws and attitudes to a rapidly evolving digital world. The final decision will not only shape an industry but will also define our approach to skill, risk, and innovation in the 21st century.
Notes:
[1] https://www.cse.iitd.ac.in/~bagchi/Probo-Skill-Tech-Report-March2025.pdf.
[2] AIR 1968 SC 825.
[3] AIR 1996 SC 1153.
[4] CWP No. 7559, 2017.
[5] S.L.P. (C) No. 4385, 2025.
Author Bio
