TOTAL VOLUME:
$134.2b
24H VOL:
$126,324,530
24H TRANSACTIONS:
2,388,728,490
OPEN INTEREST:
$1,434,646,834
406,019
Markets across
30,401
events
MATCHED EVENTS:
2,689
PLATFORM COVERAGE:
5
Polymarket:
39%
VS.
Kalshi:
61%
Closed: Jun 25, 7:39 PM EST
Kalshi
This event group covers a professional tennis match between Luis Felipe Miguel and Thiago Seyboth Wild at the 2026 ATP Challenger in Piracicaba, scheduled for June 23, 2026 at 10:00 AM ET. Markets span match winner, set winners, game totals across multiple thresholds, set handicaps, and match completion status.
This market refers to the tennis match between Luis Felipe Miguel and Thiago Seyboth Wild in the Piracicaba, originally scheduled for June 23, 2026 at 10:00AM ET. This market will resolve to 'Luis Felipe Miguel' if Luis Felipe Miguel advances against Thiago Seyboth Wild. This market will resolve to 'Thiago Seyboth Wild' if Thiago Seyboth Wild advances against Luis Felipe Miguel. If the match is canceled (not played at all), ends in a tie, or is delayed beyond 7 days from the scheduled date without a winner determined, this market will resolve to 50-50. If the match begins but is not completed, and one player advances due to the opponent's retirement, default, or disqualification, this market will resolve to the player who advances. If the match ends in a walkover (player withdraws before the start and the other advances automatically), this market will resolve to 50-50. The primary resolution source will be official information from the ATP Tour. A consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
The match must have a ball played to be considered official. Resolution occurs based on the winner of the completed Miguel vs Seyboth Wild professional tennis match in the 2026 ATP Challenger Piracicaba Round of 32. If the match does not occur before it starts due to player injury, walkover, forfeiture, or other cancellation, the market resolves to a fair price per the rules. If the match is postponed or delayed, the market remains open and closes after the rescheduled match concludes, provided this occurs within two weeks of the original date.
Polymarket and Kalshi operate under different market designs and user bases, which naturally produces price divergence. Polymarket and Kalshi can show different implied probabilities for the same outcome because of liquidity, fee structure, participant mix, and how each venue defines the contract. Polymarket uses an automated market maker model that can lag during low-liquidity periods, while Kalshi's order-book structure may reflect faster institutional positioning. Regulatory frameworks, fee structures, and the geographic distribution of traders on each platform also influence how quickly prices adjust. These gaps create arbitrage opportunities for sophisticated traders and highlight why monitoring both venues separately provides a more complete picture of market sentiment.