TOTAL VOLUME:

$134b

24H VOL:

$103,397,351

24H TRANSACTIONS:

2,388,728,490

OPEN INTEREST:

$1,410,176,180

399,592

Markets across

30,097

events

MATCHED EVENTS:

2,622

PLATFORM COVERAGE:

5

Polymarket:

39%

VS.

Kalshi:

61%

BETA
Dashboards
Insights
Indices
Tour
All
Trending
Breaking
New
Ending Soon
Politics
Sports
Crypto
Companies
Elections
Financials
Economics
Other
Entertainment
Science and Technology
Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto
polymarket
kalshi

Who will win the Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto match?

Volume:
$4,505,978

Matias Soto

 - Kalshi

Matias Soto - Kalshi

1W

News

Positive

Negative

Neutral

Hover marker for details

Vol.

·

Resolved Jun 30, 2026

Closed: Jun 30, 3:44 PM EST

kalshi

Kalshi

View
Join Kalshi and score $25 for your first trade.
Outcome
Trade
Chance %
Price
Spread
Liquidity
Volume
24h
7d
Open Interest
Ends in
Result
kalshi

Matias Soto

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
100¢
N/A
$1,927,959
N/A
N/A
$748,178
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 1 Winner

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
$249
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 2 O/U 8.5

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
$30
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Total Sets: O/U 2.5

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
$7
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
kalshi

Mwendwa Mbithi

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
100¢
N/A
$2,250,252
N/A
N/A
$709,814
Settled
No
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
$327,377
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set Handicap +/-1.5

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
$44
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set Handicap +/-1.5

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
$29
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 1 O/U 8.5

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
$10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 1 O/U 9.5

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
$10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 1 O/U 10.5

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
$10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Completed Match

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.5¢
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Match O/U 21.5

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Match O/U 22.5

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Match O/U 23.5

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 2 O/U 9.5

View
100%
Yes 100¢No 0¢
0.1¢
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 2 O/U 10.5

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
polymarket

Quito: Mwendwa Mbithi vs Matias Soto Set 2 Winner

View
0%
Yes 0¢No 100¢
—
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Settled
Yes
Total markets: 18

Intro

This market tracks the set handicap outcome in the professional tennis match between Mwendwa Mbithi and Matias Soto, with the leading outcome of Mbithi (-1.5) versus Soto (+1.5) at 100.0% consensus probability across Polymarket and Kalshi, as aggregated by PredictionHero and resolved via ATP Tour official scores. Watch for the match scheduled June 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM ET in the ATP Challenger Quito tournament, with final resolution expected by July 6, 2026.

PredictionHero - Resolution Divergence Alerts (RDA)

Divergence Detected

Issue: Polymarket's completion market excludes forfeits and retirements (resolves No), while Kalshi's winner markets include them (resolve Yes). This creates a scope mismatch on what constitutes a valid match resolution.Hero tip: If you are long the Polymarket completed match contract and short Kalshi winner contracts (or vice versa), a retirement after play begins creates a loss on one side. Hedge by understanding the players' injury history and recent form. Consider reducing exposure if either player has a known injury concern.

Critical divergence points:

  • Polymarket: Completion market (Q1) requires full match completion through normal play with no forfeits, walkovers, or retirements. Resolves No if match is not completed for any reason. Head-to-head winner market (Q4) resolves to the advancing player if one retires/defaults after match begins, but resolves 50-50 on walkover. Key Quote: 'If a forfeit of any kind occurs, including but not limited to a walkover or retirement, this market will resolve No.'
  • Kalshi: Winner markets (Q1-Q2) resolve Yes if either player wins after a ball has been played, with no explicit exclusion for retirement or default scenarios. Implicitly includes all forms of match conclusion once play has commenced. Key Quote: 'If Mwendwa Mbithi wins the Mbithi vs Soto professional tennis match in the 2026 ATP Challenger Quito Round Of 32 after a ball has been played, then the market resolves to Yes.'
Our PredictionHero Resolution Divergence Alerts (RDA) are there to help users identify potential differences across platforms. They do not replace or supersede the official rules and description of any prediction market. Users are solely responsible for reviewing and understanding the applicable rules and resolution criteria before placing any trade or bet. If you notice a potential inconsistency, discrepancy, or error in an alert, please report it to our team so we can review and improve the accuracy of our data.

Polymarket

This market refers to the tennis match between Mwendwa Mbithi and Matias Soto in the Quito, originally scheduled for June 29, 2026 at 11:00AM ET. This market will resolve to 'Mwendwa Mbithi' if Mwendwa Mbithi advances against Matias Soto. This market will resolve to 'Matias Soto' if Matias Soto advances against Mwendwa Mbithi. 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.

Kalshi

This event resolves based on the result of the Mbithi vs Soto professional tennis match in the 2026 ATP Challenger Quito Round of 32, contingent upon a ball being played to signal the match has officially commenced. If the match does not occur before play begins—due to player injury, walkover, forfeiture, or other cancellation—the market will resolve to a fair price per standard rules. Should the match be postponed or delayed, the market remains open and will close following the rescheduled match completion, provided this occurs within two weeks of the original date.

Frequently asked questions

Prediction markets and traditional sportsbooks price risk differently. Sportsbooks set odds to balance their book and lock in profit margins, while prediction markets reflect real-time supply and demand from traders betting their own capital. This market's odds emerge from thousands of independent participants adjusting positions based on new information, injury reports, fighter form, and public sentiment. Sportsbook odds often lag behind prediction market moves because they update less frequently and carry built-in margins. For sharp bettors, comparing this market's consensus price to sportsbook lines can reveal value opportunities before traditional odds adjust.

Polymarket and Kalshi operate under different market designs and regulatory frameworks, which can create temporary 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. Each platform attracts distinct user bases with varying risk appetites, time horizons, and information sets. Liquidity depth, fee structures, and contract specifications also vary—for example, one platform may offer tighter spreads or faster settlement, drawing different trader profiles. These structural differences mean the same event can trade at slightly different implied probabilities across venues. Arbitrage traders often exploit these gaps, but friction costs and platform-specific rules prevent prices from converging instantly.