Top AI models lose money on Premier League bets, exposing limits in real-world prediction

AI punters lose their shirts on Premier League bets

AI models from Google, OpenAI and Anthropic lost money betting on football matches over a Premier League season, in a new study suggesting even the most advanced systems struggle to analyse the real world over long periods of time. The "KellyBench" report released this week by AI start-up General Reasoning highlights the gap between AI's rapidly advancing capabilities in certain tasks, such as writing software, and its shortcomings in other kinds of human problems. London-based General Reasoning tested eight top AI systems in a virtual recreation of the 2023-24 Premier League season, providing them with detailed historical data and statistics about each team and previous games. The AIs were instructed to build models that would maximise returns and manage risk. The AI "agents" then placed bets on the outcomes of matches and the number of goals scored to test how they could adapt to new events and updated player data as the season progressed. The AI could not access the internet to retrieve results and each was given three attempts to turn a profit. Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 fared best, with an average loss of 11 per cent and nearly breaking even on one attempt. xAI's Grok 4.20 went bankrupt once and failed to complete the other two tries. Google's Gemini 3.1 Pro managed to turn a 34 per cent profit on one go but went bankrupt on another. "Every frontier model we evaluated lost money over the season and many experienced ruin," the authors of the paper concluded, with the AI "systematically underperforming humans" in this scenario. The results offer some comfort to white-collar professionals and businesses who are fretting that AI could take their jobs, as it roils the shares of industries from finance to marketing. Ross Taylor, one of the study's authors and General Reasoning's chief executive, said: "There is so much hype about AI automation but there's not a lot of measurement of putting AI into a longtime horizon setting." He added that many of the benchmarks typically used to test AI are flawed because they are set in "very static environments" that bear little resemblance to the chaos and complexity of the real world. General Reasoning's paper, which has not yet been peer reviewed, provides a counterweight to growing excitement in Silicon Valley about the huge recent leaps in AI's ability to complete computer programming tasks with little to no human intervention. Taylor, a former Meta AI researcher, said: "If you . . . try AI on some real-world tasks, it does really badly . . . Yes, software engineering is very important and economically valuable, but there are lots of other activities with longer time horizons that are important to look at."

AI Can Code, But It Can't Bet: Why Top Models Are Going Broke On Sports Markets - Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN

Frontier AI models are more powerful than ever, but new research suggests some of the hype around autonomous AI may be getting ahead of reality. General Reasoning, an AI research firm, released KellyBench this week, a long-horizon test that places AI agents inside a simulated English Premier League betting market and asks them to grow a bankroll over a full season. The results were not flattering. Every Model Lost Money Every model lost money. Claude did best, finishing down just 11%, but that was still a loss. Grok 4.20 fared worst, burning through nearly 90% of its bankroll. xAI, Elon's company behind Grok, has experienced heavy leadership turnover and scaling challenges in its attempt to catch up with the leading models. The firm rated each model on a 44-point sophistication rubric developed with quantitative betting experts. No model scored higher than a third of available points. "Models struggle to behave coherently over long time horizons," the researchers wrote, "often failing to act upon their analysis or failing to adapt as the world changes." The Gap Between Hype And Capability That gap between hype and reality is already moving markets. Nearly 80,000 tech workers were laid off in the first quarter of 2026 alone, with almost half of those cuts attributed to AI. The Citrini scenario holds that AI agents will rapidly displace white-collar workers, triggering a credit and deflationary spiral. KellyBench may give that thesis pause. If frontier models can't yet beat a football betting market, the timeline for the kind of autonomous financial decision-making the scenario requires may be longer than many assume. On Kalshi, traders currently price the Citrini scenario at around 23%, a market that has attracted over $25 million in volume. A Polymarket contract on whether the AI bubble bursts by December 31, 2026, currently sits at 20%, with $2.5 million traded. If model progress plateaus, that figure may start to look underpriced. What It Means For NVDA KellyBench won't move those stocks today, but as a data point on the limits of current AI capability, it nudges the probability needle away from the Citrini bull case for AI disruption and toward a slower-burn scenario. Image: Shutterstock Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.