Next James Bond Odds: Who Will Be Cast As 007? The AI Model Verdict
The search for the next James Bond is the rare casting race with its own prediction market, and Kalshi has turned it into one: a separate yes/no contract on every rumored 007, plus companion markets for the villain, the Bond girl, and even the title-theme singer. The crowd has crowned a clear favorite in Callum Turner. I asked six AI models to score the whole board without letting any of them see a price. They landed somewhere the market has not: the most likely next Bond, they think, is a name that is not on the board at all.
The Quick Answer
Kalshi traders make Callum Turner the runaway favorite near 38 cents, about a 21% chance once you strip out the field's overround. Our price-blind, six-model panel fades him all the way to 6.8%. The reason is the single biggest number on this page: the panel puts roughly 45% on the next Bond being someone not listed on the market — because Amazon MGM and director Denis Villeneuve are reported to want a relatively unknown British actor, and no actor has been signed. Among the named contenders, the panel's favorite is not Turner but Harris Dickinson at 7.6%, a name the market has all but ignored.
The panel's read in one line: the market is betting on the most famous name in the room. The models think the job was written for the person nobody in the room has heard of yet.
- Market Favorite: Callum Turner, ~38¢ (about 21% once the field's overround is stripped out)
- Model Favorite Among Named Actors: Harris Dickinson, 7.6%, versus a de-vigged market price near 2.5% — the board's biggest value gap
- The Real Story: "someone not on this list," a ~45% panel residual, the single largest outcome on the board
- The Market Darling The Panel Fades Hardest: Callum Turner, 6.8% model versus a 21% de-vigged price, because he is 36 (outside the reported age brief) and was publicly doubted by a former Bond casting director
- The Honest Caveat: this is a wide-open, years-from-settling market; every number here is a probability on a race where, by the studio's own account, no decision has been made.
The full 25-name actor board, the companion markets for every other major role, the dark horses, and a plain-English guide to reading these prices are all below.
Get the re-scored board when Bond 26 casting is announced. We grade every one of these calls in public once the market settles. Drop your email in the box at the end of this article and we will send the updated verdict the day the studio names its 007 — no charge, no pick spam.
New to event-contract markets? Start with our explainer on how to bet sports on Kalshi; this piece assumes you already know how a yes/no contract settles.
The Market At A Glance
| Venue | Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated event-contract exchange (18+; availability varies by state, as of August 2026) |
| The Event | "Next James Bond film: Actor cast as James Bond," a separate yes/no contract per actor (Kalshi event KXBOND-30) |
| The Contract | Each market resolves YES only if that person is cast as James Bond before January 1, 2030, per Kalshi's settlement rules; spin-offs and unauthorized productions do not count |
| Production Status | Amazon MGM controls the franchise; Denis Villeneuve directs, with Amy Pascal and David Heyman producing and Steven Knight writing; casting is led by Nina Gold |
| Prices Below As Of | August 3, 2026 (prices on this page refresh during the casting news cycle; the "as of" stamp carries the evidence) |
These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Kalshi event contracts trade on a CFTC-regulated exchange; you must be 18+ and in an eligible state to participate.
What Actually Decides This Casting
Before any name, three facts about this Bond decide how the panel priced the board, and they explain why the models refuse to follow the crowd onto the favorite.
- This Is A Top-Down Reboot, Not A Sequel. Amazon MGM took full creative control of the franchise in 2025 and handed it to Villeneuve for a clean reimagining. That single fact reaches every market on this page: it is why the models fade the returning Craig-era supporting cast in the M, Q, and Moneypenny sections, and why "the way it used to be" is a weak prior for any role.
- The Brief, By Multiple Accounts, Is "Unknown." The trades that cover this beat report Amazon and Villeneuve want a relatively unknown British-Isles actor, roughly late-20s to early-30s. Casting director Nina Gold built her reputation discovering exactly that profile. A market can only list names people already know, so if the brief holds, the correct answer is structurally one the board cannot name.
- Nobody Has Been Cast. As of mid-2026, no actor had been signed and reportedly no formal actor meetings had even happened; another audition round was expected around August 2026, with an announcement speculated for late 2026 and filming in 2027. Every price here is on an open search, not a leaked decision.
There is one more truth the panel kept circling, and it is the crux of the fade: the trade reports openly conflict. Variety framed a British-under-30 search and floated Tom Holland, Jacob Elordi, and Harris Dickinson; The Hollywood Reporter and Men's Journal reported Callum Turner, who is 36, as the frontrunner; and a former Bond casting director then publicly doubted both Turner and Elordi. When the sourcing disagrees this much, no single name deserves the confidence a 38-cent price implies.
Here is the full actor board, sorted by the model blend, with the market price and the de-vigged comparison.
The Board: Next James Bond (Actor)
| Actor | Market | De-vigged | AI blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harris Dickinson | 4.5¢ | 2.5% | 7.6% |
| Callum Turner | 38.5¢ | 21.2% | 6.8% |
| Aaron Pierre | 8.5¢ | 4.7% | 3.8% |
| Tom Blyth | 5.5¢ | 3.0% | 3.5% |
| Tom Holland | 8.5¢ | 4.7% | 3.2% |
| Jack Lowden | 3.5¢ | 1.9% | 3.0% |
| Aaron Taylor-Johnson | 18.5¢ | 10.2% | 2.8% |
| Josh O'Connor | 8.0¢ | 4.4% | 2.8% |
| George MacKay | 8.5¢ | 4.7% | 2.8% |
| Jacob Elordi | 10.5¢ | 5.8% | 2.1% |
| Nicholas Hoult | 4.0¢ | 2.2% | 1.9% |
| Damson Idris | 6.5¢ | 3.6% | 1.7% |
| Scott Rose-Marsh | 1.5¢ | 0.8% | 1.7% |
| Henry Ashton | 4.5¢ | 2.5% | 1.7% |
| James Norton | 6.5¢ | 3.6% | 1.4% |
| Tom Francis | 9.5¢ | 5.2% | 1.4% |
| Regé-Jean Page | 5.5¢ | 3.0% | 1.3% |
| Theo James | 6.5¢ | 3.6% | 1.2% |
| Jonathan Bailey | 3.5¢ | 1.9% | 1.2% |
| Richard Madden | 3.5¢ | 1.9% | 1.0% |
| Henry Cavill | 4.5¢ | 2.5% | 0.7% |
| Tom Hardy | 2.5¢ | 1.4% | 0.5% |
| Cillian Murphy | 1.5¢ | 0.8% | 0.4% |
| Idris Elba | 4.5¢ | 2.5% | 0.4% |
| Charlie Hunnam | 2.5¢ | 1.4% | 0.4% |
| Someone Not Listed / Not Cast By 2030 | — | — | ~45% |
These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Market figures are raw YES quotes from Kalshi and include the exchange's bid/ask spread, so the 25 listed prices sum to about 181 cents, well over 100%. The de-vigged column re-scales each raw price by that ~181¢ total; the worked example is below.
A word on that last row. It is the whole point of the board. Because this is a real casting search with no decision made and a stated preference for an unknown, the panel's largest single probability is not any actor above — it is the field. No seat priced it below 44%; the blend is about 45%. That is not a hedge; it is the models' actual best guess about how this ends.
Every Seat's Number (Actor)
| Actor | Market | Opus | Sonnet | Fable | GLM | Kimi | DeepSeek | Blend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harris Dickinson | 4.5¢ | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 11.0 | 7.6% |
| Callum Turner | 38.5¢ | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 6.0 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 6.8% |
| Aaron Pierre | 8.5¢ | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.8% |
| Tom Blyth | 5.5¢ | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 3.5% |
| Tom Holland | 8.5¢ | 3.0 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 3.2% |
| Aaron Taylor-Johnson | 18.5¢ | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 2.8% |
| Jacob Elordi | 10.5¢ | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.1% |
| The Other 18 Named Actors (Lowden, O'Connor, MacKay, Hoult, Idris, Rose-Marsh, Ashton, Norton, Francis, Page, James, Bailey, Madden, Cavill, Hardy, Murphy, Elba, Hunnam) | 1.5–9.5¢ Ea | ≤3% each | ||||||
| Someone Not Listed | — | 47 | 46 | 45 | 44 | 44 | 45 | ~45% |
These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Full per-name numbers for all 25 actors are in the board table above.
A note on the panel. Our standard Model Verdict lineup runs eight seats. On this run, two were unavailable: the ChatGPT and Gemini seats were not installed on the machine that produced these verdicts. This board therefore runs on six models: Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet, Claude Fable, GLM, Kimi, and DeepSeek. All six scored the field on August 3, 2026, without seeing any prices, then read one another's anonymized reasoning in a second round and were free to revise. Every model's number here also lands in our back-tested Model Verdict scoreboard, where past price-blind calls are graded against settled results so the method is measured over time, not just asserted.
The one number that matters most: the panel's ~45% on "someone not listed" is larger than the market's entire de-vigged top four combined. The models are not disagreeing with the crowd about which famous actor wins; they are saying the crowd is betting in the wrong category.
With the board in view, three stories carry it: the favorite the models back among named actors, the favorite the market backs and the models fade, and the unknown that beats them both. Here is the case for each.
Harris Dickinson: The Named Actor The Panel Actually Backs
If the panel has a favorite it can name, it is Harris Dickinson at 7.6%, narrowly ahead of Callum Turner and priced by the market at barely a third of that. Every seat put him between 6.5% and 11%, the tightest high-end cluster on the board.
The case is that he is the rare name that fits the brief and the buzz. Dickinson is British, around 30, and a rising prestige-film lead rather than a franchise-defining star, which is close to a literal description of the reported search. He was named in the Variety reporting that framed the under-30 British angle, so he carries real trade signal, but he is not so famous that casting him would contradict Amazon's own "unknown" framing the way a Marvel lead would. The panel's read is that if the studio blinks and casts a name the public already half-recognizes, Dickinson is the most likely such name, and the market's 2.5% is simply mispriced against that.
The case against: "best fit for the brief" is not the same as "will get the part," and Dickinson has never carried a tentpole. If Villeneuve wants a true unknown, Dickinson is on the wrong side of the line just as Turner is; if he wants a bankable name, Dickinson is not it. That squeeze is exactly why the panel keeps him at 7.6% rather than double digits, a value flag, not a prediction of a win.
Callum Turner: The Market Darling The Models Won't Follow
The crowd's favorite is Callum Turner, at roughly 38 cents and a de-vigged 21%. The panel makes him 6.8% — the widest market-versus-model gap on the actor board, and the reason it exists is instructive.
Turner has the strongest single signal available: The Hollywood Reporter and Men's Journal named him the frontrunner. But two facts cut against it. First, he is 36, comfortably outside the late-20s-to-early-30s window the studio is reportedly targeting; a Bond meant to headline a decade of films is usually cast young, and this reboot's own brief says so. Second, a former Bond casting director publicly poured cold water on him in the same cycle. The models read "one enthusiastic trade report, contradicted by an insider, on an actor who misses the stated age target" as far weaker than a 21% price implies. In the convergence round, the seat that had been most bullish on Turner talked itself down, not up.
The case against the fade: frontrunner reports exist for a reason, and if the studio's real target is a proven, camera-ready leading man rather than a true newcomer, Turner is the best such candidate and 38 cents is closer to right than 6.8%. The panel's fade is a bet that the "unknown" brief is real, not a claim that Turner is unqualified.
What would flip this board: a single credible trade report that a named actor has actually been offered or has tested for the role. The panel's ~45% residual is built on "no decision yet"; the day that stops being true, the field's mass collapses onto whichever name the news attaches, and every number here is re-scored.
The Unknown: Why "Nobody On The List" Is The Model Favorite
The largest bet on the board is not an actor; it is the absence of one. The panel blends "someone not listed" to about 45%, and it did not get there by hedging. Three fetched facts drive it. The reboot is a clean-slate reimagining, so continuity offers no candidate. The stated brief is an unknown in a specific, narrow demographic. And the casting director, Nina Gold, is famous precisely for finding faces the public does not know yet. History rhymes: Daniel Craig was a left-field choice met with public skepticism before Casino Royale, and the franchise has repeatedly reached past its own shortlist. A prediction market can price only the names it lists, so a search built to end on an unlisted name will, if it succeeds, resolve every listed contract to NO. The panel is not being clever here; it is taking the studio at its word.
Dark Horses The Panel Won't Dismiss
A field this wide rewards looking past the top three. A few names drew real numbers from at least one seat despite trading near the floor:
- Aaron Pierre (3.8% Blend, 8.5¢). British, rising fast off prestige work, and the cleanest fit for a studio that wants a fresh lead; his 3.8% is the third-highest blend of any named actor, behind only Dickinson and Turner, and GLM priced him above his de-vigged 4.7% market number.
- Tom Blyth (3.5% Blend, 5.5¢). Young, British-Isles, and exactly the "you sort of know the face" profile a reboot tends to elevate; DeepSeek gave him 5.5%, well above his de-vigged 3%.
- Jack Lowden (3.0% Blend, 3.5¢). A lesser-known British actor the panel rated above his market price (1.9% de-vigged), the kind of name that fits the brief far better than the A-listers the crowd keeps recycling. George MacKay (2.8%, 8.5¢) is another such fresh-face name, though the panel prices him just under his market number.
- The A-List Floor (Cavill 0.7%, Hardy 0.5%, Elba 0.4%, Murphy 0.4%). The panel's clearest anti-consensus: every famous, older, franchise-sized name sits at the bottom, because each one contradicts the reboot's own stated search. The market's willingness to pay 2–3% for them is, in the models' view, nostalgia, not analysis.
None of these is a prediction of a win. They are the places the panel thinks the market has the shape of the search wrong, which is the honest reason a field is worth reading past its top line.
The Rest Of The Ensemble: Villain, Bond Girl, And The Legacy Roles
Kalshi runs companion markets for the whole Bond 26 cast under the same event. One reboot fact ties them together: because Amazon is rebuilding from scratch, the panel fades every returning Craig-era incumbent below the market's price. Each market below is its own field, priced price-blind by the same six models; residuals ("someone not listed") are large across the board because, again, nothing is cast.
Villain
The market's favorite is Cillian Murphy at 21.5¢, floated on his Peaky Blinders history with writer Steven Knight, but Murphy laughed the idea off publicly. The panel's top pick instead is Barry Keoghan, on a near-tie with Murphy but at a lower price.
| Villain | Market | De-vigged | AI blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barry Keoghan | 13.0¢ | 14.1% | 9.5% |
| Cillian Murphy | 21.5¢ | 23.2% | 9.3% |
| Oscar Isaac | 12.5¢ | 13.5% | 6.7% |
| Idris Elba | 18.0¢ | 19.5% | 5.1% |
| Adam Driver | 7.5¢ | 8.1% | 5.0% |
| Rosamund Pike | 10.0¢ | 10.8% | 4.2% |
| Peter Dinklage | 10.0¢ | 10.8% | 2.7% |
Model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. This field's raw prices sum below 100¢, so the de-vigged column scales up.
Bond Girl
The most-discussed name is Margaret Qualley, fueled by a 2025 Oscars Bond tribute, with Sydney Sweeney close behind; the panel keeps both on top but well under their market prices, and rates the field ("someone not listed") at about 44%.
| Bond Girl | Market | De-vigged | AI blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Margaret Qualley | 34.0¢ | 22.7% | 8.5% |
| Sydney Sweeney | 22.0¢ | 14.7% | 7.5% |
| Anya Taylor-Joy | 14.5¢ | 9.7% | 4.7% |
| Jodie Comer | 7.0¢ | 4.7% | 4.4% |
| Florence Pugh | 9.0¢ | 6.0% | 4.2% |
| Daisy Edgar-Jones | 8.0¢ | 5.4% | 3.5% |
Top six of a 16-name field; model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
M, Q, And Moneypenny: The Panel Fades The Incumbents
These three markets favor the Craig-era holdovers — Ralph Fiennes (M), Ben Whishaw (Q), and Naomie Harris (Moneypenny). The panel discounts all three: a top-down reboot has no obligation to bring anyone back, and Fiennes himself framed his interest as conditional on the nature of the reimagining. Where the market prices incumbency as a near-default, the models price it as a coin flip at best.
| Role | Market favorite | Market | De-vigged | AI blend | Panel's notable challenger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | Ralph Fiennes | 33.5¢ | 47.5% | 18.7% | Olivia Colman, 11.5% (vs 13.5% de-vigged) |
| Q | Ben Whishaw | 30.5¢ | 37.7% | 15.3% | Andrew Scott, 7.8% |
| Moneypenny | Naomie Harris | 14.0¢ | 17.9% | 11.5% | Jodie Comer, 7.9% |
| Felix Leiter | Boyd Holbrook | 12.0¢ | 16.3% | 4.8% | Wyatt Russell, 6.8% (the panel's top Felix) |
Model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Felix Leiter is the most wide-open role on the board — the panel's residual there is roughly 64%, and it prefers Wyatt Russell to the market's Boyd Holbrook.
The Theme Song: The Panel's Single Biggest Disagreement
The most striking reversal on the whole page is not an actor at all — it is the title-theme artist, the one board where the panel does not just fade the favorite but crowns a name the market has near the bottom. The market's favorite is Olivia Dean at 33¢, roughly a 19% de-vigged chance. The panel puts her at 1.8%. Instead, every seat backed Oasis, whom Amazon reportedly has at the top of its wishlist and whose Liam Gallagher has publicly hyped a Bond tune — a fetched fact the market has apparently shrugged off.
| Theme Artist | Market | De-vigged | AI blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oasis | 8.5¢ | 4.9% | 16.8% |
| Dua Lipa | 18.5¢ | 10.7% | 7.0% |
| Lana Del Rey | 17.5¢ | 10.1% | 3.9% |
| Sam Fender | 4.5¢ | 2.6% | 3.9% |
| Raye | 23.0¢ | 13.3% | 3.7% |
| Olivia Dean | 33.0¢ | 19.1% | 1.8% |
Top of a 22-name field; model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Note: this market is the film's title theme, not the Lana Del Rey-performed theme for the 2026 "007 First Light" video game, which is a separate product.
The Convergence Round: The Turner Debate In Miniature
These numbers came in two passes. Each model scored the actor board blind, then read the other seats' anonymized reasoning and was free to revise. Most held. The movement that happened tells the board's story.
The seats split into two camps on the market's favorite. One seat had priced Callum Turner low at 4%, treating him as just another name; after reading the panel, it revised up to 6%, writing that the group had "consistently weighted him higher" as the one actor with actual frontrunner reporting. At the same time, the most Turner-friendly seats revised the other way: one cut Jacob Elordi from 5% to 3% (Australian, not British-Isles, and publicly doubted) and trimmed Turner from 8% to 7% on the same age-and-doubt logic; another cut Tom Holland from 5% to 4%, writing that "the Villeneuve/Nina Gold relative-unknown preference cuts harder against a global superstar than I weighted." A third seat held every number, finding no new fact to move it. The result is not conformity — it is a panel that argued itself into a tighter fade of the favorite and an even larger unknown residual, up from about 42% to 45%, after seeing the group's reasoning.
How To Read A Kalshi Field Price Like This
The models can tell you where they disagree with the crowd, but the number in front of you still has to be worth understanding. Here is how to read a field price like the one above, plus the honest friction of a market that will not settle for years.
Work an example. Callum Turner shows a 38.5-cent YES price. That is not a clean "38% chance." On Kalshi the YES and NO quotes carry a spread, and across a mutually exclusive field the individual YES prices collectively add up to far more than 100 cents — here the 25 actor contracts sum to about 181 cents. To get closer to a fair read, re-scale each name against that total: Turner at 38.5 cents is really about 21% once you strip the overround out (38.5 divided by 1.81). That is why the panel's 6.8% reads as a true fade rather than a rounding difference, and why Harris Dickinson's 7.6% against a de-vigged 2.5% is the board's real value flag.
| Actor | Raw YES price | De-vigged (÷1.81) | Model blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Callum Turner | 38.5¢ | 21.2% | 6.8% |
| Harris Dickinson | 4.5¢ | 2.5% | 7.6% |
| Aaron Taylor-Johnson | 18.5¢ | 10.2% | 2.8% |
| Jacob Elordi | 10.5¢ | 5.8% | 2.1% |
De-vigged column re-scales each raw price by the field's ~181¢ total to strip the overround. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
That habit of reading a fair, vig-free version of every number is line shopping applied to a field board: checking what a spread-free version of a price looks like before you trust it, the same way you would convert Kalshi's cents into real odds for comparison. OddsShopper's live odds screen and free expert picks today do that price-comparison work for weekly game slates, while a long-dated casting board like this one is priced on Kalshi itself. If you want the same price-blind treatment applied to another entertainment race, our 2026 Ballon d'Or model verdict and Game of the Year model verdict score those fields the same way — and the whole Bond timeline hinges on Dune: Part Three's release, which is what frees Villeneuve to start casting. A few honest points before anyone acts on a number above:
- Eligibility. Kalshi is a CFTC-regulated event-contract exchange, not a sportsbook. You must be 18+ and located in an eligible state, and availability varies by state and can change.
- Liquidity And Spread. Many names on this board are thin, with wide bid/ask gaps, so a headline "price" on a longshot is softer than a single number suggests.
- Time And Capital. This market can run until 2030, so any position ties up money for years with no interim payout.
- Not Advice. Everything here is analysis for information, not a recommendation to trade. If you want the fuller comparison of how these exchanges stack up against traditional books, see our Kalshi vs. sportsbooks breakdown. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Every number in this piece gets graded in public once the market settles; you can check our past calls on the full Model Verdict scoreboard.
FAQ
Who is the favorite to be the next James Bond? On Kalshi, Callum Turner is the runaway market favorite near 38 cents, about a 21% chance once the field's overround is stripped out. Our six-model AI panel disagrees sharply, blending him to just 6.8%. The panel's single largest probability, roughly 45%, is that the next Bond is someone not listed on the market at all, because Amazon and director Denis Villeneuve have signalled they want a relatively unknown British actor, and casting director Nina Gold is known for discovering fresh faces.
When will the next James Bond be announced? No actor has been signed as of August 2026, and reportedly no formal actor meetings had taken place by mid-2026. Another round of auditions was expected around August 2026, with a casting announcement speculated for the fourth quarter of 2026 and filming expected to begin in 2027, after Villeneuve wraps Dune Part Three. The Kalshi contract settles YES for whichever actor is cast as James Bond before January 1, 2030.
Is Callum Turner going to be the next James Bond? He is the prediction market's favorite on Kalshi, based on Hollywood Reporter and Men's Journal reports naming him the frontrunner, but our panel is skeptical. Turner is 36, older than the late-20s-to-early-30s range the studio is reportedly targeting, and a former Bond casting director publicly cast doubt on him. The panel keeps him as the top named contender but at only 6.8%, a fraction of his 21% de-vigged market price.
Which named actor does the AI panel like best for James Bond? Harris Dickinson. He blends to 7.6%, narrowly ahead of Callum Turner, and the market prices him at only about 2.5% once the overround is removed, the biggest value gap on the actor board. Dickinson is British, roughly 30, and was named in Variety's reporting on the search, fitting the stated brief better than the more famous names above him in the market.
How does the Kalshi James Bond market settle, and who else does it cover? Kalshi lists a separate yes/no contract for each actor (event KXBOND-30); each resolves YES only if that person is cast as James Bond before January 1, 2030. The same Bond 26 event also has companion markets for the Bond girl, the villain, M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, and the title-theme artist, all scored in the sections above.
How were these model estimates produced? Six AI models scored the entire field without seeing any market prices, working only from production facts and casting-rumor status fetched at runtime, then read each other's anonymized reasoning in a second round and revised. Their per-name numbers were blended into one estimate each. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
The Bottom Line
The market and the models agree on almost nothing here, and that is what makes the board worth reading. The crowd has built its bet around the most famous name attached to the search, Callum Turner, and pays up for a scatter of A-listers underneath him. The panel, working only from the studio's own stated brief — a reboot, an unknown British lead in his late-20s or early-30s, a casting director who hunts newcomers, and no decision yet made — puts its biggest chip on the field, backs Harris Dickinson as the best-value name anyone can actually type into a market, and fades every returning legacy face from the villain chair to M's office. Read it against the caveat the models kept in view: this is an open search years from settling, and the day a real offer leaks, the whole board re-scores. Until then, the sharpest read on this page is the one the market cannot list. If this method is your thing, our Ballon d'Or and Game of the Year verdicts score their fields the same price-blind way, and the full graded scoreboard shows how every settled call actually did.
Hottest Prediction Markets Right Now
- 2028 Democratic presidential nominee · $166M traded
- Rocket Classic Winner · $124M traded
- 2027 Pro Football Champion · $51M traded
- Pro Baseball Champion · $40M traded
- Bitcoin price at the end of 2026 · $30M traded
- 2027 Pro Basketball Champion · $19M traded
Every market above links to our full AI model verdict; browse them all on the OddsShopper prediction markets hub, and see how every settled call actually scored on the full graded scoreboard.
Verdicts generated August 3, 2026, over two rounds. Prices as of August 3, 2026. Panel: Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet, Claude Fable, GLM, Kimi, and DeepSeek, price-blind. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
