-
CFD Trading Vs Sport Betting
Assalamualaikum,
Alhamdulillah, formerly you have discussed enough to establish the understanding of necessary rulings regarding Cfd trading, now using that exact criterion,
Iam getting confused with these two objections.
1. CFD vs Sports Betting*
In Sport bet, we analyze the Data & probabilities, Transaction is Zero-sum aswell and the outcome is not based on random chances like a conventional games of Dice and Roulette wheel,
Whereas we do All this in CFD trading as well!, how can CFD trading be Permissible if Sport betting is not?
Or alternatively is the Sport Betting also permissible in your criterion ?
2.B-BOOK BROKER( Broker is your Direct Counter party)*
Using your established understanding and methadology, Assuming you understand B-book model of brokers, we can conclude that even a B-book Broker model is permissible if no deceit or fraud is involved?
-
9 Replies
-
CFD Trading Vs Sport Betting
updated 3 weeks, 6 days ago
3 Members
·
9
Replies
-
Respected Sir @Umer25 your scholarly reply would be vital for my irl decision
-
1. CFD vs sports betting
Sports betting is not permissible on this criterion. Betting on sports by nature is a game of chance resulting in confirm loss of money to someone else depending on happening/non-happening of a certain outcome being played as a game of luck — hence creating the moral problem.
The structural reason — trade versus betting
A trade transfers a risk that already existed. A bet manufactures one that did not.
DAX price risk exists in the world whether or not you trade. Real businesses, funds and pension schemes carry it and need to lay it off. Your position absorbs some of it — you are taking on risk that someone needed to shed. That is the service, and it is your moral title.
Price versus odds
A CFD price is a price: one number, formed by supply and demand across thousands of participants, identical for everyone, carrying information about real economic value. Betting odds are not the price of anything — the bookmaker sets them to balance his book and guarantee his margin.
2. The B-book broker
Please see the following reply:
Discussion 93315 • Reply 121591
-
Comparing the two side by side, CFD trading and sports betting share nearly every structural feature that matters: in both, the trader/bettor is an external party with no role in producing the outcome; the outcome is uncertain; no asset or service is exchanged; the relationship is zero-sum (one side’s gain is exactly the other’s loss); and both are commonly regulated and operating under legal contracts.
An explanation would be helpful.
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by
Rohail Amjad.
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by
-
I don’t think Mr UMER has any further explanation of ghamidi sahabs criterion and cant effectively distinguish between Cfds and Futures… Risk tranfer & bearing logic can be applied to Futures but not CFDs,
And you are right CFD & Sports bet has no clear distinction except the existing and created risk argument…
-
What I think Mr Umer meant by risk transfer vs risk creation in sports bet is this: a trade only counts as risk-transfer if it’s moving a risk that already existed in the world onto someone willing to bear it — a gold company doesn’t know where prices will go, it needs to shed that uncertainty, and a counterparty stepping in to bear it (long or short) is providing a real service. A sports bet doesn’t do this. No one needed the outcome of a football match “managed”, the stake is invented purely so two people can wager on it. Pre-existing risk vs synthetic/artificial risk, that’s the actual dividing line, not chance vs skill.
Where I think this resolves the CFD vs futures gap you raised: the objection only bites hard against B-book CFDs, where the broker is your direct counterparty and there’s genuinely no hedger anywhere in the chain — that setup does collapse into something structurally close to a bet. But with an A-book broker, orders are routed straight to real liquidity providers, not absorbed by the broker itself. And a liquid market like XAUUSD isn’t a closed loop between two speculators — it’s a pooled system where real gold companies, banks, and retail traders all sit together. Risk-transfer doesn’t require your specific trade to be matched 1:1 against one miner’s specific hedge; it works the same way it does in any deep market, including regulated futures — hedgers and speculators share the same liquidity pool, and speculators add the depth that lets hedgers transact efficiently in the first place. So the risk-transfer logic that justifies futures genuinely extends to A-book CFDs on an asset with real economic weight like gold, it just doesn’t extend to B-book setups, or to instruments with no underlying hedger population at all (a memecoin CFD, for instance, wouldn’t clear this test the way XAUUSD does).
That’s also why I don’t think the CFD vs futures distinction is really about the contract label — it’s about whether the specific setup (broker model + asset) actually connects you to real risk being shed, or whether it’s just two parties inventing a wager. On that test, A-book XAUUSD lands on the futures side of the line, even without an expiry date while sports betting fails that test.
-
@Umer25 , sir please judge how valid my point is and whether it passes Sir Ghamidi’s framework.
-
Would suggest to please avoid A.I Copypasted replies for the sake of the geniuness of the argument.
-
Argument was mine, grammarly just articulated it to look more professional. Sorry if you found it off.
-
Using A.I to polish your own reasoning and answers is fine. Generating A.I responses from scratch for such critical discussions especially those related to religion would indeed be wrong.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
