I'm Stephen Grambling, the Gaming Lodging & Leisure analyst at Morgan Stanley, and my next presenter really needs no introduction, but I'm going to do it anyway. Over the past three years, DraftKings has grown revenue at over 50%. CAGR has seen EBITDA go from a loss of about $700 million to now targeting almost $1 billion this year. You've seen free cash flow turn positive, announced a buyback over the past three years, program that is, and it's my pleasure to have Jason Robins, who is the co-founder, chairman, and CEO, to talk about how he's going to keep the momentum going. So thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. Maybe to set the stage, you had an analyst day or investor day about a year and a half ago where you laid out some long-term targets. Perhaps walk us through what some of those targets are, and as we think about how the past year and a half have actually evolved your thinking. Yeah, so back in November 2023, I believe it was, we laid out essentially an existing state. So in the past, we had always been asked which states are going to legalize when. It's very hard to predict. So we said, look, now we're in enough states, we have enough data, we can provide a projection for our existing states, and then an idea of if there's additional legalization, what that could potentially contribute. So on the existing state side, we said by 2028 we believed we could get to $2.1 billion in EBITDA. And I think right now we feel like we are ahead of schedule in terms of the growth. So if you look at the revenue piece, we're about a year ahead of where we projected we were. That is driven by a few things, but the biggest thing has been the unexpected continued customer acquisition, even in some of the older states that we launched several years ago. So we had an absolutely banner customer acquisition year last year, not just in terms of total customers, but also CAC. We had our best CAC we've ever had since entering the online sports betting industry about six years ago, almost now five and a half years ago. So really just a fantastic year, both from a volume efficiency standpoint. I think that's put us ahead of where we thought we'd be. We'll see how much of that is maybe bigger upside in TAM long-term versus just pull forward, if you will, but I think probably at least a little bit of both. So hopefully that's positive for the long-term TAM being even bigger than we thought. The other thing is that we've been able to grow hold rate, I think, a little bit faster than we thought and believe maybe there's a bit more upside than we had projected over that multi-year period in November of 2023. So that's something else that I think has been a positive. So hopefully that means that we can do better than what we thought, but obviously still a few more years to play out there. On that hold piece, I guess, can you help contextualize that? How much of that is the product itself, your trading and risk management versus the type of bets that players are making? I mean, we're always improving our trading and risk management, so some of it's that, but the majority is from the type of bets that customers are making. We've seen dramatic improvement in bet mix. We noted that first part of the NFL season, we'd already seen 500-600 basis points increase in parlay/Same Game Parlay mix year- over- year. That has continued to trend up, both as NFL finished up and also as NBA has gotten into full stride. NFL and NBA are both very player-centric sports, so that lends itself to a lot more Same Game Parlay than you see in certain other sports like college where there's less knowledge of the players. So those are the sports where we really think we have the most upside to move the needle on bet mix, along with a few others, but those are the two biggest ones. We're very excited about the progress we made year- over- year and think that sets us up really well to improve our structural hold this year as well. So now let's turn to the year ahead, 2025. You've given some targets. Maybe lay those out for folks in the room and on the line. What are the building blocks to get to those targets? This year we've said that we believe we will do, I think the midpoint was $6.45 billion of revenue. And I'm so focused on the EBITDA number, sometimes I can't even remember the exact revenue number. I definitely remember the EBITDA. We said we were going to do $900 million in EBITDA. And I feel like the real key building blocks, it's the same stuff we've talked about before. It's handle growth in existing states. It's customer acquisition. It's hold rate. It's promo. Those are the real big ones. There's also some other levers that we believe we can pull that are not baked into the guidance that may provide some upside. And then obviously we're watching closely what happens on the state front, but both new legalization that could result in investment in new markets as well as potential tax changes could also affect the numbers. Based on what we see today, we're tracking really well. We're actually doing a little bit better than we thought in terms of the overall sports outcome side in Q1, so nice to have a tough Q4. We're not done with the quarter yet, so I don't want to celebrate yet. We still have March Madness coming up, which is obviously going to be a big deal. So far, so good on that front. Super Bowl was great. We talked about that. We've had all sorts of numbers we disclosed there, but huge customer acquisition numbers, huge increase year- over- year in handle, big bet mix increase, which led to great hold rate, so really a successful Super Bowl. I think Q1's off to a fantastic start and feel really good about the guide that we put out there and being able to hit those numbers. To dig into one of those, starting with handle, basically the top of the funnel there, there's been a lot of concern that in the fourth quarter, handle growth decelerated. I guess, how do you get comfortable that trends will either re-accelerate to hit your numbers or do we just need to see it flatline to hit the numbers? And what is the interplay between handle and hold rate? I imagine there's got to be some kind of back and forth between them. I'll start with the last point, then I'll come back to the other. Intuitively, it would make sense. We have not yet seen any evidence that whether it's sport outcome, bet mix, whatever the driver is, that months or quarters where we hold higher or lower, that there is a material impact on handle. All that said, we are seeing an acceleration of handle this quarter from last quarter, but I think that is more driven by overall interest because you also saw a big increase in NBA ratings. And I think what happened, and we actually don't have a ton of data on this, but we did what we could to kind of look back at 2020, which is a little bit of a weird year with COVID and everything like that. But I really believe that the election took a lot of tension away from sports. The NBA ratings were down up until then, and they started to steadily accelerate after. I think the Luka trade sparked a lot of interest, and now the ratings are in great spot relative to where they were a quarter ago, and we've seen very similar trajectory on our handle for NBA. And so I feel like right now we're actually a little bit ahead on that front, and we really just kind of need to do as expected from here on out. But there are other things that we're doing, levers that we're trying to pull to increase that. New product features we're launching, marketing treatments, things like that. And then you mentioned hold rate. We are obviously continuing to monitor, but so far we have seen no real benefit or hurting, no real material relationship between hold rate and handle, so we've been cautious. We've not assumed that we're going to accelerate handle as we continue to move up bet mix, but I don't think that we have a reason to think it's going to fall off dramatically either from anything that we've seen. That makes sense. But to answer your question, we actually are above where we need to be run rate now in terms of handle growth. So we really don't need to see it accelerate. We just need to see it hold, and we could even probably handle a little bit of a decline and still be okay. That's helpful. One of the other things you mentioned was that this past year you were surprised a little bit by the customer acquisition, even in existing states. I guess, how are you seeing existing versus new state customer acquisitions so far this year? And then also I'm curious to hear how retention has actually evolved over the past couple of years. So customer acquisition, albeit early this year, is still off to it. It doesn't seem to be letting up too much. We had a fantastic Super Bowl. Definitely NFL is when we acquire the most customers. So in terms of looking at the whole year, next NFL season will probably be more impactful on whether the customer acquisition numbers are better, same, or lower than we thought. But so far, so good. And then I'm sorry, what was the second part of the question? Retention. Retention. Retention also has been fantastic. So I mean, that's probably been the most exciting thing to me about the business is that we see actually positive, meaning over 100% year- over- year handle and revenue retention on existing cohorts, and we continue to see that. So you do get some fall off of customers, but the customers that tend to churn, churn early, and they tend to be the most casual, least valuable customers. Those that remain make up more of what you lost with some incremental spend. So for that reason, our cohorts virtually across the board all have positive, over 100%, I should say, year- over- year handle and revenue retention. You mentioned that some of the levers that you have to pull to drive handle growth and really I would say it's probably player engagement broadly is product. What are some of the major initiatives that you have underway to improve the product in the year ahead? I mean, we have a lot of stuff we're doing that I'm excited about. I can't talk too much about specifics, but one big area we're focused on is live betting. We acquired a company called Simplebet and also a company called Sports IQ, another one called Mustard last year. They all kind of touch different parts, but collectively they're going to really bring, especially Simplebet, a lot to our live betting offering, and that was an area that we already are at the top in. We maybe started a little behind on the parlay side. I think we've since caught up. We're actually playing from ahead on live betting, so we feel like this is an area we can really lean in and have it be something that continues to be a competitive strength for us and something that actually allows us to differentiate from some of our competitors. The other area that I talk to is really continuing to innovate on the parlay side. I mean, there's a lot more we can do there. The biggest thing is just focusing on how do we create really interesting content for people, but merchandising has also been a big focus. And so not as exciting because it's back-end stuff, but we built out a ton of capability when it comes to merchandising, CRM treatments, personalization through machine learning and AI. That's also a huge focal point for us. So not as visible in terms of it's not a new feature, but I think is as important an investment, if not more important than we're making as far as that versus some of the new customer-facing features. On the live betting side, what are the financial implications of that? Does that end up just being purely additive, or does it bring a new player in? And is it generally a higher hold rate, lower hold rate? So close to half, around half our volume now comes from live betting in sports. And we've studied it quite a bit. We have a lot of data now for that reason. We've seen virtually zero evidence that it's cannibalistic. And the other kind of benchmark I have is in the iGaming states that we have both sports and iGaming in. We've measured cannibalization from things like slots on sports betting, and we've seen low single-digit cannibalization. So if that's not cannibalizing, I don't think there's going to be significant cannibalization from live betting. So our conclusion is that we expect it to be almost entirely incremental, if not entirely incremental. It will probably come at a little bit lower average hold rate because it's harder to build parlays with live betting than it is pre-game. But if it's incremental, then that doesn't matter. It's fine, right? So that's the thing we obviously have to keep an eye on, but at least all the evidence and data we've seen so far support that it's almost entirely, if not entirely incremental. I'm sorry, you said 50%? Yeah, around 50% of our total customers. Overseas, that's much higher. Much higher, yeah. So Bet365 had cited 70%-80%, which we believe is roughly representative of the overall market. There's not a ton of public data on it, but that's roughly an estimate of what we think is coming overseas. And arguably U.S. sports are even better built for live betting because there's more stoppages in play and more player-related stats in betting throughout the games. I guess on that point, have you seen any big differences in mix for live betting so far by U.S. sports standards across the different sports? You know, definitely certain sports stand out. And this isn't particularly U.S. sport, but I think it's one in that vein that has a lot of stoppages is tennis. Tennis is a great live betting sport because people are sitting and betting on each point because there's a stoppage between each. And similarly, baseball has great live betting because there's a stop between every pitch and every batter. So there's just so many opportunities for people to bet. On the NFL and NBA front, definitely see a lot of the micro betting, play-by-play, stuff like that growing. I do think that really to unlock that, we need to get the viewing experience in line. So right now, if you're watching the broadcast, there's usually a 20-30-second delay, which is actually slower than what our app displays. So you're like one play ahead on our app. But NFL, for example, just allows on the mobile device for us to show a low latency, low resolution feed that actually solves a lot of that. So I don't think it's as good as if you were able to get it on the big screen, but that's going to come at some point. I know all the leagues understand that that's an important thing to unlock the value of live betting. This could be a product question, but it could also just be broadly for the company and the industry. But the industry analyzes, processes, and changes data real-time, billions of data points real-time, which I think would argue for uses of artificial intelligence in different ways. I guess, what are your thoughts on the best use cases and where are you spending time to try to figure out how to implement AI in the business? I don't think there's a single part of our business that won't be affected and benefit from AI. It's an organization-wide effort. Everyone is looking at how it can benefit what they do. I think some of the particular areas where we found early success are engineering. Right now, we're seeing a low double-digit percentage of our code being written through AI, and that will only go up. As you can imagine, that has the ability to really significantly increase output and productivity in software shipping. We've seen a huge impact on the chatbot that we've launched with customer service. Now we're up to roughly 20% containment with our chatbot. It's a better customer experience too because people get a faster response and get their issue resolved more quickly. Those are two big areas, but it's really across the business, like I said. I mean, there's not a single part of the business that I don't think can benefit from AI, and a lot of what we've been doing to get our teams behind it is to really look at it less as a cost savings measure, not that there won't be anything there, but more as a productivity increaser, an ability to compete and win and do better for the customer, generate more revenue, generate better margins, things like that, and so I think that's something that's really helped rally everybody behind it, but obviously, there's certain areas that there's more immediate opportunity, but I think over time, it's going to impact everything. I don't think there's a single part of the business that won't be looking back in a few years and saying AI has materially changed how we do business. Another question that I think has probably come up with investors, certainly in your meetings from talking to some of the folks in your team, but that I want to hear your thoughts on is just prediction markets, which I guess you could argue might be a product opportunity, but I'm curious how you think about it from opportunity or risk. How do you think about prediction markets? I mean, I think it's definitely more on the opportunity side, but we have to see how this plays out. The CFTC is reviewing it now and I think expected to have an official ruling in mid-April. So I think that will obviously be an important thing to see. And we're watching it carefully and looking at what happens there because if there is an opportunity that presents itself, we want to make sure we're prepared for it. But that's a big moment that we're all still kind of waiting to see what happens on. Great. Maybe turning to the balance sheet, I referenced that you have a buyback authorization. How are you thinking about the right capital structure for the business now that you're generating more steady free cash flow? You know, it's a great question. It's something that we didn't really start to think about until recently, but now we are. Our CFO convinced me that even though we didn't have an immediate need for cash, that we should start to at least dip our toe in the debt market. So we recently completed our inaugural debt offering. It was a Term Loan B, ended up being five or six times oversubscribed and ended up upsizing a little bit, which we'll consider how we want to use. Maybe if we see the right opportunity, we could potentially accelerate some of the buybacks. So that's something we're considering and talking about now. But really, it was more about getting our feet wet in the debt markets, getting lenders used to sort of us and getting them comfortable with us. We were very pleased, very pleasantly surprised in many ways with the reception we got. We didn't know how we'd be received because we hadn't been in the debt markets before. Between being oversubscribed and just general interest, we ended up getting, I think, a great deal. That was part of why we decided to upsize a little bit too. The important thing is we really view it as kind of not necessary capital, more something that we want to do just to get some exposure in the debt markets and then also secondarily to have a little bit more dry powder if we decided the right opportunity presented itself to accelerate the buyback. Always good to know your cost of capital. Yeah. So you mentioned two things. One that you could accelerate the buyback, but also you could have dry powder for M&A. On the M&A front, what's the criteria of things that you're looking at? You've done the Jackpocket deal, you've done Simplebet. What makes sense? What do you still have third-party relationships with or places that you haven't been able to build in-house? You know, most of the in-house sort of core stuff, like the Simplebet type of stuff, we actually have now. So I think we're pretty complete from that standpoint. If we do do M&A, which is a big if, I don't think it's we might go a whole year and not do anything. I don't know. We certainly don't feel like we're in a position where we have anything we need to do M&A to do. So it's much more opportunistic for us at this point. And those are the types of things we're looking at. Less sort of we feel, hey, we've got to have this capability in-house, build by, what's the best way, and more is there something that makes sense because the opportunity is so great, not because of a need. I think the best example of that is international expansion. We definitely at some point would like to be a global company, but we don't feel like that has to be now. If the right opportunity presented itself, we would consider it. But it's not like we are saying, hey, we've got to figure out a way to get global in the next 12-24 months. We are fortunate in that we're in a position where we feel we have many years of growth ahead of us in the U.S. and Canada. And so we also recognize that anything we might do, M&A or organic internationally, would be a distraction. And so the bar has to be extremely high for that. We may get to a point where we say, look, that's something that we need to really get more serious about for the next phase of growth, but we're not there now. But at the same time, it would be irresponsible for us to not have our eye on the international market, pay attention to what's happening, see if there's any inorganic or organic opportunities, and be prepared to capitalize on them if there were. And I think that's a fortunate position we're in now as a company where we don't feel like we have to do anything other than execute on the core and we'll do just fine. And so it gives us the great luxury of being able to be extremely selective if we do choose to do anything else. And on the deals you've done so far, Jackpocket and Simplebet as an example, I guess what have been some of the learnings? How do you feel like those have been integrated relative to your expectations? I think those are very different. One of the things I think that was a little different for us with Jackpocket versus not just the Simplebet, but we acquired SBTech several years ago, is that Simplebet, the SBTech, the Sports IQ, those are core capabilities for our sports betting, our gaming products. We really integrated those pretty directly into our existing org structure. They were B2B businesses before, so there wasn't as much of a need to preserve that element. Yes, we still need to service the customers under contracts, but the purpose of them was not we want to get into the B2B business. It was to get the capability. Jackpocket, on the other hand, we've really kept most of it intact as its org structure was before and really have given them the mandate to, yes, find ways to cross-sell and integrate with DraftKings like the part of why we did the deal, but your core mission is to build out the Jackpocket and the lottery business. I think that was a big learning for us early on that when you have a team that you want to focus on something that is not the core, that you need to keep them somewhat isolated, not entirely, but somewhat isolated so that they can focus on that. And if you start integrating the functions into other parts of the business and the leaders who lead those functions also have responsibilities in these much bigger businesses called sports betting and iGaming, they're naturally going to pull people's focus and attention into that. And we didn't want that. So that was a big learning for us, I think. And the other thing is just testing on a lot of tactical stuff. We made a ton of progress figuring out how to cross-sell from Jackpocket, which we knew was there because we saw there was a lot of overlap between the customer bases. But some of that is just taking the time to A/B test and figure out what types of offers, what types of conversion flows work. And I think we've made a lot of progress on that front. And some of what we're going to do going forward, I think we'll unlock more interesting things too. One of the big things we're still trying to figure out is for Jackpocket's brand, what does it make sense to do and what doesn't? So for example, Jackpocket, before we bought them, had launched iGaming in New Jersey. We already have DraftKings and Golden Nugget in New Jersey, which has been very successful. The multi-brand strategy for iGaming has actually really worked for us. That's been a big bright spot. But do we want Jackpocket iGaming to be a focal point, or do we want to focus that brand on the lottery and cross-sell more into the DraftKings and Golden Nugget iGaming? So those are the types of things that we're still testing and experimenting around and trying to figure out what the optimal setup is. But a lot left to learn, but also feel like we've made a ton of progress already. I guess maybe changing gears a little bit to the regulatory and tax backdrop. There's been a lot of noise about tax increases, but also some legislative changes and proposals. Maybe help us level set. If you take all those puts and takes together, do you think we're generally still favorable from a legislative standpoint and taxation standpoint? Maybe if you can just talk to some of the biggest opportunities in terms of where things could move in the right direction? Yeah, I mean, I think that, well, certainly there's a lot of noise on that. It's important to remember it's only a handful of the states we operate. I mean, at this point, we operate in almost 30 states. So I think even though I'm still getting used to it, I've kind of accepted that any particular year we're going to have some good things going on in some states and some potential risks in others, and we got to manage both. And that's just the reality of being operational in such a wide swath of states. If you kind of take a step back and look at it, only two states have actually increased tax rate: Ohio, which only brought it to 20, which I still obviously would have rather had it where they were previously, but it's still kind of in line with the market, the average tax rates in the teens. I think the only one that really raised it to a level that we thought was off-market was Illinois. And then obviously there's a handful that have started there. But the kind of sum total is there's only four states in the country that have a tax rate over 20% for sports betting. So I think it is still kind of seems more like there's more states and more pressure there than maybe is actually happening. The vast majority of states are very stable on that front. I've heard different people say that tax rate increases can benefit the market leaders. I think that's potentially true. Obviously, we need to make sure that we also educate policymakers that at some point it's going to come out of the consumer and that deteriorates the value proposition and that makes it harder to compete with the illegal market and grow the TAM. So we want to make sure people understand that. But we also kind of look at some of the states that have increased taxes and they're still growing nicely and there has been some consolidation there. So there's a lot of debate as to what the right tax rate is and what's best for us. But generally speaking, we're trying to create the most flexibility. So we try to explain to states, look, if you raise taxes, then it will create less ability to compete with the illegal market. And that's kind of the whole reason you're doing this. And most have been receptive to that. And then on the positive side, I feel like we have some real momentum in iGaming now. First time I felt that way in a few years. We also, I think we'll get some sports states done this year. Last year was a tougher year to get bills done because it was an election year. And generally states and really nobody wants to do a gaming bill on an election year because they tend to be a little tougher to get done and people are focusing on their elections. So I think that for that reason, last year was a little tougher. We only got one new bill on. It was D.C. This year, I would expect that we will, I mean, who knows? I can't say for sure, but my expectation is that we will get at least a few states done for sports betting and iGaming. And I do feel like we finally have built some momentum in iGaming. I'm not saying we'll get a bunch of bills this year, but whereas I could have two years ago, I would have told you, I don't even know which state's going to be next or how long it's going to take. I feel now like we are definitely, if not this year, certainly within the next two sessions going to get some iGaming bills done. Maybe sticking with iGaming, but moving away from the legislative path, what has been the key differentiating factor for you in iGaming and what are some of the new product evolutions that you're thinking about in the year ahead? Since you touched on sports betting, but obviously there's a big part of the business as well. Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. And one of the reasons we in the last quarter started disclosing iGaming revenue separately is I think people were underappreciating the significance of it, the growth that we were seeing even without new states. It's still been growing north of 20%. So I think that's a really exciting part of the business that probably was underappreciated. And you mentioned what we're doing. So ironically, because I think we're often thought of, and we would probably think of ourselves as a sports company, I think we actually got off to an even stronger start on the iGaming product. We have consistently been rated, and now we're rated the best sports product too, but took a few years. We have consistently for the last several years been rated the best iGaming product by Eilers & Krejcik. We've been the market leader in terms of share. A lot of that comes from cross-sell from sports. So that's a particular thing we've gotten good at. But I think just like with everything else, really the most important thing is product. And for product in iGaming, that means a bunch of stuff. One, you got to have the best content. So not only does that mean you have to have all the popular third-party titles, we've also made a real concerted effort to create differentiated content that we develop. And so we're at a point now where roughly half of our volume comes on our own content, which I don't know for sure, but in talking to people around the globe, I think not only in the U.S., but probably in the globe might be at the top of the industry. I mean, that's a very high number. We also, I think, have really invested heavily in stability and making it low crash, low bugs. So if you think that doesn't matter, it also matters in sports too. But in sports, you're making a bet, you're not playing a game. So you make the bet, you don't really keep going. When iGaming, you're playing. So if the thing's slow and buggy or crashes, it gets much more annoying, much faster because you're sitting there playing. You're like, I don't want to do this. And a lot of the crashes happen from third-party games. They don't know that. They think it's us or the operator. And so that's another sort of sneaky, I think, advantage of having so much content and so much volume on your own in-house contents. The stability is just way better. But even within third-party content, we try to do everything we can to create a stable and crash-free and low kind of laggy, not laggy environment. And I think that really matters in iGaming a lot. The other thing I think is personalization and UI. Those are two huge areas of focus. And you talked earlier about AI. That's an area that we've really spent a lot of time on. And I think it's still, even though we've spent a lot of time early days in terms of what we can do, but there's a lot of real value in personalization in iGaming, really everywhere. But in iGaming, there's so many games that people can play and so many different treatments that it really isn't a segment type thing. You have to really personalize it. Maybe a follow-up on that. I guess, how does the iGaming customer compare and contrast to the sports betting customer? And as you've seen the market evolve, are you getting more kind of iGaming first now versus sports betting cross-selling over? Yeah. So it's a great question. And the answer you're saying goes to yes. One of the things that I think has been an unlock for us in the last couple of years has been really growing that iGaming first audience. We've done that successfully on the DraftKings brand, but also the Golden Nugget brand has helped us because a lot of people identify DraftKings with sports. And so if you're an iGaming casino first customer, you might find something like a Golden Nugget more appealing, which is more associated with a casino brand. So that has definitely helped. But we've also grown for sure the casino first audience on the DraftKings brand. In terms of demographic, sports is heavily male. iGaming is more 50/50-ish, closer to split. Average age on DraftKings brand is actually a little bit younger than on Golden Nugget, which is kind of interesting. So that's something that I think has given us some potential unlock as to where we're appealing and where we're not. And then a lot of what we've figured out is just through testing offers and iterating on conversion flows and things like that, which is what we do across the business. So all of those things have really helped us ramp up the iGaming first audience. If you look also at the cross-sell audience, they tend to skew table games. The iGaming first audience tends to skew slots. So as we've grown our iGaming first audience, our slot revenue growth has outpaced what we have previously been seeing on the table games. We're just about out of time, but I don't want to let you off the hook without getting at least one margin question in. All right. So in the year ahead, I guess, are there any major things to call out in terms of either marketing or SG&A that would impact flow through from that top line growth relative to a normal year? What's the framework to think about longer term and how we march from here to there? So the biggest thing for us is both increases in hold rate and promo drive revenue growth that flows through at a much higher rate than our average gross margin. Increases in revenue that are driven from reduced promo, which will happen just naturally as new customers become a smaller piece of the pool because new customers get more promos than existing customers, are going to flow through at 90%. Hold rate increase that drives revenue growth flows through about 60%-70%. Those are both very powerful levers to accrete to gross margin. In terms of other types of expenses, I mean, most of our expenses on headcount, things like that fall on fixed costs. It probably won't have too much impact on gross margin. And anything we would be doing where we are growing some of the engineering other spot is being offset by efficiencies that we're finding through AI and other things we're implementing in CX, also platform efficiencies through AWS costs and stuff like that. So those are not the biggest levers. They're not going to move the needle as much as hold rate and promo will, but they will be a net positive for us. Well, we're out of time, but please join me in thanking Jason Robins and DraftKings for all the insights today. Thank you. Thank you. you. Thanks for having me. It's great.