Article By Stephen Crystal – Founder & CEO, SCCG – SCHEDULE A MEETING!
PointsBet’s decision to move forward with MIXI’s acquisition offer over Betr’s may have surprised some observers—especially given that Betr’s initial bid appeared more generous on paper. But in the world of high-stakes gaming acquisitions, success isn’t dictated by numbers alone. It’s driven by a deeper understanding of strategic alignment, deal certainty, and long-term operational viability. This case serves as a valuable example of what I call strategic M&A prioritization—and why it matters more than ever in today’s gaming landscape.
Strategic M&A Prioritization Behind PointsBet’s Decision
Betr’s offer of AU$1.33 per share certainly created headlines, especially compared to MIXI’s AU$1.20 bid. But once you move past the optics, it becomes clear why PointsBet’s board unanimously endorsed MIXI’s proposal.
According to PointsBet, Betr’s offer was built on assumptions that didn’t hold up under scrutiny. Their due diligence raised concerns about the feasibility of projected cost synergies, particularly given the considerable investment Betr would need to make in brand positioning and digital infrastructure to reach profitability. It’s easy to promise synergies—it’s much harder to realize them when operational realities and market overlap come into play.
PointsBet also flagged concerns around customer crossover. With Betr and PointsBet targeting similar user demographics in the Australian market, the risk of cannibalizing existing revenue streams was high. Add to that the complexities of carving out the Canadian business from any integration plan, and the board was looking at a scenario with major execution risks.
Strategic M&A Prioritization Requires More Than Capital
After selling its U.S. assets to Fanatics last year, PointsBet is now a streamlined international operator with a focus on strategic markets like Ontario. That makes any acquisition not just a transaction—it’s a handoff of the last meaningful segment of a publicly traded company’s global gaming footprint.
So, when evaluating buyers, PointsBet needed more than a big number. They needed certainty. MIXI provided that.
With a revised offer of AU$402 million, MIXI didn’t just match the optics of Betr’s bid—it brought a cleaner, faster, and more achievable path to closing. The offer was backed by a clear regulatory path, including approval from Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board, and lacked the layered contingencies that made Betr’s proposal less dependable. For the PointsBet board, this alignment of capital, clarity, and closing speed likely outweighed any marginal differences in per-share value.
The Importance of Deal Structure and Integration Philosophy
Another element that played a role in the decision was the structure of management incentives. Under MIXI’s proposal, management performance rights would vest immediately, regardless of future employment. In contrast, Betr’s proposal required continued employment and achievement of performance milestones.
While some may argue that tying incentives to future contributions drives accountability, it also introduces uncertainty—and potentially affects the retention of key personnel during transition. MIXI’s model appears designed for speed, signaling a preference for smooth handover and reduced friction. For a company looking to finalize its exit, that makes a difference.
What this shows is that iGaming M&A isn’t just about the deal terms—it’s about understanding what kind of integration strategy the buyer brings to the table. Does it support the seller’s goals? Does it create stability for stakeholders? Does it work within the regulatory and market constraints that define the gambling industry?
Lessons for Gaming Operators and Investors
This isn’t just a story about two competing bids. It’s a blueprint for how operators, investors, and advisors should think about gaming M&A in the current environment. The days of rewarding the highest bidder without evaluating execution risk are over. Markets are more complex. Regulators are more active. And users—especially in regulated markets—are more sensitive to changes in brand experience and platform functionality.
PointsBet’s move shows us that boards should be optimizing for certainty, not just valuation. The MIXI deal offered fewer unknowns, better alignment with remaining operations, and a more practical pathway to closing. In a sector where missteps can lead to regulatory fallout or lost customer confidence, that’s exactly the kind of strategic discipline more companies should be applying.
To learn how advisory firms help operators and investors make smarter acquisition decisions, visit our page on strategic M&A prioritization.
