GLI-33 Event Wagering System architecture + wager engine + odds + risk. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE: components include (a) presentation tier (web + mobile apps + retail kiosks + sportsbook lounge terminals); (b) wager acceptance + engine tier (wager validation + odds lookup + limit checks + risk-engine routing); (c) settlement + ledger tier (post-event settlement + account credit + audit); (d) reporting + integrity-monitoring tier; (e) data feeds from sports data providers (typically Sportradar + Genius Sports + IMG Arena + Stats Perform + others); (f) PAM (Player Account Management) integration; (g) payment processor + AML integration; (h) geolocation provider integration; (i) regulatory reporting endpoint. WAGER ENGINE: wager types (single + parlay + teaser + futures + props + live/in-play + same-game parlay + round-robin + box + half-time + period + multi-state); wager validation includes player eligibility + jurisdictional eligibility + market open + odds-current + balance-sufficient + limits-not-exceeded + responsible-gaming-limits-not-exceeded + integrity-monitoring-passes. ODDS ENGINE + RISK MANAGEMENT: odds typically supplied by central risk-management + can be auto-adjusted based on bet flow + liability exposure + suspicious-activity detection + integrity alerts; odds-changes during wager submission must be transparent + handled per regulator-approved 'best-odds-guarantee' or 'price-change-rejected' policies. TRANSACTION INTEGRITY: every wager must produce immutable transaction record + sequence-numbered + signed (HMAC or similar) + correlated with player session + geolocation + device-fingerprint; wager modification + cancellation policies must be regulator-approved + transparently logged; settled-wager records retained per state regulator (typically 5 years).
This control maps to 161 controls across 83 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 161 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.