Bernie McTernan: Great, thank you both.
Richard Schwartz: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question is from Dan Politzer with Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.
Daniel Politzer: Hey, good afternoon, Richard and Kyle. I just wanted to piggyback on the guidance a bit on revenue. Can you talk maybe about some of the moving pieces between the low end and the high end of the range? Is it new competition coming in these market, the level of promotions, is it the ramp in Mexico? Just kind of — that way we can kind of better think about kind of low-end and the high-end range and kind of what the moving pieces might be to get us there. Thanks.
Kyle Sauers: Sure. Thanks, Dan. I think you called out some of the things that we model, obviously, competition is a little harder to model other than the way you apply that to what you think a market size might be and what your share of that’s going to be, but it’s really about the costs that we’re going to acquire players for, which we’ve got some standards for. The value that those players are going to produce, the new players, the retention that we have with our existing players and the value that those players bring. And then another piece that impacts us and others in the space is going to be hold, which can have a difference in any given quarter. More volatile in sports, as I’m sure you’re aware. And then probably the other piece is, in newer markets, you mentioned Mexico, I think that’s a fair example.
We probably don’t have as strong visibility into how that could turn out relative to a market that’s been around for a couple of years that we’ve been operating into. So the variability on a market like Mexico, we could do far better or maybe not quite as well as we’d expect to. So all of those factor into this range and the different inputs that are going in.
Daniel Politzer: Got it. And then on the marketing — advertising and marketing stuff. I know some of your peers have mentioned that they have some sponsorships and things like that that may not be economical and that would roll off in the coming years. Can you just give some color on the extent that do have mostly short term or medium term contract and the extent in the next few years as we’re trying to think about the EBITDA ramp, what the benefit might be from some reduced or more rational advertising marketing?
Kyle Sauers: Yeah. So it’s a good question. It’s obviously been a hot topic in the industry. We have tended not to make really large or long term investments in those types of partnerships that I think are often talked about. I think we’ve been more strategic and localized with the endorsers, the investors that we’re bringing in and sponsorship deals we do with local teams, none of which are individually or even in aggregate a really big part of our marketing spend. Our commitments for next year, I shouldn’t say for next year, for 2023 in kind of those areas are sub $20 million. So it’s not a huge piece of our spend. And so, I wouldn’t think about it as something that’s going to roll off in a dramatic way. But I’d also think about it that we have a lot of flexibility in the way we put marketing dollars to work and can be nimble doubling down in places where we’re seeing good results are pulling back in other areas, because we do have most of our marketing spend is variable.
Daniel Politzer: Understood. Thanks for all that
Richard Schwartz: Thanks, Dan.
Operator: Our next question is from David Katz with Jefferies. Your line is now open.
