RN1: A $1.5 Billion Sports Book With $592,000 Still at Risk

RN1 (0x2005d16a84ceefa912d4e380cd32e7ff827875ea) ranked fourth on Polymarket's all-time PnL board on 8 November 2026 with $13,380,621.76 in reported profit on $1,493,580,386.61 of volume. The volume rank is second, behind only swisstony. The PnL is about 0.90% of turnover, the thinnest margin among the seven names in this series.

What makes RN1 unusually useful is that it was still trading on snapshot day. The public position endpoint returned a full 100-row page of open positions worth $516,766.29, against a total portfolio value of $592,628.99. Every other top name in this series showed $0.00 in positions value. RN1 gives us something to inspect rather than just a closed total.

Scale and standing

The Data API row showed $13.38 million of PnL, $1.49 billion of volume, rank 4 for PnL, and rank 2 for volume. The profile page showed a higher all-time total of +$14.8 million, 185,896 markets traded, a biggest win of $151,800, and 1.6 million profile views. The account joined in December 2024. Its past-day PnL on the profile was -$4,096.88.

The profile's positions value was $591.4 thousand; the API's value endpoint returned $592,628.99. The small difference is likely a timing difference between two surfaces. The larger discrepancy is the all-time PnL: $14.8 million on the profile versus $13.38 million on the leaderboard. That is roughly a 10% gap. As with any other account, the number depends on the surface and the moment. Figures change.

The biggest-win figure is the most striking number. $151,800 is only about 1.1% of the $13.38 million total. Unlike Theo4, Fredi9999, mintblade, or fishalive, RN1 did not get here through one enormous settlement. The total is built from a very large number of smaller results across 185,896 markets.

What is actually open

The first 100 open positions cost $425,803.55 and were worth $516,766.29 at current marks. That is $91,942.91 of unrealized PnL on one page. The page covered 97 distinct market titles. The remaining portfolio value sat beyond the page limit.

The mix is overwhelmingly sports:

• Premier League match winners, totals, first-half totals, spreads, and exact scores.
• Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, Eredivisie, Ligue 1, Scottish, Turkish, Belgian, Austrian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, Serbian, and Chilean football.
• ATP Paris Masters tennis and lower-tier ITF and Challenger matches.
• One NFL game, with totals and spreads on Bengals versus Falcons.

The largest single position was Chelsea to win against Sunderland: 54,716.79 No shares at an average of 70.34 cents, cost $38,491.51, marked at 99.95 cents for a value of $54,689.43 and an unrealized gain of $16,197.92. That is 42% on the position. The second largest was Under 1.5 goals in the Sunderland-Chelsea first half: 21,599.42 shares at 66.12 cents, worth $21,588.62 and up $7,305.98. The third was Fenerbahçe to win: 19,866.1 shares at 55.42 cents, up $8,845.29.

Not every position was winning. A 14,049.5-share No position on Athletic Club at 62.3 cents was marked at 53.5 cents, a loss of $1,234.76. Across the 100-position page, 18 positions had negative unrealized PnL, totaling -$27,025.95.

The near-certainty problem

Fifty-nine of the 100 positions on the page were marked at 99.9 cents or higher. That is what an in-play sports book looks like late in a match: the outcome is nearly settled, the price converges to one, and the remaining PnL is small per share but large in aggregate because the share count is large.

This is exactly where leaderboard PnL can become misleading. The $91,942.91 of unrealized gain on the first page is not cash. It is the current mark on positions that have not settled. A late goal, a tennis retirement, or a rules dispute can move a 99.9-cent position. The mark is a snapshot, not a guarantee.

The same feature makes RN1 the most copyable-looking name in the group and the most dangerous to copy naively. A copier who sees a 99.9-cent position is not seeing the entry. The edge, if there was one, was in buying at 70 cents or 55 cents earlier. Copying at 99.9 cents offers a tiny residual return and a much worse risk-reward ratio.

How the edge looks

The structural picture is a high-frequency sports operation. It trades many leagues, many market types, and many matches. The PnL is spread across a large number of outcomes rather than concentrated in a single event. The biggest win is small relative to the total. The volume is enormous. The margin is thin.

That combination is consistent with a process that tries to price thousands of small sports markets and extract a little edge from each. It is not consistent with a "find one big mispricing and hold" strategy. The two models can both produce eight-figure PnL, but they fail in different ways. A concentrated event bettor fails when the event goes the wrong way. A high-frequency sports operation fails when its pricing model is systematically wrong, when liquidity disappears, or when execution costs rise.

The account's daily PnL of -$4,096.88 against a $13.38 million all-time total is a useful scale check. A bad day is small relative to the cumulative record, but one day is not a drawdown. We do not know the worst week or the worst month.

What copy traders should check

If you are considering copying RN1, the public data supports a specific checklist:

1. Check whether the position is still open and what the current price is. A position marked at 99.9 cents is not the same trade as the original entry.
2. Check the entry price and the current price together. The percentage gain shown on the profile is history; the forward return is from the current price.
3. Check the size. A 54,716-share position at 70 cents required about $38,500. Your fill may be worse, especially in a live match.
4. Check correlation. One hundred positions across a dozen leagues are not necessarily diversified. Many are exposed to the same match, the same day, or the same sport.
5. Check whether the PnL is realized or unrealized. On this page, realized PnL was zero and the entire $91,942.91 was unrealized.
6. Check recency. RN1 was active on snapshot day, which is a point in its favor, but activity is not the same as edge.
7. Check the surface. The profile and the leaderboard disagreed by about $1.4 million on all-time PnL. Use one source consistently.

The hardest issue is latency. Many of RN1's visible positions are in fast, in-play sports markets. A copier sees the trade after the fact. In a market that is already at 99 cents, the remaining upside may not cover the risk of a late reversal. In a market that is still moving, the copier's fill may be materially worse than the original.

Limits of the data

The public record does not show RN1's bankroll, deposits, withdrawals, leverage, or hedging. It does not show whether the account is one person or a team. It does not show the worst drawdown or the distribution of losses. It does not show whether the apparent edge survives after fees and slippage.

It also does not show whether the account's sports pricing is genuinely better than the market or simply faster. Those are different skills with different durability. A faster connection can be copied by someone faster still; a better model is harder to replicate but also harder to verify from outside.

Public PnL is not proof of skill, and an open position marked at 99.9 cents is not a completed profit. RN1 is the best case in this group for studying a live sports book, and the best reminder that the entry price, not the current mark, is where the edge lives.