Videos lectures for my entire First Course in Probability New material will be released every few days for the next several months. Subscribe for announcements. youtube.com/playlist?list=PL…

Research Brief: Estimating U.S. User Activity in Offshore Prediction Markets Key Findings: - $ 11-27B of Polymarket volume May 2025-April 2026 is attributed to U.S. users - $ 11-34B of all offshore volume came from U.S. users Full report below: cranezeng.com/prediction-mar…

The fact that ANY player limit regs are on the books shows that players do have a voice. The OSBs fought this tooth and nail. Hats off to my @bettorsvoice colleagues @spanky @RichardSchuetz3 and @HarryDCrane. One step at a time.

Is this the founder of Draft Kings complaining that he couldn’t bet the amount he wanted for the odds he wanted? It’s only ok when DK does it

Highlights from my @CFTC comment: Main thesis: Properly designed and regulated prediction markets serve the public interest through two primary mechanisms: 1. hedging, by enabling participants to hedge otherwise unhedgeable risks associated with one-off or non-standard events, and 2. information aggregation, by aggregating diffuse, private, and specialized information into a publicly available price signal. Five principles should guide the Commission's rulemaking: 1. The statutory framework requires a contract-specific, two-step analysis. The default for any given event contract is that it is not contrary to the public interest. Categorical prohibitions of entire classes of event contracts, without individualized public interest analysi, exceed the Commission's statutory authority. 2. Event contracts serve the public interest when they address risks and information about events that exist externally and independently of the markets themselves. The vast majority of markets currently offered, including sports, politics, current events, satisfy this condition. 3. Market structure, not contract subject matter, determines susceptibility to manipulation. Price manipulation is self-correcting in liquid markets; outcome integrity is the responsibility of the institutions that govern the underlying event, not the market operator or the Commission. 4. The Commission should distinguish information advantage from outcome control. Trading on superior information is the mechanism by which markets aggregate information. Without explicit and concrete evidence of a violation, the Commission must protect participants' right to confidentiality and anonymity. Neither the CFTC nor operators should be empowered to require individual participants to divulge confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets without substantial evidence to justify. 5. The CFTC's guiding mantra should be Serve and Protect: operators serve the public by offering the best product they can today and an even better product tomorrow; regulators protect the integrity of markets by fostering competition and innovation. But neither the Commission nor its operators should be compelled to protect participants from every adverse outcome that could occur in a prediction market. Trading on prediction markets, as on any financial market, is inherently adversarial and risky. The guiding principle for market participants is: protect yourself at all times. Participants should be made aware of and acknowledge these risks before trading. The stakes: the Commission's rulemaking will determine whether prediction markets mature into a transparent, federally regulated source of hedging and price discovery, or migrate offshore and to state-regulated sportsbook products where the Commission lacks surveillance authority and customers are stripped of fair-access protections. Full comment linked below.

My response to the @CFTC request for public comment on prediction markets has been posted. comments.cftc.gov/PublicComm…

New Episode of Inside Prediction Markets @HarryDCrane joins @BigBuckHunterrr & @Flupnolide 0:00 Ohio's Bill to Kill Sports Betting 1:12 Perps Coming to Kalshi? 3:12 Chris's Substack on his Journey 4:51 @HarryDCrane joins the show 6:45 Harry's Scoop on Election Markets & 538 14:00 Having a Seat at the CFTC Table 19:00 Are Sharps Losing Faith in Prediction Markets? 26:00 The Full Kelly vs. Half Kelly Debate 35:00 What a $3M Drawdown Teaches You 43:00 Card Counting, Kelly, & Conditional Fills

Rutgers is launching a graduate program in Fintech starting in the fall. Will include prediction markets, blockchain, DeFi. Interested companies or students, please get in touch. njbmagazine.com/njb-news-now…

The legal difference is sports betting is regulated as gambling by states and regulated as event contracts by CFTC. The “same thing” regulated differently doesn’t make one legal and the other illegal. The practical difference is that a state sportsbook license is a license to steal from losing bettors and ban winners, while CFTC puts strict requirements on fairness and market access.

The practical difference is that a state sportsbook license is a license to steal from losing bettors and ban winners, while CFTC puts strict requirements on fairness and market access. @HarryDCrane If the CFTC demonstrates that a fair, transparent, and non-gubbing market exists for these operations/contracts, then the fact that the state legislature chooses the Gambling framework means that the state has intentionally granted operators a legal concession to prey on its own citizens.

fascinating $tao

Enrollment for our AI course closes this Wednesday. First class was excellent — 11 sessions to go. Late registrations can catch up with the Week 1 recording. This is the only cohort we're running this spring. analytics.bet/ai

Just posted: Are Event Contracts Financial Assets or Just “Sports Bets”? open.substack.com/pub/harryc…

A poorly fit regression when a simple comparison of means would do.

Two years ago I approached several State Regulators offering to provide our educational content to state Sportsbook operators and customers for free. The message was strongly rejected for two reasons: 1. A more educated customer means less profits for operators - which is what really matters. (They actually said this.) 2. Regulators do not want bettors to “think they can win” because it will cause an increase in problem gambling. The proposal was intended for responsible gaming. It would teach customers basic concepts- like hold percentage, how to read odds, how to calculate hold for parlays. The material would prevent problem gambling by allowing bettors to know they are getting ripped off by SGPs and similar products at sportsbooks. That’s why regulators don’t want bettors education. As a last ditch backdoor effort, I mentioned how educating bettors doesn’t necessarily mean less profits for operators. When card counting became popular, blackjack became the most popular game in the casino and casino profits increased. How? Not because the players learned how to count cards but because they thought they had learned how to count cards. The difference between theory and practice. This gave one regulator a “brilliant” idea. She suggested: Sports betting is 90% male dominated so we’re missing half the market. If we can market the education to women so they start to think they could win at betting, then we’ll double the market size and generate more profits and tax revenue. At that point I realized how corrupted and compromised (knowingly or unknowingly) many of the regulators are. Glad to work with @bettorsvoice to improve the industry for all bettors.

Final Four came early this year. I've seen the course development behind the scenes and will be a student in this course. 100% sure it will pay dividends. analytics.bet/ai for more

Working on this at @RutgersU Will announce soon.

Final Announcement : Tomorrow the price of our 12 week deep dive course on AI will be priced at retail, today is the last day to take advantage of $700 in savings. The course is nearing its cap, and all of our live courses have sold out. analytics.bet/ai

Friendly reminder: today is the last day for early registration. Price goes up tomorrow. Class starts next week.