I cannot see the connection.

Provable fairness is all about the random outcome's fairness being verifiable by each and every gambler or player. It is Bitcoin or blockchain related. It is about "don't trust, verify". Gone are days when fairness in casinos is only about certificates, accreditations, being audited, registration, licenses, etc. Cryptography, blockchain, has changed that because verifiability is being made accessible to everybody. The ability to prove or verify that each roll of a dice is as fair as presented, not manipulated, not cheated, not tweaked, not altered, etc. is as easy as confirming that the seeds match.

It is not a deception. It is not about house edge or the casino the only party that earns.

Rank- Sr. Member
Segwit BTC address- bc1qsr8vwa8k6rvpmstnaampghqvuym93vgf9dhpdn

Bitcointalk username: Fundamentals Of
Bitcointalk profile URL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=947116
Bech32 BTC Addy: bc1qsr8vwa8k6rvpmstnaampghqvuym93vgf9dhpdn

Yes, of course. If we really believe in Crawford that he will beat Canelo, I want Crawford to be as underdog as possible. The higher his betting odds are, the better. That makes our bets more profitable. If he is 7.00 underdog but we believe he can manage to upset Canelo, that would make us happy. Make it 10.00 even.

But this fight is between two legends that I really admire. I have already thought of not betting. I'm afraid siding with only one of them because of a bet would make my watching it less interesting.

There probably must be a new tool to be used by gambling sites to combat this. To me it is not fair anymore. It is not anymore about pure poker skills that matter and prevail but stronger AI tools as well. Is it possible that casinos would detect players using AI tools and immediately kick them from the table if found?

Although there are still face-to-face poker games, but this is not that convenient. There are also occasional players like me who are not very comfortable and confident playing face-to-face poker because better players could easily detect expressions.

For me Canelo at 1.56 and Crawford at 2.45 are fair odds. There are reasons why Crawford is the underdog. These are the odds released by Odds Shark. There are other odds but they are mostly within the range. Anyway we look at it, Crawford is really the underdog. And I don't think Crawford is being undervalued because he is the underdog. For example, the thing that I mentioned about him being untested at 168. This matters. This is just one of the reasons that contribute to his underdog odds.

It is just unfortunate that these two are meeting just when they are not anymore at the peak of their careers. They are far from the best versions of themselves. They are now facing wears and tears. In the first place they are already undisputed champions and legends. They are not anymore as hungry as before. And they are already old also.

Crawford is also untested at 168, where Canelo is already very comfortable at. Canelo has a lot of advantages here than Crawford.

I think all gamblers who have played luck-based casino games have already fallen to this fallacy a number of times. The reason is simple. In a coin flip, although it is possible that heads will turn out each time, is it likely that there will be 20 consecutive flips with heads as a result? It is probably less likely. The same logic applies to dice, roulette, baccarat, and other random casino games. Each game may be completely independent from each other but the possibility that only one result shows up every time is very low.

Is this true? Since you are talking of something that needs a study or research, do you have a source for this, where it is explained that there is indeed a psychological aspect to over or under betting? Or do you at least have data that back this observation?

In my experience it is dependent on the specific game. If the game is between two teams that are high scorers, I will probably be betting on the over. But if the game is between low scoring teams I might be betting on the under.

I even consider OP a gambling addict already. This is not anymore a case of somebody "going closer" to gambling addiction. This is in itself the face of gambling addiction.

Imagine losing all your money to gambling but you did not even stop. You continued gambling using borrowed money that is not small but really big. I don't know how rich OP is but losing $45,000 of borrowed money last month alone on gambling? That is a huge amount of loss already. That is alarming. If this is not already addiction, I don't know what this is.

For scammers like Robin, I am sure he has many strategies. That is just one. I believe this kind of betting scam which provides tips and eventually sells subscriptions are not simple efforts. This is probably a big operation. It is not difficult anyway because you are mostly just sending automated spams. It is usually done through emails, social media, messaging apps and channels like Telegram, even forums like bitcointalk.

There is also a simple formula. Send tips. If wrong, start again with a new account. Repeat until you can make a short win streak. And then sell subscriptions.

This is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is, make a bet and then put aside some for later when you are already watching the game live. Analyzing a game beforehand would be different when you are already watching it live. There must be betting opportunities while the game is going on. You can measure a game differently when it is already played. This is just an alternative way of looking at it.

Other than that, if you can, why not watch the game live right? You have a bet. A game is worth watching more if you have a bet.

Apparently. Although there are casinos who have already adopted Web3 functionalities to their services, the overall features remain highly centralized. In the first place, these are casinos operated by private companies. Decisions are not made by the community but by the very individuals who own and run the casinos. Despite certain integrations, majority of what happens in the casino are still taking place on centralized servers.

It depends on the streak. If it is 3 to 4 or even 5 streaks, I think I would still be confident in consistently betting, or even increasing, whatever amount I am betting. But if it goes beyond that, I think I am already slowing down, in a way bracing, for that eventual loss. Because whether we like it or not a streak will end. I have experienced winning streaks in the past. I think this has been my consistent attitude. But I think I won't skip. That is a streak of luck you have, you definitely make the most of it until it is gone.

Probably not all. There will always be a few exceptions. Most casinos are centralized. So they need registration with the appropriate government agencies and regulators. They don't have a choice but to follow the regulations. But the thing with gambling is that it is now closely intertwined with technology. So it is changing along with rising innovations like decentralization. That is partly what the web 3 integration in gambling is about.

If left on their own, they probably won't care about dirty money going in and out of their service. Gambling services do not easily self-regulate. They will just do their business thing. That is the most important concern for them. They do not screen players. They do not screen money. All money entering the gambling floor is good money regardless of where it actually comes from. This is definitely the reason why so many money launderers choose casino to clean their funds.

I don't see any problem betting on the weather. I don't even mind if weather agencies and bureaus are giving forecasts every hour of the day. They are mostly wrong anyway. With all their knowledge, equipment, charts, etc. it seems their predictions are not much different from gamblers' predictions.

I remembered our local weather bureau reminding us to bring our umbrellas during the day because there's a high chance of rain. There was no rain but they were so right about the umbrellas. The sun was angry.

I don't understand this budget allocation pie graph. Is this monthly or yearly? If this is monthly, do you really spend 10% of your income to clothes or 5% to travel? If this is also annual, why is there no slice for savings? What happens if the company you are working for suddenly closes? Then you have no money to spend while hunting for your next job?

I think this depends on your monthly income. Sometimes we just have to depend on how much is left after all the bills and necessary expenses are paid. Only then we can consider gambling.

The team will never be the same again if they decide to release Brown. With Tatum possibly not playing for the whole of next season, it is Brown that will lead the Celtics. Letting him go would mean they are almost left with no one.

But because of the team's payroll consideration, it is possible to happen. There are rumors that San Antonio and Houston are interested to make a good offer for Brown. If the offer is too good to be refused, a business mindset might prevail over sentiments and fans' clamor.

Talent wins. But of course it is also talent that creates stars. If a team does not have a star for a start, one will always rise. A star will always come out and make a name. OKC now has Shai. Jalen is also in the making. Even Holmgren shows he can be one. They are the big three that makes the team dominating.

But it hits different when a team creates stars rather than signs up one. It is more awesome to make originals than pirate existing stars. Chet and Jalen are OKC babies.