Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 10,672 results by davis196
We are used to say that a gambler should gamble with an amount he can afford to lose but in the actual sense do we think there is any amount a gambler can afford to lose? When a gambler places a stake what he sees is not the stake but the potential win. This is why when he does not win he panics regardless of how little the stake is and he will always mention the potential win rather than the stake as the amount lost. The gambling system especially sports betting works in a way that as a game plays the value of the stake keeps increasing and what may appear to be what the gambler can afford to lose may rise and become what he can no longer afford to lose and this becomes a source of concern for the gambler if he losses the bet. In fact, if a gambler accumulates the total of what he thinks he can afford to lose he would know that he is losing what he cannot afford to lose. I think that any penny spent on gambling is a money the gambler have decided to sacrifice with the hope of getting a bigger amount and not because he can afford to lose it.
What's your position on this thought?
What's your position on this thought?
Maybe the saying "gambling with money you can afford to lose" should be changed to "only gamble with money outside of your financial safety net". The meaning remains, but the "money you can afford to lose" gets removed, because the amount of money, which someone can afford to lose varies from a person to person. Poor people can't afford to lose any money and yet most gamblers are poor and middle class.
You are right about gamblers having the hope of winning big and forgetting about the actual amount they can afford to lose. In general gambling is a system, where the chances of winning are smaller than the chances of losing everything. Maybe the same applies to trading as well.
Let's say when gambling, you follow a specific pattern. Let us use lottery for example. You bet on the same specific set of numbers. What would be more regrettable? Betting on the same set of numbers for the rest of your life and not winning or... changing up the set you bet on only for your old set to win?
Basically, would you rather bet on the same thing again and again then regret not exploring more or explore different kinds of bets then miss out on a win?
Basically, would you rather bet on the same thing again and again then regret not exploring more or explore different kinds of bets then miss out on a win?
Betting on the same set of numbers for years is just stupid. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. If I was consistently playing the lottery, I would always change the set of numbers. The chance of hitting the jackpot is ridiculously small(one in a 14 million if a remember this correctly). Being limited to only one set of numbers reduces your chance of winning the jackpot even further. This isn't even a "strategy". I would call it an "anti-strategy", because it's way too stupid.
Regrets shouldn't be felt, when we are talking about gambling. If you feel regrets for all your lost bets(or for the events you are betting on), then gambling simply isn't for you.
Quote
If You Sent to the wrong address?
$ You learned about step and finality.
# If you bought from the top / high price?
$ Then You discovered and learned that emotions are not any strategies.
# If you trusted any centralized exchange to much?
$ You found the meaning and learned that "Not your keys, not your coins."!!
# If you Sold too soon?
$ You have learned about the power of patience and the power of Bitcoin.
# If price go down after your bought and want to find the reason?
$ You learned about market manipulation and trading fud / fomo
$ You learned about step and finality.
# If you bought from the top / high price?
$ Then You discovered and learned that emotions are not any strategies.
# If you trusted any centralized exchange to much?
$ You found the meaning and learned that "Not your keys, not your coins."!!
# If you Sold too soon?
$ You have learned about the power of patience and the power of Bitcoin.
# If price go down after your bought and want to find the reason?
$ You learned about market manipulation and trading fud / fomo
1.Who the hell still sends BTC to the wrong address? This isn't 2012. Double checking is a must and I'm sure that all Bitcoiners double check that address, before sending any BTC.
2.There's nothing wrong with FOMO and buying at the ATH price. The only wrong move is panic selling.
3.The same applies to crypto casinos. Any centralized crypto service shouldn't not be fully trusted.
4.Some people are risk-oriented, while others are security-oriented. There's nothing wrong with both mentalities. Some people will HODL until the end, others will sell when they feel the price is good for them.
5.Having FUD/FOMO on the market doesn't necessarily mean that the market is being manipulated. It's just people's emotions driving the market in a certain direction.
In the fucking shithole that the UK has become in the last decade, with progressive impoverishment of society, massive immigration, a two-tier justice system or expulsion of talent and wealth, we only needed the icing on the cake.
The UK Home Office is preparing to sell a massive stockpile of bitcoin seized from criminals, potentially netting the Treasury billions to address budget pressures, The Telegraph reported this weekend.
As if £7 billion is going to solve anything within a deficit of £164 billion. Let's see if it becomes a third world country for once, since they are working so hard for it.
The UK Home Office is preparing to sell a massive stockpile of bitcoin seized from criminals, potentially netting the Treasury billions to address budget pressures, The Telegraph reported this weekend.
As if £7 billion is going to solve anything within a deficit of £164 billion. Let's see if it becomes a third world country for once, since they are working so hard for it.
I can understand why the UK government would sell the seized crypto. It's normal for governments and companies facing financial difficulties to sell assets they don't need. However, this would never solve the problem with the budget deficit. The only measures that would reduce the budget deficit are cutting government spending and raising taxes. I prefer the first option, nobody wants to pay higher taxes and increasing the taxes would hit the economy. The UK was living off of debts for too long. Now, the debts have to be paid.
Governments selling seized BTC might be a good thing for the Bitcoin market. More BTC gets into circulation and the BTC price drops for a while, which presents a great buying opportunity.
1. Support from the government.
Countries who gamble a lot has solid laws protecting their players so gamblers in those countries can just freely gamble as much as they want without having to worry about their rights. This doesn't mean that the countries have very free and loose rules but it just means that they have clear frameworks. Some other countries have some limitations but since their rules are clear, many still gamble.
2. Bigger paychecks.
Not all rich people are gamblers but they certainly have more chances to gamble if they wanted to. According to data, the higher the income is in some countries the more people gamble in that country. Since the average citizen is earning a lot, even if they spend quite a significant amount of money in gambling this will still not cause financial doom.
Is it fair to assume that a better economy and a solid framework will make people gamble more but be addicted less? This is the source, by the way.
Countries who gamble a lot has solid laws protecting their players so gamblers in those countries can just freely gamble as much as they want without having to worry about their rights. This doesn't mean that the countries have very free and loose rules but it just means that they have clear frameworks. Some other countries have some limitations but since their rules are clear, many still gamble.
2. Bigger paychecks.
Not all rich people are gamblers but they certainly have more chances to gamble if they wanted to. According to data, the higher the income is in some countries the more people gamble in that country. Since the average citizen is earning a lot, even if they spend quite a significant amount of money in gambling this will still not cause financial doom.
Is it fair to assume that a better economy and a solid framework will make people gamble more but be addicted less? This is the source, by the way.
I see it as a more of a cultural thing, rather than being related to legislation and regulations. Some cultures are more tolerant towards gambling, while other cultures view gambling as a sin or something evil. I don't want to visit this URL because I don't trust it, but I find it hard to believe that the richest countries in the world (Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, New Zealand, Luxemburg, Ireland, etc.) have more gamblers in comparison to poorer countries. I think that having lots of gamblers also signals low financial education, which means that the education system isn't that good.
Thinking alot and is really affecting me because I don't actually all the resources need to market the trading but then am reasoning between physical business or BTC trading which 1 million naira capital will fits in for better returns after a while. The question is will 1 Million naira make good results in btc trades now, or investment of btc?
It depends of what you mean by "BTC trading". Do you mean day trading BTC to altcoins and vice versa? Or perhaps you mean trading BTC for fiat currencies on platforms like Paxful? Day trading isn't easy and more than 80% of the traders end up losing their capital. Buying and selling BTC on Paxful isn't easy as well, because there are a lot of scammers and the competition will cut your profit margins.
Long story short, there's no easy way to make money. Building a physical business from scratch is also very difficult.
Maybe you should just buy BTC and HODL.
Quote
GM everyone! I'm new here to the community but see everyone is ACTIVE in this forum🔥🔥 I'm a rep at DoubleUp casino, fully non KYC, instant payouts, no external wallets and giving out over $150k-$190k every month.
I'm sorry to say this, but there's something sketchy about this gambling project.
1.There's another forum thread about this DoubleUP.fun casino made by the forum use DoubleUpapp. Isn't this forum spamming?
2.Giving out over 150K-190K USD every month seems a lot for a brand new casino. How big is your bankroll? How big is your advertising budget? Can you afford buying copper membership and hiring someone to make you a professional announcement thread? If the answer is no, how the hell can you give away 150K-190K USD in rewards every month?
Quote
There is this same story, whether it is crypto, climate, or economics: A big, powerful country comes up with a “breakthrough” idea - green energy, digital money, new work models. Suddenly, poorer countries feel pressured to copy them, even if the context back home is totally different. It is FOMO, but in a macro scale. No one wants to be left behind, right?
Poorer countries are being pressured to follow the big countries in the "battle against climate change". Crypto doesn't have anything to do with this. Nobody forces poor countries to adopt crypto. Most poor countries are adopting crypto voluntarily.
Your example with Northern Ireland only shows one thing. Stupid left wing government programs do exist and they will keep existing forever.
It's like when the British colonial government in India paid the Indians for every captured cobra, the Indians started building cobra farms.
Every government program, which involves giving money to someone sooner or later gets exploited.
Quote
Rashford could play both wings and forward. Which means, when Raphinha needs rest (these players play 50+ games a season) then Rashford can play, plus he can join later in the game, like 70th minute or 80th minute to bring in some fresh legs. He could not only help with Raphinha, but also Yamal and Lewandowski all at the same time.
It means, we are going to see Rashford definitely have plenty of time to play, he is going to play many games, both subbed in, and even starters to rest others. He is not going to replace as in be the starter or preferred player, he won't be, Barcelona has better players, but he will certainly be the first sub to look for, could be one of the best if not the best bench player they have in any given game.
It means, we are going to see Rashford definitely have plenty of time to play, he is going to play many games, both subbed in, and even starters to rest others. He is not going to replace as in be the starter or preferred player, he won't be, Barcelona has better players, but he will certainly be the first sub to look for, could be one of the best if not the best bench player they have in any given game.
I don't believe that Rashford is signing Barcelona only to be a substitute player. Maybe he will become the new left winger, while Yamal is going to stay as a right winger. Lewandowski is getting too old and Barcelona needs a new central striker. Barca signing Rashford seems like a risky transfer for me. Some English players become really successful playing in Europe, while others get injured or their performance deteriorates. Rashford never had a good performance in the last 2 years in Manchester United. I'm a bit skeptical that he will suddenly become a great player in Barcelona.
Re: BTC as means of payment is a looking more possible than before?
The GENIUS act bill that was passed yesterday by Trump has everything to do with USDT and other stable coins, I get it but at least now things are looking more smoother for crypto payment? I believe that using the likes of stable coins and Bitcoin to pay online will now be more possible?
What do you think? Or am I getting way ahead of myself? I so much look forward for BTC payment option on large online stores like Amazon, because I can't find anything else that's easier for payment online than this.
I am not in the United states, I am way far away from America and in my country to use Fiat as payment is even limited, imagine you want to buy an expensive gadget that worth $6000 and your spending limit on every bank account can't exceed $3000 per month.
If BTC payment become a thing then it will make a lot of sense, I can decide to spend $10,000 per day if I want or can.
What do you think? Or am I getting way ahead of myself? I so much look forward for BTC payment option on large online stores like Amazon, because I can't find anything else that's easier for payment online than this.
I am not in the United states, I am way far away from America and in my country to use Fiat as payment is even limited, imagine you want to buy an expensive gadget that worth $6000 and your spending limit on every bank account can't exceed $3000 per month.
If BTC payment become a thing then it will make a lot of sense, I can decide to spend $10,000 per day if I want or can.
I didn't know that some countries impose spending limits on people's bank accounts. This is weird.
Spending lots of BTC on expensive purchases doesn't make sense to me. You can spend altcoins or stablecoins on buying stuff(if the seller accepts altcoins and stablecoins as payment). Maybe you could gather more cash and spend cash on offline purchases.
The BTC price is going to increase even more, spending BTC seems like a bad move right now.
I don't believe that Amazon is ever going to accept BTC/crypto as a payment method. They are doing just fine with fiat payments.
Money runs gambling. It gets transferred from a point to another. From the poor to the wealthy, from the wealthy to the poor.
Let's first talk about how the poor gives the money to the wealthy.... They allocate a huge part of their money (which isn't a lot in the first place) to gambling thinking that this would be the quick fix to their problems. This is how they give the money to the wealthy in this case the casino owners.
But the money can also go from the wealthy to the poor. If the tax from casinos gets collected by the government and is used effectively, it can help a lot of those in need. The money can be used to improve infrastructure, education, healthcare and etc.
Let's first talk about how the poor gives the money to the wealthy.... They allocate a huge part of their money (which isn't a lot in the first place) to gambling thinking that this would be the quick fix to their problems. This is how they give the money to the wealthy in this case the casino owners.
But the money can also go from the wealthy to the poor. If the tax from casinos gets collected by the government and is used effectively, it can help a lot of those in need. The money can be used to improve infrastructure, education, healthcare and etc.
You are obviously talking about the big offline casinos. They are paying taxes, but there's a problem. Do you really believe that online crypto casinos are paying any big gambling taxes? I don't have verified information, but I do believe that most online crypto casinos aren't paying any taxes. Maybe I'm wrong. Somebody must provide valid proof that the casinos are paying taxes.
Yes, gambling is a wealth re-distribution from the working class/middle class to the rich. All industries can be viewed as such wealth re-distribution systems as well. That's how capitalism works. The government helps in balancing the system by imposing higher taxes for the rich and a welfare system for the poor(the problem is the lack of effectiveness in both taxation and welfare).
Re: Economic differences between older and younger generation
Anyone noticed some differences between economic factors during the old times compared to now and how people react to these conditions?
Obviously inflation has made the prices these days a lot more expensive. Maybe this is why the older generation easily got to buy houses and properties. They also had very low to no student debts as well. One thing I noticed is that the older generation are more likely to stay in a work for a lifetime.
But the younger generation tend to go job hopping, switching from one job to the next until they find something perfect for them. The younger generation seems to prioritize a work life balance that is why a lot of them only work from home or work only as freelance.
Are there any characteristics from the older generation you would want the younger ones to learn so they can progress economically?
Obviously inflation has made the prices these days a lot more expensive. Maybe this is why the older generation easily got to buy houses and properties. They also had very low to no student debts as well. One thing I noticed is that the older generation are more likely to stay in a work for a lifetime.
But the younger generation tend to go job hopping, switching from one job to the next until they find something perfect for them. The younger generation seems to prioritize a work life balance that is why a lot of them only work from home or work only as freelance.
Are there any characteristics from the older generation you would want the younger ones to learn so they can progress economically?
I've seen many articles and videos about why "the baby boomers made everything worse for Gen Z" and how "the baby boomers were the richest generation and everything went downhill for the next generations". Maybe some of these statements are true, I didn't live in the second half of the twentieth century, so I can't make a proper analysis.
One thing is for sure. The old generations will die and their properties and wealth will be inherited by the young generations. This transition of generational wealth is really important. Yes, inflation sucks, but maybe new technologies like AI will make things easier.
The demographic decline will make things worse, but having less people in a society would mean two things. 1.Increased labor costs. 2.More assets redistributed among few people.
Gambling includes plethora of games, various sports to bet on but doesn't it all boil down to money in the end? More the money involved, more the thrill.
Suppose, as title says — you had infinite amount of money, would you still gamble?
Personally, I can't see myself giving two fucks when I don't care for money in first place. Would you?
Suppose, as title says — you had infinite amount of money, would you still gamble?
Personally, I can't see myself giving two fucks when I don't care for money in first place. Would you?
Nobody has "infinite amount of money". Not even Elon Musk. I guess that you mean someone being "extremely rich".
If I had 100 billion dollars, I wouldn't waste my time on low IQ gambling games(dice, crash, slots, roulette). I would probably still play poker, but not having the desire to win lots of money would definitely lower my motivation to play. Poker is fun for a while. After playing for several hours it gets boring. I wouldn't bet on sports, if I was a billionaire. I don't find sports betting to be fun, if there's no thrill in making profits.
I totally get your point. Most gambling games aren't that fun, if you remove the " winning money" part.
i am aware we all have different strategies and goals for our investments but i am sure that a lot of us are planning to hold bitcoin for the long term and it got me thinking what ways could we do to prevent us from being tempted to sell our bitcoins and spend it on unnecessary things
one way is writing off your bitcoins as not yours. that money is not yours to spend. just forget about it. the more you look at it, the more you will just want to sell it especially when you see the value of bitcoin.
do you also do this and does it really work for you?
one way is writing off your bitcoins as not yours. that money is not yours to spend. just forget about it. the more you look at it, the more you will just want to sell it especially when you see the value of bitcoin.
do you also do this and does it really work for you?
I'm not tempted to sell my BTC or to spend it on useless stuff. We have fiat money for our daily purchases.
Saying that the money/crypto you earn/HODL is "not yours" doesn't make any sense. If the BTC is really not yours, you could just give it away.
Having a sense of ownership is really important to me. You truly value the things that you own, not the things that you claim to be "not yours".
I've the "the more you look at it, the more you want to sell" mentality several years ago, when I was a newbie in the world of crypto.
This mentality disappeared after 2021, when the BTC price exploded. Maybe you are a crypto newbie as well. You will gain experience and you will stop caring that much about the BTC price.
Re: Will Bitcoin Hit $500k before the end of the decade as predicted by Jeremie Davi
Quote
Jeremie Davinci, one of Bitcoin’s longest-standing evangelists, just revealed a figure that stands out: $500,000. That is where he sees the Bitcoin price heading before the end of the decade.
I'm actually curious about the timeframe for such a prediction. $BTC recently pulled back from highs of $123,000 and is now trading under $117,000, marking a 2.4% daily drop. So, this pullback has not shaken Davinci's outlook. Instead, he is doubling down with not just a price prediction but also a generational pitch.
Personally I think the time frame is too short to hit the $500,000 mark.
What do you think?
I'm actually curious about the timeframe for such a prediction. $BTC recently pulled back from highs of $123,000 and is now trading under $117,000, marking a 2.4% daily drop. So, this pullback has not shaken Davinci's outlook. Instead, he is doubling down with not just a price prediction but also a generational pitch.
Personally I think the time frame is too short to hit the $500,000 mark.
What do you think?
5 years ago, I thought that a 500K USD Bitcoin price is impossible. I thought that even a 100K BTC price was impossible.
Now I think that a 500K BTC price by the end of the decade is totally possible. It's not because Bitcoin is so amazing and unique. The BTC price might hit 500K because the process of global de-dollarization would accelerate, which would devaluate the US dollar even further.
Another problem is that such price pump to 500K should be supported by the US government and I don't believe that the Republicans will have a president in 2028. The Democrats will return to power and they aren't very friendly towards mass crypto adoption.
Are you aware of the e-shopping site called Shoppe? This platform was first launched in Singapore in 2015 then reached to Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Basically covering the south east asia. It got me thinking how Uber accepted bitcoin and I wondered if is it possible that e-shopping site accepts bitcoin?
Maybe not. Shopee is known for very cheap items and I doubt there will be people wanting to pay in bitcoin. And is bitcoin that big in south east asia? But I thought that if bitcoin gets accepted in shopee, it will be a huge sign of adoption.
Maybe not. Shopee is known for very cheap items and I doubt there will be people wanting to pay in bitcoin. And is bitcoin that big in south east asia? But I thought that if bitcoin gets accepted in shopee, it will be a huge sign of adoption.
The question is "will the investment in implementing cryptocurrency payments be covered by an increase in the overall revenue?". If the answer is NO, why would any e-shopping site accept crypto payments? Even if an online shopping site accept crypto, will there be enough people willing to spend BTC on online purchases? I think that the answer is NO. Also, assuming that crypto payments are non-refundable, while fiat payments are refundable, do you really believe that the people would prefer a non-refundable payment method over a refundable payment method for online purchases? I think that the answer is obvious.
I have seen one interview of a former gambler and what he is saying caught my attention. He says that "when you're winning you can't sleep". I'm not sure if others have experience it or if this make sense. In any case though, one explanation is that we are really in a heightened alert, meaning it's like gambling is like a drugs that keeps up alive and awake and then the human emotions of greed takes in as we want to win for. But the problem is that after that, and in worse case if our luck turns bad, then this drug will like shoot to 100->0 in a instant. Or like when we are about to go to bed and suddenly that inch comes along and let's say that we go on sports bet, but the game will start in the next couple of hours, then we might have difficulty in sleeping and as if we take like 4 cups of coffee or a energy drink because we will for sure can't wait to see that game and hope that our stakes is going to win.
It's not because of winning. Many gambling addicts, who keep losing money can't sleep as well. That's pretty normal. If I was addicted and I had debts because of gambling, I would probably have insomnia as well. Gambling addiction is pretty much like every other addiction. You get a huge dopamine boost and you feel the euphoria, but the euphoria goes away and you feel tired and depressed. The next day you are craving for another dopamine boost. This has little to do with greed, even though greed certainly plays a role. This is more about our brains and our hormones.
Re: Crypto’s biggest problem isn’t regulation or adoption says Suhail Kakar
He is kinda right, but at the same time, I don't think that Bitcoin/crypto is that complex. Maybe the elderly people would find it difficult to understand everything about blockchain technology, cryptography, mining, hashrate, wallets, etc. but the young and medium aged people have no problem with using cryptocurrency wallets. After all, young people should be the target demographic for the crypto industry, but the crypto industry shouldn't portray itself as some kind of "Eldorado", where everyone would be able to make lots of easy money. Many people view the crypto world as a place, where people are making and losing money by doing speculative trading and gambling. This makes way more people scared and suspicious about crypto.
Why is it that alcohol ads are everywhere and they are easily bought in stores nationwide with only a warning of only drinking moderately and yet gambling is not allowed to be the same?
In roads, there are ads of alcohol. Where funnily enough is you shouldn't drink in. While driving. But still there are big ads and multiple ones in roads about alcohol and the warning that says Drink Responsibly. Does that one warning make it safer?
Why can't we just do the same with gambling? Alcohol consumption is extremely risky not only to the person consuming it but to the people around him. There have been so many cases of crimes due to alcohol consumption. Many people's health destroyed. So what makes it ok for alcohol ads to continue in public but not gambling?
In roads, there are ads of alcohol. Where funnily enough is you shouldn't drink in. While driving. But still there are big ads and multiple ones in roads about alcohol and the warning that says Drink Responsibly. Does that one warning make it safer?
Why can't we just do the same with gambling? Alcohol consumption is extremely risky not only to the person consuming it but to the people around him. There have been so many cases of crimes due to alcohol consumption. Many people's health destroyed. So what makes it ok for alcohol ads to continue in public but not gambling?
It depends of the country where you live. Alcohol advertisements are totally banned in my country, so I don't see any ads about alcohol anywhere. Sports betting advertisements used to be allowed in my country, but they were banned as well.
The sports betting ads always had the "Gamble responsibly" statements at the end of the ad, but that didn't stop the politicians from banning them completely, because gambling(including sports betting) became increasingly popular in my country. I guess that the "gamble responsibly" warning didn't work at all, and I'm sure that a "drink responsibly" statement wouldn't work in alcohol ads as well.
Most of the posts I have come across here in the gambling section has always centered on negativity about gambling. If it's not about gambling making someone go broke, it will be about one negativity or the other. Sometimes reading the comments in those posts scares me, because of how some people describe their horrifying gambling experiences. This made me to come up with this post to ask this important question; Is gambling really that bad? Are there no good effects of gambling on people? Gambling can't just be all bad all the time. Well if you think it's all bad, why are you still gambling?
Maybe there is a Pareto distribution is gambling. Gambling is bad 80% of the time and good 20% of the time.
The bad experiences around gambling are way more than the good experiences, but overall gambling isn't 100% bad(which is a good thing, I guess).
You lose money most of the time and you could get scammed, but every once in a while you get lucky and win a decent amount. The problem is how not to get carried away(and how not to get addicted) and waste your profits.
Maybe some people do learn important life lessons while losing money on gambling. Lessons like "nothing comes easy" or "luck is rare, you have to be prepared for luck, when it comes".