|
Professional Poker Player can actually make their living and make it quite well, but it is a full time job with no merging for mistakes. It is super-competitive and it is more difficult each day due to increased availability of computing power. But, yes some games do allow people to make their living of them, but it is not the typical player and the mentality is widely different.
|
|
|
|
There is no mystery behind it.
So, it's like an activity that even if you keep losing, you'll still play it. An activity or a video game that you'll keep coming back despite the disappointments and losses that you've incurred.
And the very reason is that you're simply enjoying, I don't know with the others but it's most likely that they want to recover their losses. Other than that, I can't think of any other reasons.
Many use gambling activities to pass the boredom. Others use it to occupy their mind so that they can forget the problems around them. Others use it for socializing, to meet new people and new friends while others think of it as another source of extra money, others simply wanted to test their luck. There are many reasons why peolple keep coming back to gambling places and online gambling platform. Any reason is valid for a gambler why they're doing it. And that's why for those questioning why people still gamble regardless of what they're seeing like being addicted to it and losing money, it's like any other things that we do. There's always a reason behind it. There is no mystery behind it.
So, it's like an activity that even if you keep losing, you'll still play it. An activity or a video game that you'll keep coming back to despite the disappointments and losses that you've incurred.
And the very reason is that you're simply enjoying, I don't know with the others but it's most likely that they want to recover their losses. Other than that, I can't think of any other reasons.
It varies from person to person how we perceive gambling because while some can not quite when they're going in particular dimension others have the control to always step back when the odds are not longer going in their favor and this is a principle everyone should adopt because gambling indeed has a force that can easily control the mind of the player. For example, to I made multiple games selections on Sport bet and all came through remaining only one game to be played I was offered a large cash out since I staked a high amount so I was caught in the web of the decision whether to quit the bet and walk away with my rewards or continue to the player, but I was brave enough to cash out and just getting to know that that the last match could have spoiled my tick. Yeah, it differs per person. And we all have those reasons to comeback or to stay as we're all grown up except those teens that are not at the right age and are already aware of this area of their life. I guess most people gamble to feel some short of special sensation of thrill while the game is on and similar sensation if they win. Other than that, gambling has been there for ever, so my question would be why would people stop gambling, since it is a millenary tradition, documented pretty much since the beginning of history and records of the humankind. |
|
|
|
Personally, I have never known or met a woman practicing gambling, and therefore any attempt to make a comparison will necessarily lack objectivity, given that there must be women in this field, albeit in a small percentage.
At the same time, I firmly believe that women generally do not prefer activities that contain high risks, such as gambling or trading. I also believe that this is a genetic difference between men and women, like many other differences between the sexes that can be seen in many statistics ; For example, there are men who commit crimes much more than women, just as there are men who specialize in philosophy more than women. Honestly, I don't think there is a logical explanation other than this.
I am not sure there is a general gender specific difference that can actually be sufficiently important as to be classed as gender related. Men traditionally are more "aggressive" while women are more "cunning". But there are aggressive women and cunning men so to speak about women and men as a category does not fly. I guess this is general for most theoretically gender specific traits. |
|
|
|
I have said that Stoltenberg wants the world to become militarised, not that NATO wants it. Certainly the allies of US do not all think in the same way.
Slow down, I'm taking notes. The opinion of the NATO Secretary General does not coincide with the opinion of NATO, okay, I understand.  Apparently this is from the same series as a day after Blinken's peacekeeping visit to China, Biden called Xi an incompetent dictator, which caused a stupor in the presidential administration, which immediately tried to dissociate itself from Biden's words, saying that this was just his private opinion lol. Yes take notes: The RF is single minded (mostly, I am not so sure lately), but the NATO is an alliance. Each country has their own interests and sometimes this are not aligned at all. Also, the personality and agenda of the GS may or may not be representative of all the agendas. Be sure that France, Germany and other would rather not have had any of this happening. Biden said dictator. Quite accurate. The key takeaway from the visit is not that comment BTW. Why do you think he went to China? To talk about the weather or to tell China to stop selling "washing machines" to the RF? |
|
|
|
Sorry Branko, the Patriots probably did not know they were hypersonic when they took them down. You must send an email to the Pentagon and write a poem telling them they cannot take them down.
The combat abilities of the Patriot are greatly exaggerated. Patriot's only accomplishments in the US Army were two friendly fire incidents in Iraq in 2003, when Patriot shot down one British and one American aircraft. Later, Israel shot down a couple more planes from the Patriot in Syria, and this is where all the combat achievements of the Patriot in the entire history of its existence actually end. The United States has never had good mobile air defense systems, because for the United States this is not a priority. ... ... If you are referring to Peskov's recent statement, then I think it is mainly aimed at preparing the Russian society for the speedy completion of the special operation in Ukraine. And yes, in the issue of demilitarization, Russia has achieved very significant success, and not only in the demilitarization of Ukraine, but of the whole of Europe. Stoltenberg said today that NATO arsenals are empty because of military aid to Ukraine. US tends to actually do the opposite: typically the declared capabilities of most of their equipment are lower than they actually are. Also there is a great echo chamber for anything that may make the US army look too expensive, prone to mistakes and mismanagement of money. All of those have some truth, but mostly are similar to the "abilities" of the RF, Japan and even Germany. Practice is the criterion of truth. And from the point of view of real practical success, the Patriot air defense system is the weakest in its class. Ukrainians need to understand this so that there are no unnecessary disappointments from inflated expectations regarding the level of protection of Kyiv from air threats. Stoltenberg wants the world to become militarised and that happens when the budget reaches more than 2%. That is his goal, and that is the why of his words.
It's good that you understand what Stoltenberg wants and what NATO wants. It is possible that RF wants to "close" the operation, that does not mean it will finish. As the saying goes, you know how a war starts, but you do not know when and how it ends.
I don't think that Russia wants to "close" the operation, and even if it does, it cannot be done unilaterally. In such cases, one has to take into account the opinions of all interested parties, and Ukraine and the collective West that supports it apparently continue to want the conflict to continue and "consistently go up the escalation ladder." There are rumors that Mihailo Podoliak is next.
Don't want to disappoint you, but Budanov is alive, he is doing fine and sending some greetings: https://t.me/joker_ukr/8386Podolyak is next? Maybe, but this joke was fun first two times, now it's getting boring. Have I joked about Podolyak before? Rumors about Budanov's injury were not groundless. At the end of May, Russia launched a missile attack on the GUR building and on the same day Budanov disappeared from the media space, although before that he had willingly given interviews on a wide variety of topics almost daily. Then one of Budanov's subordinates, refuting the rumors about his injury, for some reason mentioned his "good appetite", as they usually say about the sick or wounded. After his appearance on the air after three weeks of absence, Budanov looks a little strange. When will you z-tards realize that one person, be it Zelensky, Zalunzhny, Budanov, heck even all three of them don't matter that match in the grand scheme of things. Had any of them (or all three) died, another person would take their place and Ukrainians would have one more reason to fight.
But hey, if it makes it easier for you to sleep at night hugging Putin-shaped pillow and whispering "deep fake deep fake deep fake" - have at it.
I think nothing threatens Zelensky's health and life from Russia. Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennet at a meeting in Sochi asked Putin not to kill Zelensky, and he gave him his word. After that, Zelensky stopped hiding in the bunker and even occasionally appears in the immediate vicinity of the front line. Apparently Putin's word is the best talisman. As for the rest of the media people in Ukraine, there was no agreement. I think that all people known for their public calls to kill Russians, such as Podolyak, Budanov, Danilov, Yermak and many others, are on the short list for targeted denazification and they have no one to blame for this except their long tongue. ... I have said that Stoltenberg wants the world to become militarised, not that NATO wants it. Certainly the allies of US do not all think in the same way. Look, armies tend to self-justify themselves. If the RF army is sucking 11% of the RF budget, they are going to be constantly looking for the next war and the government always has the easy option of sending the army to whatever estate, republic or people are showing signs of cutting ties with Moscow. It is very expensive to maintain what it is effective an Empire under those conditions. Of course all the merchants of death in the world will be looking to start a conflict. Stoltenberg is one of them and invading Crimea was quite useful for this guy and the other hawks. When will Russia understand that wars in Europe are about block of European countries fighting in which the winner is always a third party called the US? It is not a good idea to place a bet on Europe ignoring an invasion and the US not using the opportunity to bleed everyone out - even if you think of the plan carefully an unbiased, it is just plainly a bad plan to start with. Anyway, under the "shhh" policy, there is a 4 sometimes 3 days of lagging information, but there seems to be quite a few problems resupplying the RF frontlines due to the untold and un-filmed pressure (meaning destruction) of logistic networks, ports, railways, depots, fuel facilities... in Berdyansk, Melitopol, even in RF territory by RF soldiers smoking in the wrong place. My guess is that Ukraine understands that trying to ram directly into the RF defences in the occupied territories is a suicide, but the plan of degrading the response capabilities could (and I am just saying could) cause an unexpected, quite surprising, collapse of sections of the RF front. Also, it seems that Ukraine may take advantage of the now semi-dry land in the Kherson region. |
|
|
|
Sorry Branko, the Patriots probably did not know they were hypersonic when they took them down. You must send an email to the Pentagon and write a poem telling them they cannot take them down.
The combat abilities of the Patriot are greatly exaggerated. Patriot's only accomplishments in the US Army were two friendly fire incidents in Iraq in 2003, when Patriot shot down one British and one American aircraft. Later, Israel shot down a couple more planes from the Patriot in Syria, and this is where all the combat achievements of the Patriot in the entire history of its existence actually end. The United States has never had good mobile air defense systems, because for the United States this is not a priority. ... ... If you are referring to Peskov's recent statement, then I think it is mainly aimed at preparing the Russian society for the speedy completion of the special operation in Ukraine. And yes, in the issue of demilitarization, Russia has achieved very significant success, and not only in the demilitarization of Ukraine, but of the whole of Europe. Stoltenberg said today that NATO arsenals are empty because of military aid to Ukraine. US tends to actually do the opposite: typically the declared capabilities of most of their equipment are lower than they actually are. Also there is a great echo chamber for anything that may make the US army look too expensive, prone to mistakes and mismanagement of money. All of those have some truth, but mostly are similar to the "abilities" of the RF, Japan and even Germany. Stoltenberg wants the world to become militarised and that happens when the budget reaches more than 2%. That is his goal, and that is the why of his words. It is possible that RF wants to "close" the operation, that does not mean it will finish. As the saying goes, you know how a war starts, but you do not know when and how it ends. |
|
|
|
- US and Co. have proper intel on Ukraine, they know what is happening on the terrain. UK and US are still sending vehicles, munitions, support, training... The fact that they are still training pilots, about to provide f-16, etc. tells me that they believe Ukraine can improve the situation fighting instead of negotiating.
Again, false premise...you would be right if you would care about Ukrainians. But, for your goals, dead Ukrainian is as worthy as dead Russian, if not more There is nothing in what I say or think that is racially motivated. I want a durable European peace and keep having the dividend of peace. Your proposal is to save Ukrainian and Russian lives by the false argument of allowing Putin and the Muscovian regime rule over any territory they wish to capture with military means. The flaw is self-evident: it never ends. A perpetual conflict in which your solution is to allow Putin to grab whatever he needs to "save lives". Next Poland, Lithuania, Sweden,... because, you know, is for "the Slavic race" benefit. While you accuse me of racism, you reveal that you are effectively a "Slavic" supremacist. In your mind somehow you consider that Putin is the king of the Slavs an the RF the representative of your chosen race in the world. Medieval and Nazi 100%. Nope, the only answer is to stop Putin here and now and make sure he understands that next time he feels like causing a war in Europe, he will be met in the battlefield and shall once again have to forcibly recruit 300.000 people at the expense of having 2 million of young people leaving the country, more than 100.000 RF citizens killed and spend a stock of tanks, planes and other legacy equipment that may not even be possible to rebuild in the future. If Ukraine takes Crimea, so much the better for a durable peace, if not, well, Putin is self-demilitarising his own country. |
|
|
|
Head of Ukraine intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov death
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, deserted to a foreign country
As usual, another fake new. It has been a rumour that was easy to take down. Nice tale. It is much more unprofitable to finish the conflict without a victory. US not liking war loosers when paying big tax for having the biggest and possibly the best military at least in terms of capability.
But there is a clear risk of the Republicans wanting to false-end this conflict a then having to pay again the price of a cold war during the next decade. It would be pretty much in the line of the international gaffes of Trump (like fucking the pacific trade agreement, fucking the Iran non-proliferation deal, leaving top-secrets in the hallway...). But de Santis or others are unlikely to know much better either.
However, if they make the White House, they would have access to the information and perhaps see things differently, who knows. IMO Trump is pretty much a Russian agent.
Tnx. Biden is no stranger to humiliating military defeats. Let me remind you that his presidency began with a crushing fiasco in Afghanistan, and he came to power precisely on promises to withdraw troops from there and end the conflict. Although the Doha peace agreement with the Taliban was signed by Trump, who also wanted to play this card in his election campaign. Thus, both candidates in their election campaign sought to use the powerful trump card of a peaceful settlement of the protracted Afghan conflict, which they inherited from the Obama administration. I think the topic of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict will also become a similar trump card in the 2024 election campaign for both Trump and Biden, and it doesn’t matter who plans to participate in this political show. Society loves victory and dislikes defeat, but even more society does not like protracted military conflicts with murky goals at the expense of taxpayers. I think even after the crushing victory of Russia, the media in the USA will convincingly explain to ordinary Americans why this is a victory, not a defeat - some Russians (from Russia) killed other Russians (from Ukraine) and this is a good waste of American money. And damn it's hard to argue with that, given that most ordinary Americans can't seem to find Ukraine on the world map. Right now the media still proclaim Ukraine is winning and then countries like South Korea flash all the news on their local media praising Zelensky and appreciating Olaf Scholz. You really can see who in this world promotes war and not peace when they could just ask Ukraine to negotiate and stop the war. I doubt Putin will even attack Ukraine in the first place if they are just listening to its demand to not extend NATO. For the West, this is just another war like Afghanistan and Iraq or but for Russia, this is an existential threat that they could end up like Afghanistan if NATO surrounds them. "Western media" does not exist. I know you are confused because you are used to have one version of the story, but different news outlets speak differently of the current status. I have seen prominent politicians and retired generals speaking with the voice of Sauron (Putin) to the point that seem bought. As far as I am concerned: - All RF trolls in youtube, forums, telegrams are trying to undermine the morale of the Ukrainian army by saying that the battles cost many lives, that all tanks are being destroyed and that it is suicidal to fight... And who would expect anything different? That is your job guys tight? - Zelensky is not claiming nor promising a quick win. Ukraine knows that they are up to entrenched positions. The fact that they are fighting tells me that they still believe the situation can turn in their favour, either completely or at least to better it. - US and Co. have proper intel on Ukraine, they know what is happening on the terrain. UK and US are still sending vehicles, munitions, support, training... The fact that they are still training pilots, about to provide f-16, etc. tells me that they believe Ukraine can improve the situation fighting instead of negotiating. - The territorial gains of the offensive are being dismissed and watered down by the same people who considered 50 meters a day in Bakhmut with 500 dead a good day. The only thing I can agree on is that the stakes are high. But you are wrong to assume that Europe is not existentially threatened by the RF now that they have decided to "solve things" militarily. Is not just "another war", it is a war in Europe. What I think is happening is that you have a real war now. A high-intensity fight only seen before in WW II and some stages of WW I, with lots of equipment used and lots of troops involved. It is too early to call success or failure, as most of the troops have not yet been committed by both sides. I do give credit to rumours that say that RF has reserves, but also Ukraine has kept most of the best tanks and equipment uncommitted yet. Bradleys? They are there by the 1000s... cheap and basic, like Maxxes. If you want to get close to truth, do not listen too much to words, look at the maps and make sure that you do not believe anything that does not match reality. |
|
|
|
Iran in the 70'is when the Shah of Iran (King) was in power before the world mafia removed him  The fact that the current regime is shit does not mean that the Sha was anything else but a dictator. People that flew Iran and more quietly people living in Iran consider the guy a better alternative. I mean, if I had to choose then yes... However, Iran is not a poor country and many people are educated, so there is fertile ground for a possible non-theocratic Republic, but that is nearly impossible to achieve while the ignorant and the corrupt have all the guns. On the "world mafia"... anything specific? Because the US was quite happy dealing with the Sha, so it must be someone else. |
|
|
|
2 propaganda topics! What's up bro? Iran is about to gain nuclear capability in months if not weeks.
FYI they've been saying that Iran is about to build a nuke in 2 weeks for the past 2 decades, at least. Does anyone feel "the world is now safer thanks to Trump"?
You gotta love the irony in US being worried about another country maybe building a single nuke while US has thousands of nukes and other kinds of WMDs and has a history of using them regularly  The point was to keep them a year or two away at all times from having enough required to create a weapon so that f they broke the deal,
Wrong. JCPOA was targeting was a start and was targeting a lot more than "nukes". It was targeting or hoping to target Iran's defensive capabilities. Long story short they were hoping to do what they did to Iraq, to Iran too. First sanctions, then disarming then famine followed by an oil for food enforcement then more sanctions and disarming and finally invasion. All because Iran has the most amount of fossil fuels (oil+gas) in the world. Iran's genius was to accept JCPOA but make it only about nuclear topic. They disabled everything like the nuclear power plants, the nucleology (nuclear medicine) programs and a lot more but improved the shit out of Iran's defensive capabilities. That is why Trump pulled out of JCPOA. Because it wasn't serving its purpose which was to weaken Iran's defenses to invade and take control of that sweet sweet fossil fuel fields. I am not your bro. My topics are my opinion and usually they are based on documented assertions. Perhaps you are no longer able to tell what is real and what is not: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/05/30/iran-puts-its-nuclear-programme-beyond-the-reach-of-american-bombsIt is exactly five years since Donald Trump pulled America out of the deal with Iran to constrain its nuclear programme in exchange for economic-sanctions relief. Since then, Iran has not stood still. Satellite pictures appear to confirm that Iran is building a nuclear facility in the Zagros mountains, near the existing Natanz enrichment site (shown above). It seems to be so deep under the ground that it will be invulnerable even to America’s most powerful bunker-busting bomb. This article is behind a paywall, but this is not idle talk and there is more evidence. The site is beyond the reach of the bunker busting GBUs. Iran does not have the most reserves as you describe, however it may be possible that an invasion plan could exist. Note "possible" and "plan". Iran is much more useful to US and Israel as a counterpower to Saudi Arabia and the countries in the gulf. Regarding a military intervention, I do not think that is really possible in the economic sense. Iran is not Iraq. Larger, richer, better armed and controlled with an ironfist. Has some sophisticated weaponry and sufficient international support. Lastly, sanctions have never worked to remove a government. They tend to affect the people, but the leaders are not removed (e.g. Cuba, Venezuela,...) To your credit, at least you have some reasoning behind your views. |
|
|
|
^^^ You have read the documents? You have determined that they are top secret and classified? Or are you only listening to hearsay? Why is your determination greater than the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who declassified these documents his last day in office? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5411468.msg62425530#msg62425530If you read the documents, and you think they should remain classified, aren't you the real criminal by your own admittance, by voluntarily reading documents that you say are classified? Or show us your top secret clearance. But if you didn't read them, why are you simply believing a bunch of blabbermouths who say they were or should be classified over what the President said and did... declassification?  No, I cannot read them, they are Top Secret and I do not have clearance and I have not participated in parties at Mar-a-Lago, which is the other way of having direct access to these. No, Trump did not declassify the documents. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/trump-tape-didnt-declassify-secret-information/index.html“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript. No, Trump cannot declassify just like that: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lacked-power-declassify-secret-nuclear-arms-document-experts-say-2023-06-18/Trump lacked power to declassify secret nuclear arms document, experts say No, my sources of information are an order of magnitude better than yours. That can be checked across your post history easily. Finally note that I say, subject to verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, it is more likely that Trump did everything he is accused of than the FBI and the doj being in cahoots on a super-conspiracy that would require the involvement of hundreds of people. |
|
|
|
On August 8, 2022, the FBI, pursuant to a search warrant, raided the home of the legitimately elected former President, Donald Trump. This was an unprededented event and was clearly motivated by politics. It appears that the DOJ intended to "prosecute" Trump via leaks to the friendly press by leaking either inaccurate information or information that is taken out of context. An example of this to date includes leaks to the Washington Post suggesting that some of the "classified" documents in Trump's home were related to "nuclear" secrets. From the looks of it, the dispute in question appears to be a document dispute between Trump and the National Archives. There is no evidence presented to date that suggests a search warrant was necessary. The unredacted version of the affidavit that was used to support the search warrant on Trump's home contained no information that suggested evidence of a crime would be found at Trump's home. Prior to the DOJ being ordered to release a redacted version of said affidavit, both Trump and Republican lawmakers have been calling for the DOJ to become transparent regarding the investigation and the case. After the affidavit was released, with its heavy redactions, many continue to slam the DOJ for their lack of transparency. All of this comes after the DOJ described angry parents who were critical of the Biden Administration's allies (the teacher's unions) as "terrorists". What do you think? Has Biden weaponized the DOJ against his political opponents? Has the DOJ and FBI lost all credibility? 1 - No, this is not a political raid. It is a raid by the law enforcement. 2 - Trump is not a victim. He has committed, pending a verdict, a number of federal crimes that place the US in jeopardy. These include leaving Top Secret documents in places where many people could have access and not returning the documents even after no longer being President and being officially requested to do so. 3 - It would actually be unfair for the people who have actually gone to prison or even being executed for failing to protect secrets not to judge Trump. Again, playing the victim card over and over. do you remember the saying "the fact that I am paranoid does not mean I am not being followed?", well, the fact that he has made many enemies does not mean he is not guilty of quite a few crimes. |
|
|
|
|
There is a movement, but every time there are protests, the Mullahs send the protesters to prison, by the thousands, an kill a few hundred. The protest lack organisation or leadership. The regime cares not for pacific protests and the protesters do not have any means to take the regime down by force.
The theocratic regime is strongly imbricated in some classes of the "Republic"... unless there is foreign intervention, it is unlikely to change from the inside. The "morality" militias are pretty much a gang of thieves and the regime is cosy with them.
|
|
|
|
Curiously, the scale of this lie is much larger. The reports of the Ukrainian side were replicated by the Reuters agency, and even after a refutation by a member of the African delegation, Zelensky continued to assert about Russian missile strikes, accusing Putin of inadequacy and loss of control over the Russian army. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. They come up with a ridiculous story and begin to believe in it themselves with all their might. If thats how they destroy your hypersonic missiles, I guess you have nothing to worry about...imaginary kills of imaginary rockets To destroy the hypersonic Dagger, the Patriot launcher doesn't even have to do anything, just stand still. But there is a nuance here, this trick only works once, to destroy the next Dagger they need a new Patriot launcher. The method is expensive, but very effective. Sorry Branko, the Patriots probably did not know they were hypersonic when they took them down. You must send an email to the Pentagon and write a poem telling them they cannot take them down. be.open, the F16 is not a rough equivalent of the Mig 29, not the versions that are upgraded. They reason they want the F16 (and I think they should go for the Gripen) is because the F16 radar has a very good range an can pickup, target and down they SUs that are launching the gliding bombs, not to mention the helicopters that appear from time to time in the Zapo front. |
|
|
|
Nice tale. It is much more unprofitable to finish the conflict without a victory. US not liking war loosers when paying big tax for having the biggest and possibly the best military at least in terms of capability.
But there is a clear risk of the Republicans wanting to false-end this conflict a then having to pay again the price of a cold war during the next decade. It would be pretty much in the line of the international gaffes of Trump (like fucking the pacific trade agreement, fucking the Iran non-proliferation deal, leaving top-secrets in the hallway...). But de Santis or others are unlikely to know much better either.
However, if they make the White House, they would have access to the information and perhaps see things differently, who knows. IMO Trump is pretty much a Russian agent.
Tnx. Biden is no stranger to humiliating military defeats. Let me remind you that his presidency began with a crushing fiasco in Afghanistan, and he came to power precisely on promises to withdraw troops from there and end the conflict. Although the Doha peace agreement with the Taliban was signed by Trump, who also wanted to play this card in his election campaign. Thus, both candidates in their election campaign sought to use the powerful trump card of a peaceful settlement of the protracted Afghan conflict, which they inherited from the Obama administration. I think the topic of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict will also become a similar trump card in the 2024 election campaign for both Trump and Biden, and it doesn’t matter who plans to participate in this political show. Society loves victory and dislikes defeat, but even more society does not like protracted military conflicts with murky goals at the expense of taxpayers. I think even after the crushing victory of Russia, the media in the USA will convincingly explain to ordinary Americans why this is a victory, not a defeat - some Russians (from Russia) killed other Russians (from Ukraine) and this is a good waste of American money. And damn it's hard to argue with that, given that most ordinary Americans can't seem to find Ukraine on the world map. Oh I, remember Afghanistan, as much as Russia remembers it. The America retreat from Afghanistan is not a military defeat (yet certainly not a political success) and it is not inherited from Obama (it was JW Junior, one of the most unqualified ever presidents) either, it is merely cutting economic loses ... after 20 years of occupation they figured out that it was much better to have the Taliban fighting Iran with American equipment. plus the point is now clear: attack the US and there will be no hole in the earth you can hide in. Now, to the real issue here: The RF wants Crimea, US is as of today supporting all efforts to either return it to Ukraine or put it into an untenable position. The key here is if the US can afford a peace in which the RF meets the objective of taking land from Ukraine to secure Crimea and Sebastopol (since it failed in anything else already, no government change, military stronger than ever, more countries joined NATO, Europe nearly united against the RF invasion, young workers running away, low growth, diplomacy problems, ...). My take is that the US has less allies an less powerful in the global context that it used to have. Any US president should understand that if Europe has to be dealing with the RF because the US left them with the problem, they should not expect any help with China (which to be honest is a good commercial partner for Europe, as the RF was before Putin started reading the wrong books). I believe Trump will do whatever he wants, because I think that there is a substantial base of people in America that will support him even if proven that he has killed Christmas. He does not have to sell anything really, nor respond to any action... anything said against him is met with insults, self-victimization and accusations of partisanship. If he wants to support Ukraine he will find a excuse ("defend the US interests or whatever") and if not... the same ("not spending money blah blah..."). If elected, will the Republicans dare to o the right thing or would they simply succumb to doing the opposite of whatever the democrats do? |
|
|
|
|
It is possible to conduct an approach to gambling that is strategic an logical. This is about trying to understand the odds, the possibilities and what drives the game dynamics in a certain gambling event. There is nothing as wasted as long as you take such an approach and have a theory you are testing or a logic that you are following in your gambling. That is, if you learn somehting.
|
|
|
|
|
For Poker it is true that some people perceive it as a skill-based game that involves strategic thinking, psychological elements, and calculating odds but saying that this is something exclusive of males would sound very silly in this centuries. Females have proven over and over that, given the chance, they can be efficient, smart and even aggressive if needed. I would say gender does not define for gambling.
|
|
|
|
Betting with AI in these times does not make sense, firstly because they are in very beta mode, and secondly because they have not yet been programmed with the precision that is needed, I could not say if in 5 years the prediction capacity of the robot will be almost perfect , but I think it will get closer because there are so many events that can be seen having an AI that I am sure will give the most optimal response, and as a result these things can happen, but when it is more advanced, then for now making bets with AI is losing easy, but in the near future it will be the card to success.
Intelligence can't be the probability of winning so the reality is they may have more data, knowledge, analysis and possible outcomes but if the bet is fair then the results will be unknown until it happens so AI can never beat the basics but it can kill the entire casino systems cause what if everyone opts to choose AI for betting and they just let it decide then human civilization will move away from gambling which has been a part of it since the beginning. We are in the beginning 9f AI and w have not even seen it all. I know.with time, sophisticated artificial intelligence will be produced and people would have not option than to opt in and to it because it is will be the order of the day. As people get into AI to build and do different thing with AI, very soon man power jobs will be limited because AI would be available to do them and make life easier for us even in betting and other forms. Very soon casinos would limit the use of AI in betting to reduce the risk it could pose to other users that are not AI freak. We are only at the beginning of the revolution for artificial intelligence dominance. That era will come, only because now it is beginning, it is beginning and for now AI dominance may be low, but according to what we currently have, it is obvious that there is still a lot to develop and apart from all that I could say that there must be a lot of programmers working hard just to get an AI trained enough to achieve at least 90+% betting efficiency, I find it easier to predict results in sports than to beat a casino system. Therefore, for now, the wish of many, which is to beat a casino and get rich, will not come true for now. Browsing the internet and different social networks, I have come across many courses, certifications that have to do with AI, apparently the interest in AI is great, but learning and programming? there are many people who have never programmed and AI programming for newbies may seem very complicated, however they are taking it to be able to have more knowledge and not be left behind. It's true that there is a growing fascination with the field, and many individuals are eager to learn and understand its concepts and applications. AI programming can be complex but I usually think that there is not anything worthwhile that is not really challenging. If anyone can make it, I am not really interested because I add no value with my time. |
|
|
|
But for obvious reasons, some of the folks who are addicted to this kind on none betting game are higher than those who are actually addicted to real gambling where they have to stake an amount.
I believe what happens is that when there isn't money involved gamblers don't feel the excitement they use to have when betting for real money. When there is nothing to lose and nothing considerable to win the effects on your brain are different. The release of dopamine doesn't happen, your heart doesn't beat faster, you don't get chills. There aren't high expectations regards the outcome, because if winning or losing the bet it won't make any difference on your life. It's like people say: no pain, no gain, although in gambling I think we could say: no risk, no thrill. If it is a gambler, they will not find it any challenge as there is no money involved, and it can make them unwilling to continue. But if there is money, they will surely be eager to continue, and this is where the real temptation of gambling lies. And maybe if there weren't any money, prizes, or anything at stake, it wouldn't be gambling but just an ordinary game played by two or more people. And we also have often experienced it and maybe felt the fun playing the game. Like for example, we compete or play games on phones. We don't get money or anything but only find pleasure in playing it. You raise an interesting point about the role of money in gambling. It's true that the element of risk and the potential for financial gain or loss is a significant aspect of what makes gambling enticing to many people. The prospect of winning money can create a sense of excitement and motivation to continue playing. Some people may just have to have it. |
|
|
|
|
Decentralized casinos, which operate on blockchain technology, sometimes offer an alternative to traditional casinos by providing more anonymity and removing the need for KYC but obviously they are not entirely foolproof either. As with any online activity, there are inherent risks so using the reputate sites, checking in the forum... those are required.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
