If your parachute doesn't deploy, you have the rest of your life to fix it

Хорошо, пусть будет 29 февраля

И что это принципиально меняет? Как я и написал, нужно смотреть более детальную статистику. В начале февраля биток вырос до 10к (с копейками), а через месяц обвалился до 4к, т.е. в два с половиной раза. Сразу возникает вопрос, на каком уровне был максимальный объем инвестиций? Было бы наивно считать, что он был одинаковым (плюс-минус) что на 10к, что на 4к -- учитывая, что падение было очевидной манипуляцией со стороны BitMEX, удачно сквизанувшей кучу лонгов

Do you know how much of the US government's debt China holds? Over 1 trillion dollars, taking the second place among all foreign holders of the US debt (with Japan being a little ahead). Just curious if you are still going to support the idea that China is ready to see the dollar crash. And while many people naively think about how much America owes China, it is in fact the other way around. This "debt" essentially shows how much China depends on the US. Just ask yourself why China would ever want to buy US Treasuries (which this debt is mostly made up of)? But seriously?

And the takeaway is that if America goes downhill, China will follow twice as fast

Я бы не стал равнять инвесторов и спекулянтов

Для инвесторов любой кризис -- это как раз возможности для инвестирования. Что там барон Ротшильд говорил по этому поводу? Правильно, покупай, когда на улицах льется кровь, даже если это твоя собственная кровь. Ну и из более свежего можно привести слова Баффетта, который сказал по сути примерно то же самое, а именно покупай, когда все продают, продавай, когда все покупают (шиткоинов это не касается)

Вопрос на засыпку

Если у догов нет абсолютно никакой ценности, тогда почему они ходят в противофазе к битку? Было бы логичным ожидать как минимум падения догов по отношению к битку, когда биток начинает падать. Однако все происходит с точностью до наоборот. Биток падает, а ценник догов в битке растет. Весьма странное поведение -- если отрицать у догов наличие какой-либо ценности. Я уже не говорю о том, что это практически уникальный случай

Don't take it too seriously

Cheating here refers more to claims about the reported capacity to predict the poker game outcomes with "100 percent correct result to poker player within 0.1 seconds. That's the kind of bullshit you would expect from someone with a dozen of posts and all of them advertising some shit

It reminds me of the good old days when you could pay a few shekels and download a certain app to your mobile phone that would (allegedly) show girls without their clothes. Remember that, huh? It is unlikely that any however remotely reasonable person would ever fall for this nonsense

And he is a few years older than Mike

If I'm not mistaken, Tyson had serious drug issues in the past, and they are likely catching up with him now. He looks much older than his real age. Lennox, who also happens to be 2 years older than Tyson, still looks like a 40-something if not for his gray hair (Holyfield looks fine too, just in case). I guess Lewis could easily take on both Tyson and Holyfield any day of the week, separately or collectively. Tyson, on the other hand, looks like he is 70 years old:



He is barely recognizable here

I don't think they intend it this way

More likely, it is not going to be a real brawl (read, Evander's ears will remain whole). However, if Tyson goes nuts, which wouldn't come as surprise at all, things are going to spiral out of control pretty fast. If anything, I would rather see Lennox vs Holyfield fight, though I'm not sure if Lewis would agree to this unless he gets paid, and probably on the order of a few couple million dollars


Holyfield would't agree to this outcome, either

It is ironic how fast people are to point out that you need an infinite bankroll for martingale to work out

However, they forget that this holds true only for as infinite timeframes. As soon as we are talking about particular spans or periods of time (like a month or a year), which is always the case in real life, what it actually boils down to are the odds of surviving a losing streak of a certain number of rolls for this strategy to work out on average

It is not even so much interesting to explain the specifics of this approach (cause they are pretty simple, and you don't exactly need a master's degree to figure them out) as to get to understanding why people go on and on about martingale being a losing strategy. Any strategy in any domain will end up with a disaster if used mindlessly

А это ничего, что первый квартал закончился 31 марта?

То есть еще до того, как животворный вирус отправил экономику в жесткий нокдаун (зачеркнуто) локдаун? И хотелось бы видеть не средние недельные инвестиции (=среднюю температуру по больнице), а конкретно суммы инвестиций в разбивке по тем же неделям этого квартала. А то может так оказаться, что кто-то закачал в середине января в биток гигабакс, а по остальным неделям будет совсем пусто, если вообще не минуса. Статистика она такая, девка продажная (зачеркнуто) хитрая. За ней глаз да глаз нужен, чтобы не чудила

Hi-lo, maybe?

I know that the name may refer to another type of game, which has nothing to do with dice. However, in the early history of online crypto gambling (not sure if there is or was offline crypto gambling, but bear with me), what we refer to here as dice had sometimes been dubbed a hi-lo game. You bet on the outcome which is either above or below a certain number on a scale of 0 to 100 (with decimals involved in more recent implementations), and in that fashion you are betting on a higher or lower number. Hence hi-lo

I'm already running certain tests

But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all

We already had a thorough discussion on the topic in this thread

Barring purely financial incentives and gambling addiction, the consensus is that people are gambling because they are extremely bored. It is not like they are escaping some real life problems unless, of course, their life has become a problem in and of itself. Most of the time people are looking into gambling because they feel it has turned dull and uninteresting. What they need is a proverbial adrenaline rush to feel alive again as they simply don't know how to make their life full and fulfilling in a different, more genuine way

People may avoid gambling, and for good reasons

However, they can't internalize why they should until they actually try it out. Basically, there are two types of knowledge (and the way it is acquired), the so-called book knowledge and experiential learning. With respect to gambling, the first type you acquire via reading a stats textbook, for example, while the other type by actually gambling and probably losing. And while the book knowledge could probably help you correctly assess your chances in, say, dice, this knowledge is rather limited as it cannot be easily transferred to other areas of personal experience. The experiential learning, on the other hand, can be effortlessly applied to any other area where it can possibly be applied because you internalize this type of knowledge, i.e. it becomes part of you, and you start to use it, to live by it, even without consciously choosing so or thinking about it

A fiary

I think one billion bets will be enough to see the pattern

Unless you bust in the process, of course. Indeed, you can set the increase on loss to 0, so that to avoid busting altogether, but it may take too long. Anyway, we don't necessarily need to run so many bets to draw some conclusions, and it is probably worth a try after all (I may run some tests)

I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition

Do you describe a hypothetical situation or your own circumstances?

Since you are talking like a hardened criminal -- a drug dealer, money launderer, or something to that tune. If so, it is unclear what you are doing here. Cause if you were, you would stay miles away from both regulated casinos and cryptocurrencies (as well as bitcointalk, for the record). Regardless, this has nothing to do with the fact that gambling at online casinos with cryptocurrency is more anonymous than at regular ones with cash. If you are going to challenge this point, please stick to the point (pardon the pun)

And that instantly puts us back to square one

That is, whether the quarantine was any good in the first place. Just a few days ago a Nobel laureate in chemistry (Michael Levitt, to be exact) came up with the idea that it probably killed more people than saved (apart from ruining the economy). As he sees it, indiscriminate lockdown measures were a mistake because in all countries which were affected most by the coronavirus outbreak, the death total levels out at roughly the same fraction of the total population, no matter what measures had been taken to fight the pandemic. That essentially confirms that the quarantine was pretty much useless. In other words, the cure turned out worse than the disease


It works but does so very much according to the law of diminishing returns, and the response curve goes down abruptly after some point

Going viral ain't what it used to be

They may have no choice

Printing excessive amounts of money is a way to squeeze more juice from the local populace. This has been a viable economic policy since the ancient Greeks and under pharaohs as well (the Romans took the lead soon thereafter). The essence of inflation tax is that the government is the first in line to receive the new money, and thus it has extra buying power for free before prices start to rise everywhere. Indeed, it is not going to work forever, and in the end people will either switch to barter or start using a foreign currency like it occurred in Zimbabwe