Average joe could hardly able to get the total sum of 1+M onpoint on which they could make use of it on their gambling bets which means that this guy might be a multi-millionaire but who really knows,right?
It's possible that some average joe could bet with this much and it just came from his winnings as well. When someone confidently thinks that he'll win with such odds, he can gamble with all the remaining funds that he has. But that confidence also made him lose as this is gambling, even the tiniest percentage like a zero point something on the odds still means a chance of losing or winning. Exactly the point bro, but really, not very many persons understand that no matter how small the odds is or are, the chances of winning and losing will always be 50 50 for each sides, many gamblers will never understand this until they are forced to understand the hard way. I personally never really understood how dangerous it was to be over confident in a game and bet all you have, until I lost about $3000 in a bet, that money was all I had at the time, because of this loss, my business collapsed, I spent several days in the hospital trying to recover from the shock, after I came out from that experience, I knew better that all that glitters are not actually gold. As long as gambling/betting is concerned, there is no 100 percent sure bet any where. It's quite very sad you had to go through all this just because of a loss of $3000 in a bet, because with this now, I just wonder what this gambler who lost $1.4million must have gone through after discovering he/she lost the bet which he/she thought was to be a 100% sure winning. Because who knows if he/she is still in a coma yet to recover from the shock? Like I said in one of my previous comment, only a person who does not understand the value of money would think or say that 1.4 million dollar is a small amount of money for some people, it is never a small amount because getting it is not easy, those who make this amount in a day, week or month, probably have suffered to build that business that is able to generate such an amount in such timeframe, and only a waster will not value this, no matter the amount of money the person have. what am I saying in essence?, like you, judging from my own personal experience, i am also wondering the kind of situation the gambler that lost this amount could possibly be, this is if he or she is still alive, because loosing this amount of money on one bet could lead a person into committing suicide, most especially, if this is all the person. Because one thing I have learned from this thread is that no matter how odd seems to be very sure, please always try to bet an amount you can always afford to lose so that if in case it doesn't go as planned, it doesn't hurt you that much.
Exactly what I meant by what I said earlier, this is an important gambling rule but greed would not allow many of us adhere and obey it, like I can confirm completely that greed was what lead me into putting almost $3000 in one bet, some thing I've never done before in my life, infact, before this incident, the highest I always put in one bet was $100, i never beyond this amount, but on this faithful day and this faithful match, I was 100 percent confident of a win, and greed came in and told me to bet all the amount of money I have, so that I can as much money as possible, I did, and eventually lost an amount of money that would have ended my life. No, it is true, for some people $1.4M is what they make in a week (for some, in a day). There are not a lot of those people out there, probably only the 1% of the 1% can loose 1.4M and not care much about it. Think arab oil millonaires, guys like Elon Musk and others like them. I do understand what you mean, it is not little money for anyone in the sense that is pretty much what most people will earn working a life time, if ever. |
|
|
|
Still good rules, for people who have the discipline and the clear mind to stop when is no longer fun or when there is risk of getting to big for their finances, these rules however are played in automatic. Most of us just know when to stop because it is the way we play. However, I reckon there may be plenty of persons out there that may requiere such a set of rules. |
|
|
|
I read today that the United States is openly accusing China on considering to send war material and weapons to Russia, China (for now) has denied those accusations.
If China enters the war as material supplier to the Russian Federation while USA is pushing to continue sending money to Kiev, things could get messy between the both super-powers... I doubt Mr.Biden would dare to set economical sanctions against China the way Mr.Trump once did.
I believe that US actually asked "Kindly" from China not to do so, rather than accusing, unless there is a reliable transcript of communications saying so. However, "war materials" are something very wide, it is not just shells and drones, it is also electronics with potential use for weapons. I have no doubt that China is perfectly willing to supply as much of those as needed - they are getting cheap and nice oil from RF after all. |
|
|
|
Yeah but if you take an interest-only loan, who wins in that case? Its pretty much just the bank. Unless your home appreciates more than double of what you paid then you could close the mortgage and get a 100% gain. However that won't help you because you wont be able to buy another house like that either because houses will appreciate also 100%.
In these types of markets only the banks win because they pretty much are the landlord and own the property. They have a very low risk loan. And unless there is something such as a 2008 recession where home prices tanked then they are in a good position.
Please, re-read. You put a deposit, you buy interest only and then rent it out to others. Usually the interest will be (for example) 1000, rent will be 2000, expenses 300, so the owner will be netting 700 a month. It is a real business, I am not making it up. On top of that, it is very likely that long term the property increases in price and then they make extra. On top of that, they can sell at any time and can re-mortgage if required many times. |
|
|
|
In the country I spend most of my time (country A), you can access interest-only credits. You only pay the interest during the mortgage and then the loan value at the end.
How does it work in your region? Do you think there should be a ban on "interest only" to favour live-in owners?
With inflation being 7% or higher annually. How much can the value of a home depreciate over the span of a 30 or even 50 year mortgage. Especially if payments aside from interest are deferred until the mortgage reaches maturity. I think that business model may not be sustainable over the long term. If there are interest only credits, I would hope they would exclusively be offered in subprime mortgage cases. Rather than used by large investment firms to make it easier and more cost effective for them to consolidate and centralize real estate markets. Nope, not for subprime, pretty much the opposite, to clients who own a home and are buying to let the one with mortgage. BTW I am not sure how you link depreciation with inflation. They work exactly the opposite of what you say: physical goods in general tend to appreciate with inflation. For example gold, art, etc... The business model has been working for a century. Large firms may have some advantages, but there are millions of people that own two or three properties and rent them all over the world. |
|
|
|
It's more of a political issue than an economic one as good homes are starting to become unaffordable for common folk at any rate.
You can do what Canada is doing and ban foreign investors on homes, but honestly that will only prevent more damage, not repair existing damage to affordability.
I heard about it. I think it can heal a bit of the damage done, as some investors will be selling while others cannot get in the market. In some cities in Mediterranean countries there are severe limitations on allowing touristic rental for properties in city centres. Some cases like Barcelona have made it quite difficult, while in some very touristic areas such as Palma de Majorca there are extreme difficulties to find personnel for hospitality as the renting prices are inaccessible for the salaries offered. |
|
|
|
Biden in Kiev and another $500 million poured into the Ukraine blackhole / money laundering scam. His number one priority (Ukraine) along with his neo-con handlers Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken (they were his handlers when he was vice president also, when Ukraine initially kicked off). As a person living in a country that in essence has become a slave to the USA as it has been taken over by globalists without an election, all I wonder is "how much is it going to cost us this time?" Considering the astonishing foreign successes in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq I guess Ukraine must be looking forward to a massive victory?  Astonishing Germany is letting the whole Nordstream sabotage by terrorists Biden/Nuland/Blinken slide. I guess Germany is a slave to the USA as well now. Sad. I highly recommend listening to the Seymour Hersh interviews exposing the American gangster terrorists in power. I discussed this matter with someone in the gas pipeline industry who I have known for years. It is more than likely Hersh is right. It is a very difficult job to execute since the pipes are completely dug into the seabed. If Russia supposedly was behind this, it would be a major international terrorist threat regardless considering pipelines and cables everywhere, why not go after the Norway to UK / Europe pipeline (The Langeled pipeline)? Sabotaging that would fuck us all over ten times more. It isn't being treated as a terrorist threat what happened either so in that sense things are extremely fishy anyway. The media seem more than happy to ignore the matter anyway and are quickly going back to parading the Zelensky asking for F16s and UFO balloons in their headlines. You do not live in Ukraine. US was 20 years in Afghanistan, demoted Gadhafi in Lybia, demoted Sadam in Iraq,... I think that Ukraine could live with Putin demoted as a result of this, so great examples thanks. The US is right in sending war material to Ukraine. Much better to fight near the RF than in the Brandenburg gate (in Berlin) and certainly much cheaper than a new full-blown cold war. |
|
|
|
Biden has come out and said that the American taxpayer is now going to provide social support for Ukraine so that their people can have some “pocket money” for spending. This is absolutely insane. American taxpayers are already carrying a debt of a quarter million dollars per person for their share and now have to support Ukrainians? Absolutely insane. Not a penny more for Ukraine. Let this war end for the sake of everyone involved.
It is far more expensive to have an aggressive and triumphant RF army at the gates of central Europe. Putin has already threatened Moldavia. His Psychos will not stop in the Donbas. The US has fewer allies in the world than ever. Bottom-line for you convenience and easy understanding: If you do not like footing this bill, prepare for what will come if you fail to stop the RF.@BA - Ukraine allies are not backing off, they are sending MBTs. Please, please, please, read proper news from time to time. ...
This war would have ended in March of last year if NATO would establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine's territory (Donbas and Crimea)
and install modern air defense systems everywhere.
Instead, billions are spent to continue to bleed Russia and rebuild Ukraine.
A few decisive NATO strikes on Russia's logistics infrastructure would help Ukraine in pushing Russia back to the 2013 borders.
...
No, that gets you WW III and likely nuclear strikes. Simple yet wrong solutions to complex problems lead to world-life changing mistakes. For clarity, a no-fly zone implies NATO aircraft shooting down RF planes. That is an act of war. Not reacting militarily to the RF annexation of Crimea, and now, the full-scale invasion is just kicking the can down the road, at the cost of the lives of innocent civilians. RF needs to be demilitarized from nuclear weapons. Any other solution will bring another war in the future. Even if Ukraine kicks the Russian forces to the pre-2014 border, Putin (or his successor) will re-arm and attack Ukraine again. Why do you think he 'incorporated' four Ukrainian oblasts into RF? So that he will have the pretext to attack again. Even if Russia conquers parts or the whole of Ukraine, what do you think will happen next? Russia will go after the Baltic countries to establish the land bridge to Kaliningrad, or will 'recover' the Caucasian Soviet republics to establish a land bridge to Turkey and Iran. The threat of a nuclear war will remain for as long as imperial Russia exists. NATO will be threatened with nuclear war if they respond to any of the above annexations. Not reacting to Russia's aspirations in Ukraine will give them a carte blanche to annex whatever the Soviets lost in 1991. Read Hitler's Mein Kampf and Putin's/Dugin's papers. Putin and his acolytes will not stop. They must be stopped. There does not seem to be a path to denuclearize the RF nor to convert it to a non-despotic regime. A no-fly zone does not achieve that objective. An attack to the RF territory (the original borders of course) is likely to achieve a gigantic escalation. For now, demonstrating that attacking other countries is expensive and does not pay (and may even cost Putin the government) is the way to have a future pacific behaviour. Too expensive, to useless, to difficult, illogical, dangerous and risky - those are the words that must come to the RF Psychos mind when they think ever again of waging aggression in Europe. An that state of mind has to be achieved by demonstrating that RF is no longer a world power (in military terms that has been achieved) and that there is an economic and political price that is too high to consider in the future. "Dangerous and risky" is probably our best bet. Putin does not care how expensive or difficult his goals are. He only understands strength and power. So until he sees it from the West, he will not back down. Regardless of the economic and political implications. All the talk about delivering tanks in 6 months, or maybe Mig-29s (who knows when) is just music to his ears. It is a clear "go ahead" for him. The actions of the West must be decisive and quick. And they should not be announced anywhere, but visible on the front lines. NATO should be shooting down ALL Russian planes crossing into Ukraine/Donbas/Crimea and eliminating the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. All without saying a word about it. If asked, well, we are investigating, blah, blah, we'll get back to you in 3 months (or when we are done). Otherwise, this conflict will spill over to the rest of Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. Agree on the basis, but bear in mind that "too risky and too dangerous" for Putin does not mean that too many of the soldiers may die or too much war material can be lost. It means "too much risk of loosing power" and too "dangerous for himself". Killing soldiers in the field is (unfortunately) just part of the equation. Putin is not immune to the "too expensive" and "not worth it" arguments. Apart from his personal ego, war is expensive and most countries (since the Romans and before) do war if is either: a) Required for survival (like Ukraine & the supporting countries) b) Profitable (easy targets, high income) c) Strategically interesting (e.g. Europe having Ukraine as ally / Putin wanting to have statelets under his control). The strategic objectives do have a limit in economic terms - he may simply not be able to afford any better strategic position that he has for lack of funding. Finally the "not sustainable" is also relevant, aligns with the "not worth it". RE delivery times and NATO shooting down planes in an undeclared war, that gets you WW III. Simple, yet wrong solution. Unfortunately, there is no way NATO can offer that level of support. An I do perfectly understand that Ukraine at this point may want it, but honestly, the first nuclear strike would be in your territory if it ever happens. Are you sure you want that? BTW, I think that NATO helped the sinking of the Moskva. Tactics, intelligence, infiltration,... that wins wars as much as tanks and planes (typical case: U boats). |
|
|
|
|
In the country I spend most of my time (country A), you can access interest-only credits. You only pay the interest during the mortgage and then the loan value at the end. Also, in general, fixed rates are rarely available for more than 5 yr. so people re-mortgage many times along the life of the loan.
In countries (B) and (C) this is very rare. Mortgages tend to be for at least 20 years and some are to even 40 years. Fixed rates are available for long periods and people rarely would change bank and mortgage.
In country (A) investors use interest only mortgages to buy a place an put it to rent. They can profitably pay more money than someone who would buy to live in, making the market quite "hot". In countries (B) and (C) the markets require investors to re-pay including interest, which makes getting a loan to rent less profitable and thus the market is less "hot".
How does it work in your region? Do you think there should be a ban on "interest only" to favour live-in owners?
|
|
|
|
If you're young and haven't inherited a property from your ancestors, chances are that you're forced to rent. Personally, I've been renting for over 6 years and have been living with my girlfriend for the last 4, sharing rent and utilities. Overall, we've both spent over €25,000 together, and after spending all this money, you're practically left with nothing and may be subject to looking for a new house at any moment.
The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is between €300 and €400 at best; thus, I was thinking that taking a loan is as costly as paying rent per month, but after 15-20 years, you end up with a house. My main concerns are the following: First, if you're in a long-term relationship like myself, you can never be 100% sure that you'll be with that person in 20 or 30 years from now, which might prevent you from opting for a loan. Secondly, you need to be certain that the location or city of the property to be bought is convenient for future job offers and so on. Thirdly, because a loan is a many-year commitment, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to afford the monthly payment 15 years from now.
On top of that, finding the ideal house as a renter is almost impossible; there's a lack of housing, and rents are extremely expensive and unreasonable at the same time. We had a difficult time finding a house recently, and it's far from ideal. There is now a new government-funded loan program that is about to start, funding up to 75% of the loan interest-free while the rest is funded by private banks and is subject to a relatively low interest rate. This led me to think about taking a loan and purchasing an average two-bedroom apartment, but I have the concerns that I voiced earlier.
Quite accurate all of it. I look at in this way: - If you buy, it may rise in value, go lower, you may loose money or not. If you rent, you are certain you will loose it all. - You cannot be sure if you can make your payments, but you would not be sure you can pay rent either. However, if you have managed to pay at least for a few years, you have equity on the property (part of it is yours, not the banks). You can sell it and go renting something cheaper, is not like if you are left with nothing (unless a super-crisis 2008 style that might actually make you loose). - On relationships: same case, if you divorce you can sell it. Make sure there is an agreement on that before you buy. Only caveat with it is kids and rights to your partner so, again, an agreement could be useful if possible at all depending on your country's law. - Finding the ideal house is impossible as renter, and is also impossible as a buyer unless you have unlimited budget. There is also an extra you could have: an extra room, an utility room, a top-floor, a garage, a garden, a very large house, a swimming pool... You always have to settle with something and, if an expensive area, you will have to settle with no-frills properties and feel a bit "constrained" perhaps. The market I am in is super-hot. It means that finance is very available and there are many people that use property as a business. The fact that interest-only credits are available makes prices higher. I will open a thread on that now that I think of it. |
|
|
|
Biden has come out and said that the American taxpayer is now going to provide social support for Ukraine so that their people can have some “pocket money” for spending. This is absolutely insane. American taxpayers are already carrying a debt of a quarter million dollars per person for their share and now have to support Ukrainians? Absolutely insane. Not a penny more for Ukraine. Let this war end for the sake of everyone involved.
It is far more expensive to have an aggressive and triumphant RF army at the gates of central Europe. Putin has already threatened Moldavia. His Psychos will not stop in the Donbas. The US has fewer allies in the world than ever. Bottom-line for you convenience and easy understanding: If you do not like footing this bill, prepare for what will come if you fail to stop the RF.@BA - Ukraine allies are not backing off, they are sending MBTs. Please, please, please, read proper news from time to time. ...
This war would have ended in March of last year if NATO would establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine's territory (Donbas and Crimea)
and install modern air defense systems everywhere.
Instead, billions are spent to continue to bleed Russia and rebuild Ukraine.
A few decisive NATO strikes on Russia's logistics infrastructure would help Ukraine in pushing Russia back to the 2013 borders.
...
No, that gets you WW III and likely nuclear strikes. Simple yet wrong solutions to complex problems lead to world-life changing mistakes. For clarity, a no-fly zone implies NATO aircraft shooting down RF planes. That is an act of war. Not reacting militarily to the RF annexation of Crimea, and now, the full-scale invasion is just kicking the can down the road, at the cost of the lives of innocent civilians. RF needs to be demilitarized from nuclear weapons. Any other solution will bring another war in the future. Even if Ukraine kicks the Russian forces to the pre-2014 border, Putin (or his successor) will re-arm and attack Ukraine again. Why do you think he 'incorporated' four Ukrainian oblasts into RF? So that he will have the pretext to attack again. Even if Russia conquers parts or the whole of Ukraine, what do you think will happen next? Russia will go after the Baltic countries to establish the land bridge to Kaliningrad, or will 'recover' the Caucasian Soviet republics to establish a land bridge to Turkey and Iran. The threat of a nuclear war will remain for as long as imperial Russia exists. NATO will be threatened with nuclear war if they respond to any of the above annexations. Not reacting to Russia's aspirations in Ukraine will give them a carte blanche to annex whatever the Soviets lost in 1991. Read Hitler's Mein Kampf and Putin's/Dugin's papers. Putin and his acolytes will not stop. They must be stopped. There does not seem to be a path to denuclearize the RF nor to convert it to a non-despotic regime. A no-fly zone does not achieve that objective. An attack to the RF territory (the original borders of course) is likely to achieve a gigantic escalation. For now, demonstrating that attacking other countries is expensive and does not pay (and may even cost Putin the government) is the way to have a future pacific behaviour. Too expensive, to useless, to difficult, illogical, dangerous and risky - those are the words that must come to the RF Psychos mind when they think ever again of waging aggression in Europe. An that state of mind has to be achieved by demonstrating that RF is no longer a world power (in military terms that has been achieved) and that there is an economic and political price that is too high to consider in the future. |
|
|
|
Biden has come out and said that the American taxpayer is now going to provide social support for Ukraine so that their people can have some “pocket money” for spending. This is absolutely insane. American taxpayers are already carrying a debt of a quarter million dollars per person for their share and now have to support Ukrainians? Absolutely insane. Not a penny more for Ukraine. Let this war end for the sake of everyone involved.
It is far more expensive to have an aggressive and triumphant RF army at the gates of central Europe. Putin has already threatened Moldavia. His Psychos will not stop in the Donbas. The US has fewer allies in the world than ever. Bottom-line for you convenience and easy understanding: If you do not like footing this bill, prepare for what will come if you fail to stop the RF.@BA - Ukraine allies are not backing off, they are sending MBTs. Please, please, please, read proper news from time to time. ...
This war would have ended in March of last year if NATO would establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine's territory (Donbas and Crimea)
and install modern air defense systems everywhere.
Instead, billions are spent to continue to bleed Russia and rebuild Ukraine.
A few decisive NATO strikes on Russia's logistics infrastructure would help Ukraine in pushing Russia back to the 2013 borders.
...
No, that gets you WW III and likely nuclear strikes. Simple yet wrong solutions to complex problems lead to world-life changing mistakes. For clarity, a no-fly zone implies NATO aircraft shooting down RF planes. That is an act of war. |
|
|
|
If Ukraine really wants to fight, that's their business. But it's kinda stupid of them. <...> "The methods which Ukrainian forces are using to ambush Russian armor columns are rather advanced and familiar. I suspect the possibility that there are outside military "advisers" (perhaps US advisers) on the ground right now in Ukraine. The advanced guerrilla-style ambush tactics and the results look similar to training that is often given to Green Berets or SAS. The UK did send anti-tank weapons along with a small group of "trainers" to Ukraine in January."...
 BA, there is absolutely no doubt that Ukraine is receiving first quality military advice and a torrent of intelligence information from the "Gospel from the Sky" and the "little birds" in the RF ministries and army. This is not a "suspicion" it is as clear as it gets. The planning and success of the last counter offensive that recovered 3000 km2 requires quite in depth knowledge of the deployment, morale and means of the RF troops. Ukrainian troops are being trained - officially, not even in secret - in several NATO countries (locations undisclosed) in the use of NATO armament and as of today in the use of German and British armoured vehicles. The US citizens should be able to realize that it is much more expensive to have a successful Putin at the gates of central Europe than supporting Ukraine's very rightful fight. The US is not precisely well suited in allies and it would do well in supporting the ones that are still on their side. |
|
|
|
|
I guess that we could ask a similar question: Must diplomacy include the possibility of war? In politics everything is about getting the people to talk, agree, discuss and eventually coexist peacefully. The use of violence in general is to politics what war is to diplomacy: that means that it has failed to achieve it main purpose: peace and progress in a society.
|
|
|
|
@OP thank you for the link, it is indeed a very informative website. It caters to knowledge about gambling addiction, its signs, and determining if one have gambling addiction. What's best is the service is free as @OP stated. Hopefully it will be useful website for addicted gamblers who suffer from controlling limits. The more you chase losses, the worse it goes as confirmed by experienced gamblers. Knowing your limits and not pushing your luck may be solution for short time frame but in the long term professional help is needed, IMHO. Thanks for spreading helpful tools on this forum board, it must be nice to know you help strangers who share same problems.
From the information on the site alone, I can say it is a great help. Plus they provide 24/7 services to advise people in need. they also have a community of experienced people that were once addicted to gambling and are now rehabilitated and going back to normal living. It was far easier when betting on-line was not that popular or even not possible, because people with gambling problems coud actually request to be denied entrance to casinos and thus gain some control over their bad habits and their life. Now it is much more important to have such a services as gambling is so widely available and there is not general possibility of self-banning for sites. |
|
|
|
|
Of course it is a bet that I would take, but the key here is how many times can I bet. If it is a one-off, then not a lot of money, because despite the statistics being in my favour, luck is luck in the end. However if I can place the bet many times, I would do so increasing the amount little by little as eventually profits would be mounting up for statistical effects.
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the signature of Memphis Depay from Barcelona, Diego Simeone and his side hasn't improved and proved they can end the season well because never say never. I look up to Athletico Madrid but then not so sure they can win against Bilbao who have been a better side than Diego Simeone side. Time without number, I'd advice him once again to improve on his tactics. He shouldn't be defending too much football way past that level.
Actually if we look at Atletico's development over the last few seasons they are like this, they faltered a bit at the start and started to return to their ideal position in the Champions League Zone towards the end. The addition of Depay is also something they did well. The conditions are slightly different when this season Simeone rarely trusts Joao because of Morata's presence, but with Depay now they are still quite good because they can still fill the position left by Joao quite well. Simeone still has to improve because his condition is still not possible for them at the moment. I have a friend that takes Atletico de Madrid very seriously and would never accept any argument about it. I think however that unless it starts getting some serious money in the market, the lame results that it is getting are going to keep comming because is not about this or that player of even the coach, it is more about the other teams getting stronger. |
|
|
|
I've always believed in the fact that 'the most intelligent or smartest doesn't win the game, the best in strategic planning has the cup.
Also, don't quit, let every experience be a motivation to want to do better.
don't take aside the luck mate , remember that even those champion losses in the underdog team not because their are completely skilled but because they have the luck that day. we have seen this many times before though this is isolated cases , in which what you said is true, Strategy and dedication is the best weapon to win. It doesn't fact how much experience you have, In gambling one must be bowed down to the fate. Moreover, the word "Gambling" is very familiar with the word of "Fate". Thomas Jefferson has a famous quote about fate, that is I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Is this something applicable on Gambling? Yes for strategic based one but no for luck based one.If you dont believe then it would really be ideal if you do test out about having that hard work basing up on the line. Its better not to treat gambling as some sort of thing which could bring out huge benefits considering that it was really just intended for the sole purpose of entertainment and leisure. Just make yourself to be intact when it comes to risk handling and you would be fine.
“Oh, it’s not really gambling when you never lose.” – Jennifer AnistonSource: https://www.therandomvibez.com/gambling-quotes-and-sayings-for-all-gamblers/that stands better here , and yes it is about the type pf gambling we are playing , Luck Base is completely by chance (with very tin part of skills) while in skill game like sports betting and some of card games? then it is applicable . but I can see it that there are many quotes here that comes from Jennifer Aniston , is she really a good in gambling? If we do tend to make out some research about Jennifer Aniston. Then i do found this. Jennifer Joanna Aniston (born February 11, 1969) is an American actress and film producer.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_AnistonI didnt see anything about in correlation about being a gambler or something that correlates into this venture or activity which means that every word that she do gave out or simply with those qoutes are basing up on his own common sense for sure. Actress and a film producer? not really that shocking. Nah, she was probably speaking about having sex without protection  But I think the quote is not real, it is not really something that an actress would say in public. However, apocryphal or not, still does not make sense. It is said that the worst thing for a gambler is to actually win often, as the habit will reinforce and become worse to the point of having negative effects in their live. |
|
|
|
Maybe according to them asking for proof of age is not KYC because they think that KYC is personal identification information such as names and so on, but we don't know what the answer and the main reason is from asking for proof of age but they claim that it's not casino KYC. This kind of thing will become a conversation and debate if he doesn't say and provide the right explanation. In fact, if you only ask for proof of age without providing KYC or clear identity, I'm sure many users will manipulate it because even KYC, which is clear about identity, can still be manipulated, especially if this is just proof of age. Proof of age is used to make sure the user isn't a minor, so the casino might not allow the user to play if he's not at least 18 years old. If he's lying, then it's his own risk to gambling and the casino doesn't responsible about that because they've done to make sure the gambler is a matured person. Age is one of KYC, but it's just really generic and I don't think they will know you if you're just giving how old you're. KYC can be considered in two ways: it is weak like this one, it is clear that the company just wants to tick the box and comply with regulation but does not really expect trouble from that front. Strong KYC are a proof of people doing serious business in serious jurisdictions. It is not a great idea to join a site that does not make an effort to comply. |
|
|
|
Why then did they invade Kharkiv and Kyiv?
Russia invaded neither city, nor did they try real hard. They threatened them in order to pull Ukrainian forces from other areas which they did intend to keep. Of course Russia would have been happy if Ukraine would have surrendered since it would further one of the goals. Namely 'de-nazification'. But they never put the forces together to win these cities militarily against a determined adversary. They, and every other competent person can see this. Why did they level cities in Luhansk and Donbas?
Moscow studiously avoided doing so when practical in all areas, but most particularly the one's they plan to incorporate into the federation. Kiev wasted a lot of ammo trying to do so in Donetsk, and still does for reasons known only to the NaZiocons. You'll have to ask them, but I would suggest that expending ammo on trying to kill civilians detracted from their ability to fight Russians and contributed to the generally poor performance in terms of logistics and strategy. Why did they level Mariupol?
To get rid of the Nazis. Next question? Why are they bombing apartment buildings in Kyiv, Lviv, or Odesa?
Generally they avoid it unless there is a high-value target. Most of the time when a seemingly benign civilian target is hit, it's traced back to errant Ukrainian air defences. Of course Ukraine and the Western propaganda always say 'Russia did it', but their proclaimations are completely without value to anyone who is somewhat infomed and observant. They will always say the same thing, within minutes, no matter what the details. It is obvious what they want to do. They want to annex the whole of Ukraine and kill anyone who is not agreeing with it.
It's obvious they don't, and they would only do so under extreme duress. It would not 'accomplish the mission' of de-nazification anyway since the West would absorb the Nazi-types as 'refugees' and keep them busy with operations like the 'Charleston' hoax. Do you think if they take control over the four oblasts that they already 'annexed' on paper that they will not want to go and annex Odesa and Moldova? Of course, they will.
At this point, they very well might. The economic and strategic value will make up for the reparations that the West obviously won't be paying to Russia. They are Nazis and they want to exterminate Ukrainians.
Very possible that they are generally on-board and in bed with the WEF and Talmudic and designers of this whole engineering effort. I cannot rule it out. Their plan is to slowly grind Ukraine and Ukrainians into ashes.
What's very very amusing is that the geenyuses in the U.S. were dead-set on turning Ukraine into a quagmire or 'another Vietnam' which would sap Russia and they were positively gloating about it. In reality it turned into exactly the opposite. Russia is doing quite well on the world stage (in part because most of the world is sick of Western bullshit and only stick around for the bribe money), and the 'collective West' is bleeding out at an impressive rate. I suggest that the WEF types knew this would happen and welcomed it. The Talmudics running the U.S. most likely as well. Some of the low-level Neocons (e.g., Jake Sullivan) may well have believed the bullshit that he had a hand in creating. That's why to real powers install not-very-bright people into fairly high level positions. No, Putin's government tried to take Kiev, except that their intelligence was so poor that they though the government and army would flee. "No too hard" costed 1000s of RF soldiers lives. No, Putin's government declared they would overtake Ukraine, that includes the Donbas (particularly the Donbas). Again, for "not wanting" that piece of land, it costed RF mothers quite a few of their brethren. Remember, this is not a theory or a dissertation or a discussion on a pub - Putin's Psychos make mistakes, RF soldiers get killed. Big mistakes, thousands of dead, small mistakes more dead. Now, keep on rationalising, their mothers, wives and children don't get them back. Interesting how you somehow pretend that non-belligerent countries have to pay compensation. For what? You dictator says there is no war. How can there be reparations? Unless you have decided to admit here that there is a war and get 10 years of prison. Translation: "To get rid of the Nazis" - Putin's government made-up expression that justifies any war crime. Examples: Why did they bomb the school in XYZ? - "because they were Nazis inside", why they they destroy the powerplans in Ukraine - "because the electricity was being used by Nazis". Use it without moderation, as it does not require any evidence. Again, Ukraine and many Ukrainians fought the real Nazis. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
