Everyone has his own developed strategy together with the ones he has learnt from other gamblers experience,
Not everyone. I'd risk an opinion that vast majority of gamblers do not have any strategy at all. And good strategy is based on math, relying on own or other people's experience is not needed. the thing that we are not being sure about is the fact that we don't know what may come in after using a particular recommendation or strategy when gambling,
Again, good strategy should help you predict the expected result and reduce uncertainty as opposed to playing with no strategy. |
|
|
|
As far as I know casinos have to ask users to agree with terms and conditions once again every time they make changes on it, doesn't matter how little they are, just like banks and every other services do. Moreover, a timeframe must be presented for users to cashout their funds, if they disagree the new terms.
Exactly, it's not limited to casinos, but it goes to pretty much any online service. But that's assuming such service operates in compliance with the law, and there are plenty of casinos that operate illegally or half-legally (which is not necessarily a bad thing though). Most victims are usually small scale gamblers who cannot do much after getting screwed over, but they can still harm the site thanks to the proof that they collected within this forum and other sites.
I think if the casino is trying to pull a scam, it would be easier to screw few big players than hundreds of small ones, as in the latter scenario, a larger group of victims would make much more noise online and the word would spread much faster. From the legal perspective: if casino has chosen to pull up a scam, they wouldn't care about any legal action anyway. And if they operate legally and screwed people unintentionally, then you'd expect authorities to eventually step in and order them to make the players whole. |
|
|
|
|
Why are we going up? Can anybody loop me in? Google gives me nothing
|
|
|
|
Fresh press hit from only 3h ago. You would think that Bitcoin's growing dominance is a good thing, but author disagrees (spoiler: growing BTC dominance is a sign of lower trust in the crypto market): Bitcoin Rises as Its Dominance Across Cryptos Grows. Why It’s a Bad Sign.https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-ethereum-price-crypto-markets-today-a65ce26Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were rising Tuesday with the dominance of the largest digital asset at historically high levels—something that may not bode well for sentiment across the crypto landscape.
The price of Bitcoin has risen more than 1% over the past 24 hours to $26,750, at the upper end of a trading range between $26,000 and $27,000 that has held since a 10-month high above $30,000 was reached in April—a level that has proved difficult to reclaim. Cryptos have continued to stagnate in range-bound trading despite key catalysts on both the regulatory and economic front.
“Short-term indicators point higher, although intermediate-term indicators point lower, so we stay short-term neutral for now,” said Katie Stockton, managing partner at technical research firm Fairlead Strategies. “A breakout, while unlikely near-term, would target second resistance … near $32,000.
(...)” |
|
|
|
I like to follow that statement. The first win gives you the thinking that you can continue repeating the first outcome of your
game, that no one can stop you from bringing more bacon to your table.
With that thinking, your engagement will increase your lust and desire to keep playing will lead you not to control yourself anymore.
Something that the casino owners would love seeing on you as you will keep bringing more money in the hope that you'll be
able to keep winning the game, but in reality, you are just bringing more money to lose.
True, brick-and-mortar casinos are not sparing money on make the experience as addictive as possible (anything from music, complimentary drinks, flashy lights etc). As mentioned before, a lot of such problems could be mitigated if people had the knowledge of how their brains actually works. It would probably be a good idea to introduce some basic psychology or neuroscience (and how hormones such as dopamine can affect our decisions) in the public school's curriculum. |
|
|
|
Binance własnie ogłosiło ze zamyka swoje usługi w Holandii,
Poważnie? Nic do mnie nie dotarło. To spory news. Co jest powodem? Na jakiej zasadzie takie zamknięcie wygląda? Że po prostu likwidują oddział a użytkownicy dalej mogą używać, czy będą blokować użytkowników z holandii tak, jak starają się blokować tych z USA? Tez o tym wczesniej nie slyszalem, ale teraz czytam ze licencja o ktora sie starali zostala im odmowiona, wiec beda sie musieli wycofac z NL. Co gorsze, czytam tez ze Francja postawila im zarzuty prania pieniedzy o wysokiej wartosci ("aggravated money laundering"): https://coingeek.com/binance-flees-netherlands-faces-aggravated-money-laundering-probe-in-france/Nie wyglada to zbyt pieknie dla Binance. Jesli dostaja po d*pie z kazdej strony, to nawet lojalni klienci moga zaczac opuszczac statek. |
|
|
|
I just received a piece of great news from the Yo!Mix team.
I honestly do not know how to phrase it so I am just going to quote what they've said here.
(...)
The generosity of both Coinomize and Yo!Mix team for understanding my situation and what had happened; I am forever in their debt.
The same goes for numerous members of this forum who pushed me not to give up.
Always great to see an ugly situation turning into a happy ending and congrats on settling the issue! I think the way you dealt with this adversity actually increased your reputation on this forum, and you probably are more focussed on wallet security than before. And it's definitely a good PR for both, Yo!Mix and Coinomize teams, as they showed some empathy and understanding, which should be appreciated by their current and potential customers. Who knows, maybe the hacker will use their services himself haha Anyhow, sounds a bit like a win-win from the reputation perspective (not necessarily from the financial one). |
|
|
|
And you forgot if nowadays staged videos are everywhere, what are you see on a video isn't actually real.
There's a chance someone become dumb on purpose because they don't want to reveal themselves to know about Bitcoin or express themselves are Bitcoin holders.
I believe there's someone still never heard of word Bitcoin especially they live in a country where the government is strict e.g. North Korea.
Yeah, most viral videos are probably staged, but I don't think this is the case with this one. When you live in a densely populated city, it's not hard to find a few people willing to be interviewed and then cherry-pick the funniest (or most stupid) answers. And it's probably cheaper too, as with staged videos, the "actors" would likely want to have their cut. As for Bitcoin's recognition, there are loads of people who are familiar with its name, but don't know pretty much anything else and are clueless about its value. |
|
|
|
Terms of service in any regulated site is really long and you need to spend for at least 30 minutes to read an entire rules. The question is, how regular you read the whole terms? everyday? every week? every month? it's time wasting if your life is only used to read the casino terms.
Usually a regulated casino terms is similar to each other, they will ask to submit KYC including ask video or live, if you don't want to fulfill it, you will not able to withdraw your big winnings.
Any regulated, law-compliant casino would not be able to pull any nasty tricks on their players via changes to ToS, as the law would usually offer protection to the players, or at least their deposited funds. And for non-regulated ones, operating from exotic jurisdictions, regular studying of their ToS is probably pointless, as they could either change them whenever they see fit, or even ignore their own rules, as you unlikely will ever be able to take any legal actions, so it's all about trust and reputation. |
|
|
|
it's true, if you don't want to lose money while gambling the best solution is to stop.(...)
So the strategy you have to do is manage your finances in each game, don't let your money run out in just one game. Because luck when playing gambling is not only in one game, you can get big wins after experiencing several defeats or vice versa.
So if the best strategy is to stop, then why did you carry on and advise people to "manage their finances" to not run out in one game? Will that advice make them any less likely to lose? Or is it just to waste more time together with money? Betting is all about luck, because the chance of winning is only a few percent of the total money you bet.
That's not true, you could place bets with 99% chance of winning. More important factor to consider is the house edge. |
|
|
|
Instead, we were able to reach a Court-ordered agreement with the SEC that allows us to continue our ordinary course business.
What does this statement really mean? What is ordinary course business in this context. Doesn't it mean normal trading and other things but not related to staking and other activities why SEC classified them as securities? That means that their funds won't get frozen and they will continue to operate, i.e. conduct their normal operations. Of course, I imagine that will all the panic probably most of the US customers decided to withdraw (you can't blame them), so the level of activity of Binance US is probably just a fraction of what it used to be. But at least they can carry on trading until the court rules otherwise. |
|
|
|
Basically if you want to not lose money gambling you need to either never gamble, or stop gambling once you have won more than what you have gambled so far.
The key reason that triggered one to either continue betting or stop permanently is profits and loss. It demonstrates the fundamental requirements of gambling; earning more than expected will only bring forth the quality greed, and I would not welcome losses on my bet games. I'd rather stop than keep gambling since it will never cease unless we make a firm decision to stop. Our minds are wired in such a way that we become addicted to whatever activities provide us with food. Gambling without setting daily limits will result in huge losses. Gambling is not a viable strategy for making extra cash. There's a popular saying among hopeless gambling addicts that the worst thing that happened to them was their first win, so there's a lot of truth to what you wrote. Then again, if you are aware of how human brains operate and what causes addictions and degenerate behaviour - then it's way easier to keep your gambling activities under control, i.e. don't gamble for entertainment and only consider it when you spot an opportunity where the edge is on your side. |
|
|
|
The article is hidden behind paywall, but I get your point. The fact that there are some accidental correlations is not a reason to dismiss all of them though. Bitcoin is the best hedge against inflation - has any major asset given a better return since 2009? It not only protects against inflation but outperforms it with a much higher return in terms of the strongest fiat currencies, let alone compared to currencies of countries such as Venezuela or Argentina. Of course, there will always be those who bought at the peak of the bull market and sold because they shit their trousers when the market started to fall, but every inflation hedge has ups and downs.
I can't agree with this. Sure it performed great when you take the entry price of zero (or sub 1 USD) in 2009, But someone who bought in say 2 years ago and is witnessing BTC trading at a much lower nominal price (not to mention the real value, i.e adjusted for inflation), would probably disagree, even if they haven't "shat their trousers" and are still holding ("you only lose if you sell" is a joke). To say something is a great hedge against inflation, you'd expect there to be a positive correlation: the higher the inflation rate - the higher the price. Is this the case for Bitcoin? And why do you want to compare it only to "major assets", was BTC a major asset in 2009? |
|
|
|
Yes, I think with the DCA strategy, I expect it to grow from time to time, but I only look at the history of the 4 year cycle, so I think it would be very appropriate if we do DCA for 4 years.
I know that dips are buying dips and we have to understand about normal market movements when there is a dips that lead to crashes it's the right time to buy dips when it's the most appropriate moment, but I can't do that because from a financial point of view at mine I just prefer DCA even if it's small at $10 but at least bitcoin holdings grow weekly and don't need to buy dips for some other reason.
With a note by buying dips I think it's a good result they buy every dips they just need to manage their time and finances to be ready when the market crashes again.
But if you're hoping that Bitcoin's price movement will remain cyclical and we'll still have the 4-year cycles in the future, and if you intend to do the DCA for 4 years and then (I assume) you intend to sell - then wouldn't it make much more sense to (at very least) apply some sort of DCA/buy-the-dip hybrid strategy, where you either: - make regular DCA purchases but only in periods when Bitcoin is cheap (according to the 4-year cycle metrics), or - keep making regular purchases throughout the entire 4-year period, but increase $ amounts when BTC is trading low and decrease when it's high. Sounds like the only argument for doing the classic DCA is just convenience. |
|
|
|
Ethereum Redefined: JPMorgan Proposes Unique Categorization: "As the digital currency landscape continues to evolve, it has become evident that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other U.S. regulatory bodies are eager to redefine the government’s approach to regulating cryptocurrencies. However, despite the SEC’s lawsuits against Binance and Coinbase and calls for SEC restructuring from the Grand Old Party (GOP), a clear way forward still seems distant. Adding to the complexity gripping the blockchain industry, a team of JPMorgan strategists led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou has suggested that Congress place Ethereum (ETH) in a new “other category” instead of the rigid classifications proposed by the SEC for tokens like MATIC, SOL, ALGO, and others." Thanks for sharing. But I don't quite understand their idea. "Other category" of what? Is it supposed to be another category of securities, or something other than securities/commodities? The latter would make much more sense, but now the question would be if it's not security nor commodity, would it be outside of SEC's jurisdiction? If so, would it require the creation of a separate regulatory body? Because I don't think this is likely to happen. And if SEC was to keep their authority over crypto despite them not being securities - then it's just handing them an extra powers, which is not something I am in favour of. |
|
|
|
It's hardly ever a good tactic. Altcoin pump is usually delayed compared to Bitcoin and alts are the first to drop. They also tend to tank harder than BTC + the composition of the top 10 keeps changing over time, so if you want to stick to this tactic, you'd have to rebalance periodically, which also generates costs/losses.
Meanwhile, despite all the bearish news, Bitcoin's dominance has risen to over 48%. I remember some experts saying around a year ago that BTC will unlikely cross 40% and that it'll be losing dominance over time.
Depends, i remember when eth was high on the marketcap, people thought it was too high to move as much as lower caps. Turned out that there was so much room to grow and ETH ended up being the most profitable altcoin, even when it started from top. Top was relative to todays marketcap, but we don't know what the cap for highest marketcap will be. If you're referring to the time when ETH was getting really close to Bitcoin's No. 1 position and the "flippening" looked like a probable scenario, when BTC had ~38% market dominance compared to ETH's 31% - then I have a slightly different memory of that time. I remember that had a massive positive impact on ETH's price as a lot of people, who didn't really care about ETH too much, started buying it just to hedge against the mentioned flippening (there was a huge hype around that, with flippening-watch websites popping up etc.). So I don't think that ETH's fall from that 31% was a result of people thinking the market cap was too high, but the other way around - because it was getting high, it allowed it to get even higher to the peak of 31%. But eventually, all hypes die out. |
|
|
|
That's some positive news indeed, as otherwise Binance US operations would get completely destroyed. But not sure if we should read this as SEC softening their stance and looking for compromise, as Binance, in their tweet, referred to it as a "Court-ordered agreement". So it could be that the court forced SEC into accepting that agreement, rather then it resulting from SEC's good will. Here's what Binance themselves had to say about that: https://twitter.com/BinanceUS/status/1670077275419869186We want to provide an update on the current battle http://Binance.US finds itself in with the SEC. We are pleased to inform you that the Court did not grant the SEC’s request for a TRO and freeze of assets on our platform which was clearly unjustified by both the facts and the law. Instead, we were able to reach a Court-ordered agreement with the SEC that allows us to continue our ordinary course business. There has never been any evidence presented by the SEC concerning mis-use of customer assets. In fact, the SEC lawyers conceded in Court earlier this week, when asked by the Judge, that they had no evidence suggesting that any such thing had occurred. The SEC’s request would have effectively shuttered our business, which is consistent with the agency’s continued attempts to kill the crypto industry by any means, even by making allegations that are not supported by the facts. This fight has damaged our business and our reputation but not our fighting spirit or our resolve to defend ourselves against unwarranted charges and “regulation by enforcement” tactics that do not belong in our system of justice. We look forward to continuing to defend ourselves in court. |
|
|
|
We can never accurately predict market cycles so we need to do DCA to avoid buying all investment funds at a certain price at once, because according to our predictions that the market price has reached the most dips but the actual price is much lower than the price we predicted, I think nothing the best analysis of the DCA strategy for adding assets to the crypto portfolio because we have distributed investment funds gradually, even if the next bearish market occurs we still have some funds from the opportunity to buy at the lowest price.
There's no single, superior strategy that would work best for everyone, if that were a case, everyone would be using it already and there will be no need for discussion. DCA is no different. While it is the most convenient and does not require any price analysis, it does not guarantee the best results. I've seen some analysis some time ago saying that the "buying the dip" BTC investors noted on average better results than those using the DCA - but that's not to say that this will be true in the future. With dip buying, you don't have to time the market perfectly, all it takes to roughly identify where the price is, i.e. if we break the new ATH, we're probably not at the bottom, or if we drop >60% from the ATH, it's possibly a good time to start buying. And it's not like we cannot combine those 2 strategies - do DCA but withhold from buying (or reduce the amount) when we're likely at the top of the hype etc. |
|
|
|
There is no decoupling, the same way there is no coupling. You can only say that in short periods of time. If you look at the big picture, there is none.
Depends on how you want to look at things (i.e. take into account crypto volatility or not) and choosing a period to analyze is judgmental. The main reason people considered BTC to be coupled with stock markets is that in recent years (say from around 2017 onwards), the price of both reacted in similar ways to changes in the market's conditions. And the initial expectation for Bitcoin was to be a hedge against inflation, so the negative correlation was expected, which was not really the case. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
