~snip~
there's a name for this cognitive bias if I'm not wrong
confirmation bias or something like that, not sure in english
it's like sharing only the ups and not the downs what don't allow someone to have a clear picture of the situation.
always best to try to see all aspects of reality instead of only part of it.
Yes, it's called Survivorship Bias, basically you only get to hear from the successful attempts to do something. Most fails, you basically never get to hear from. |
|
|
|
France vs Australia, a tough one to decide who will sealed next round. France always tougher in their appearance, progresses to the quarter finals after eliminating Morocco 4 nil with triumphed victory. Facing the host of the women's world cup will be really tough for France, but not relenting, they have good players that would match the energy of Australia in the game. Moreover, France top striker, Kadidiatou Diani always happen to be in goal scoring positions, no time to relent, they determined to eliminate the host and proceeds to the semi final.
I think it's a pretty simple to decide. France is the better team, even though Australia is pretty good, and will fight with all their strength, I reckon France will come out on top. Maybe not by a large margin, but I can easily see a 2-1 French win for example. |
|
|
|
~snip~
When you went to a hotel to stay with your girlfriend, they can check if you are married or not, it says so right on your passport that you have different names, and if you have the same name you were allowed to stay in the same room, if you didn't had the same last name then you were asked if you were married or not (because you can be married and still have different names) and if you weren't, you weren't allowed to stay in the hotel.
This may not be the issue for some of the very top hotels there, but it was an issue for lower level ones for sure. People need to realize that Qatar forced their own tradition and culture and it was literally by force, literally detained when you carried any lgbt flag anywhere, they had ZERO respect towards peoples beliefs and they hide it behind the mask of "respect my culture" when they did it. Worst world cup host in its history.
That's a pretty strange way of checking marital status. You could be staying with your sibling and you would be seen as married?  Really weak enforcement anyway, because anyone can say yes, they are married. There's no official way of checking anything. They shouldn't be asking that anyway, but maybe it's not illegal there. |
|
|
|
~snip~
luck is a tricky godess
it's funny to think why she smiles at some people and not at others
and why some people have these huge luck strikes winning game after game after game
I met this guy once who was great at lotteries and bingos and won dozens of it... just weird. against all odds.
In my experience those people play a lot, and only share with you the times they win, while keeping to themselves all the times they lose. It's pretty common to be honest, it's rare to hear someone talking about how much money they lost in the casino. |
|
|
|
~snip~
It will be hard to earn a hundred bucks in a daily basis because luck isn't and won't be constantly on your side. No matter how good you play or how many relevant information you have, if it isn't your day to win, then you'll likely lose. Because winning is a combination of having the skills, knowledge, and luck to increase the probability of winning in every bet or play.
If someone will play with initial amount of 2000 bucks, it's possible to earn a hundred, but I don't think it will ever be consistent. This is because there will be losses. The collectove amount of losses might even equate to more than what someone make so it's really important to assess the situation before risking a huge amount in gambling. Only spend what you can afford to lose, folks.
Well, the math tells us that the expected return of those 2000 bucks is basically -2000. In the long term you will lose all your betting money. That's what the probabilities tell you. So, you need to be prepared to lose it all if you're going to keep gambling. |
|
|
|
~snip~
This makes sense.
To be a successful gambler, of course you have to play and bet consecutively and if not, just actively, to reach whatever goal you have in mind. Just like being a gambling addict, consecutive plays and bets are done because of gambling dependency. Only that they have lost track of what they are really after or what they sought for in the very beginning. But when it comes to frequency of bets and plays, I think there's not much difference.
The only difference is that a gambler that is successful knows his goal, how to achieve it, and make it into action. He does not make unnecessary acts such as overspending to chase winnings. Unlike what gambling addicts do most of the time. A successful gambler makes a calculated decision, while a gambling addicts just go with whatever they deem fit.
How does a successful gambler makes a goal into action?, it's all based on probabilities, and the casino has better odds. There's no way a gambler can control the probabilities, they can at most maximize their chances, but that's it. |
|
|
|
DCA method is the best strategy like you said OP with 50k weekly. But I might prefer to buy a dip 100k worth for a start then I can start the DCA method. Using Binance wouldn't be that safe and it might lead to the raise of eye brown of the exchange. I would prefer using a DEx with a trusted P2P guy with liquidity so that transaction can go smoothly without a problem. $1M is a huge amount of money and you need to make your purchase for at least 15 times,it all depends on the price of bitcoin when you are buying. The dipper the price the more bitcoin you will get and vice versa this is one thing with DCA method.
DCA is not necessarily the best strategy, it can be better to do lump sum in some cases. The thing is that it depends on the price of Bitcoin in the future, specifically in the short term where the DCA vs lump sum is done, and that is impossible to predict. So, just by price, there's no single winning strategy. But it's worth considering that DCA usually comes with extra fees in many exchanges, because you might have to pay to deposit each time, and maybe for the conversion each time, where with lump sum you usually pay less in fees overall, plus you might be able to do an over the counter exchange with more favorable rates. |
|
|
|
~snip~
exactly! if a successful gambler uses artificial intelligence to win large amounts of gambling he must immediately stop gambling, it does not mean just stop temporarily because if he stops within a week its same as spending a lot of money again and on the one hand if he returns to gambling using artificial intelligence like AI it will be very dangerous because the casino system usually has given a warning flag to the account and if it is done again the risk of the account being banned is very possible.
Yeah, that's also a fair point. If you win big at a casino, they won't be happy about it of course. They might be quick to send you free drinks and food and celebrate with you, etc, so that you stay there longer and give them their money back. But if you simply get out, as you should, then they will probably put a mark on you, and when you come back they will be looking very carefully at you. |
|
|
|
~snip~
yep, that makes a lot of sense, in other words, becoming a bookie with a capital of $2k. like for example buying a slot machine and placing it in a shopping center or anywhere frequented by people, of course it will generate more than the OP wants but the question is whether he can afford to do that because of course it will be subject to high taxes too.
unless the OP maybe owns his own betting website and builds his own casino and manages to earn over $100 that way better than having to resort to betting on sports because even if betting on the underdog there is still a 1% chance of losing.
Taxes are due when you have earned money, so you will always be able to afford taxes in theory. The point I'm making is that the only person making money from gambling are the casinos, or the people running the bettings. Anyone that thinks that they can earn $100 a day by gambling simply doesn't understand how probabilities work. |
|
|
|
~snip~
To be honest, I've never invested a lot of money in slots. It's usually just a few dollars spent for fun, nothing more. Since slot machines rely purely on luck there's no way to control your luck, and I can't see myself risking a hugfe amounts of money on them. People who wager large sums on such bets seem crazy to me because I wouldn't feel comfortable depending purely on luck.
If you were to ask me whether I'd be willing to put $50 or even $100 on a real-life gambling event, I might consider it but I wouldn't do the same for slots.
The reality is that every single bet you make with a casino is based on luck, and the odds are against you. It doesn't really matter if it is slots, poker, sports, etc. The odds are against you, maybe in some games you can diminish this disadvantage, but you will probably never have the chance to bet on something where you have a slightly better odd than the casino. The casino would simply not offer that bet. |
|
|
|
People need to realize that Trump lost the elections and he is at risk of being jailed for the crimes he did and STILL the biggest republican candidate, nobody with a big name is even trying to get it because when you lose once you are usually out.
However, the reason why Trump is getting the nomination was the fact that even if you lose, if you won before and became president that means you are going to be the nominee again, he ran and won once and Biden ran and won and the elected current sitting president, those two will be the candidates and unless one of them is in jail or the other dead, then we are going to see these two running for it. That's it, there is no more talk, we would need one of the candidates not be able to run for them to lose, if they are running, they are winning.
The thing is that even if Trump is convicted and sent to jail, the US allows to have a president being elected from jail, so there's no problem with that. It would be an unprecedented event, but also I think some people would vote for Trump just to see that happening. |
|
|
|
~snip~
No one asked the Qataris to change their religion or to dance as per the whims and fancies of the tourists. All we asked as to keep the promises that the Qataris gave, when they won the rights to host FIFA World Cup. Qataris used the tournament as a venue to splash their wealth. They spend anywhere from $250 billion to $300 billion on hosting this tournament (and at the same time refusing to provide a penny as compensation to the 6,000+ dead construction workers). They broke their own word by imposing a total ban on beer, just two days before the tournament. Beer was available only to those with the top-tier ticket. Also, there was a lot of discrimination towards unmarried and LGBT couples.
How would random people know if a couple is married or not though? And in which way were they discriminated?, did they not get to buy a ticket?, I haven't read this so no idea what actually happened. |
|
|
|
I am not sure whether a gambling addict can ever become a successful gambler. In order to be successful in gambling, you need to follow strict rules for yourselves. First of all, bet as much as you can afford to lose. And after betting, you need to follow strict stop-loss guidelines. You need to pullout when it becomes clear that the losses are getting unaffordable. Gambling addicts are unable to follow any of these rules, and this results in their financial ruin. And if you don't follow these rules, I don't think that you will ever become successful in gambling.
I don't think there are any kind of rules that you can follow and become a successful gambler in terms of winning more than what you have lost over your gambling lifetime. It's all really just luck, and the odds are against the gambler. So, even if a gambler is an addict, there is still a slim, almost zero, chance that that gambler will win big. |
|
|
|
|
I have a question about this tournament. Since this is a different one than the FIFA World Cup, do they have exactly the same rules?
For example, I noticed that when the ball hit the referee, they stopped the play, which is not the case AFAIK in the FIFA World Cup, although that might have changed recently.
In any case, the question remains, are there 2 independent but similar set of rules?, or both tournaments follow the same rules?
|
|
|
|
~snip~
Here I consider something, at the moment that people buy the tickets to the world, those people have to be assigned a visa immediately, according to the number of tickets that the people buy, because it is something that has to be like that, I think that in A World Cup should not have or exist borders for anyone, neither for Africans nor for people who come from other places that other countries consider prohibited or prohibited, because that does not make sense to me, and even less because it comes from decisions of world wars or something like that, I think that the existence of borders is something that should not exist, because we are all humans, or at least until now things with the aliens have not yet been released to the public to know how it is.
As long as there is only one race, which is human , that should not exist, Unless a world War is created and all the countries of the world participate to remove that beto , the truth is that for me it does not make sense, then in Such a glass a visa to go see the world is not bad , I Consider that a person who eats enters to go to the World Cup, should be granted from at least 5 days before the start of the World Cup and that it expires 5 days after the World Cup ends I believe that this is the most appropriate , and for any person without exception, wherever they come from and those who remain in the country illegally , as this is very difficult to Control, but that is what the authorities are for and I believe that this is not so hard for them to grab people and throw them away.
I know that any method that is going to be applied by the USA so that they can enter the country will be used, that is something that can and will happen, people who want to enter the USA will only have to get a ticket for a soccer match, I don't know if they will give visas for a certain time, or how it will be, if it is for a permit for 1 month or something like that, what is difficult to determine is how many people are going to stay in the country Illegally , that is what is difficult Easy to determine , I don't know how they will do it , but it's quite a Challenge Really.
Borders are absolutely necessary. Each country has it's own way of existing, with their own laws. And people inside those countries live the outcome of their own government. Part of those laws is defining who gets to stay in the country. A citizen might lose their citizenship based on their actions. Another person might be granted citizenship based on their actions. You can't just have a wild west where anyone can just come in and out as they please. Would you be happy to have anyone just entering your own home without you first deciding if you want to invite them? The same applies to a country. |
|
|
|
~snip~
But guys! Let's think about that "evil" algorithm for a moment. What is it doing exactly? Is it programmed to make you, or anyone of us in particular, to necessarily lose in the long run? Why would it need that? Isn't the goal to make the casino win? Then it shouldn't care about a particular player being in profit in the long run. The only thing the algorithm should care about is that all the players combined were losing the amount equal to the house edge to the house.
I don't want to look smug or something, like I know everything. It's just my opinion. Please, share yours.
It's quite simple really, every single bet you make against the casino has an advantage to the casino, because they get to set the odds, payouts, etc. So, if you really remove all the lights, sounds, marketing, etc, all you have left is simply games where the casino has the upper hand. For example, if they had a coin toss game, they would keep tossing a coin, and pay you, say, 80 cents per dollar you bet when you win. And when you lose, they keep that full dollar. You can see that sometimes you'll win those 80 cents, and sometimes you'll lose your whole dollar. If you keep doing it, you'll lose all your money. It's just math. Of course the casino games are more complex, and they try to make it look like you have a chance. For example, in roulette you have a payout that is 1 to 1, but then you have the 0, and the 00, which basically means you lose more times than you win, effectively making it more like the 80c to a dollar payout, but not that evident. |
|
|
|
~snip~ Someone who is betting for the first time to get a big win is not a successful gambler but he is lucky to get the win because luck like this will come once a year or even for life.
But I think if someone is a gambler who gambles for the first time and gets a big win that doesn't bode well for me but it's the beginning of ruin or addiction because usually the first time he gambles he gets a big multiplier he will feel confident if tomorrow he will get again and the money will be used gamble again until it's finished and chase defeat until it becomes an addiction and a problem like this has been experienced by my friend but thankfully after entering the rehabilitation period he got better.
Back to the discussion on the topic that if at gambling you get big wins or consecutive wins and even old gamblers or new gamblers it doesn't mean success but luck. Yes, you definitely need to be lucky to get any kind of money from the casino. Having said that, there is a clear difference between a person that gambles at a game where the odds are 80/20 against them, and someone that gambles at a games where the odds are 55/45 against them. Sure, in both scenarios the casino has an advantage, but the second person clearly is more skilled at gambling. Both need luck, but the second person will clearly have more chances. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Not at all, even how good you are. There are still time that you will lose, even how good you think your research and assessment
if luck will not be on your side, a heavy underdog can still win the game/fight.
Possibility wise, small or just like you mentioned next to impossible, though there's experienced gamblers who can
play with their bankroll and have better winning sessions than losing attempts.
Still not a guarantee that they will win in a daily manner.
Yeah, you're right. You can make your odds a bit better though, but still it's largely a bet that the casino will most probably win in the end. It's kinda like "privilege information" trading, basically if you somehow managed to get an advantage then it's probably illegal |
|
|
|
~snip~
Crypto or bitcoin is a financial market, it is not an industry that creates stable jobs that help everyone have jobs and income. Therefore, it cannot have a great impact on the economy of a country as well as the world economy. Just like trading gold in the foreign exchange market, it is only profitable for individuals, I don't see how it is beneficial in contributing to the construction of the national economy.
In order to develop the country's economy, it is necessary to integrate into international trade, promote import and export, and create stable jobs for the people...rather than depend on risky speculative games.
Financial services are a huge area of the industry. Providing services based on Bitcoin is starting to become a massive source of jobs. For example, Open Node provides Bitcoin payment systems |
|
|
|
~snip~
If Kennedy is more appealing for Republican voters, then it means that Democrat party has swung too far to the left. What would have made core Democrat voter base two decades ago will be labelled as far-right by the Democrat establishment right now. I would love to see Kennedy debating Biden. You may assume that it maybe a disaster for Kennedy. But IMO, it is going to be the other way around. Biden is going to make some blunder (despite bias from the moderators) and then his support base is going to get really shaky.
I don't think there's any chance for Kennedy to be honest. The options will simply be Trump and Biden. The US is extremely polarized, and I just don't see any third party being remotely close to those two. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
