By the way, I know that some fans are betting on the opposing team in order to make this defeat less bitter for themselves in case of defeat of their favorite team. This is quite funny, since they lose money in the event of the victory of their favorite team, but apparently this does not bother them.

I think the main reason for this behavior is that most bettors view it as a hobby/entertainment.
And here's my funny observation: let's say a match has 3 outcomes. Player A bets on 1st, Player B bets on 2nd, Player C bets on 3rd. And all three think the market is rigged against him 
In fact, the risk / reward ratio plays against each of them and there is no falsification here.

This is the purpose of sports betting - it is entertainment. Fun always costs money. It is quite obvious that most people have fun here and "voluntarily" leave money when betting on their favorite team. Some of the players are trying to make money here, but this is an empty activity and sooner or later people find something better for themselves or they just start accepting bets instead of making them 

Do you mean sports betting? I do not know what could be the reasons for falsifying something on a systematic basis there - the theory of probability does all the work legally and effectively. Sometimes "strange" results do happen in competitions, but these are actually rare cases, and we should not think from this that there is a "conspiracy of all".

But why are you mixing popularity and athletic performance? I respect both of them in Conor, but he is not great either there or there. Time will pass and another show-man will repeat the same tricks. There is demand and there will be supply, people are willing to pay for the show.

In fact, in theory, all strategies are bad and unprofitable (if not, then there is an error in the calculations). The paradox is that in practice you sometimes see a "profitable" strategy and it even works at a certain range of bets. But this is just a fluctuation of the normal distribution, and if you take a longer distance, you will still receive a total loss.

I don't know what exactly he meant, but most likely these are nonsense strategies like "the top team cannot lose three matches in a row." Based on this statement, the bank is divided into three parts and bets are placed on matches. After the first defeat, the second part of the bank is used, after the second, the third part of the bank. The bottom line is that profits are meager, but even top teams sometimes lose three matches in a row ...

I don't think the statistics of fights 22-26 are special. For aspiring boxers heading for the most important fights, a 20-0 stat is common. 22-26 doesn't look like legendary. As an athlete, Conor is good, but unfortunately he will be remembered more for sports scandals and kitsch than for his sports results.

Why do you blame this growth only on speculation? Maybe it was caused precisely by the adoption and accumulation that reached a certain limit and "the dam burst"? In the modern digital world, where any trend can cover the entire population of the Earth in a week, this is quite possible.


Honestly, I don't understand you. Why exactly these levels? And what does it really matter to accurately determine the level at which technical difficulties arise - 30k or 50k or 1 million? They will arise and it would be good to get rid of the problems in advance.

Do I understand correctly that election mess is leading to a bitcoin rally? It turns out that if the courts begin (as it was already in 2000) and the announcement of the results is delayed, then bitcoin will have time to grow much stronger? On the other hand, if everything is settled quickly, will it lead to a quick correction?

Unfortunately, I live in a third world country (Russia), so for me the amount of 100 bitcoins is already huge. But I'm not really looking for a sum to stop working. Rather, I'm looking for an amount of money that will allow me to change my country of residence with maximum comfort, and 100 bitcoins with a large reserve allow me to do this.

The hyperinflation of the dollar will mean the collapse of the entire world economy, and I think in these conditions, bitcoin will also lose its value. Only food, weapons, gasoline and sheltered accommodation will be valuable. If we talk about moderate inflation, then I think 100 bitcoins for me would be the solution to most of my problems)

I'm not confident about this  In general, due to the epidemic and the ensuing crisis, it is very difficult to understand the current economic situation. I have the impression that small and medium-sized economic entities suffer and do not have free funds, while large ones, on the contrary, are bathed in money. And most likely it is they who can easily decide which direction the price of most assets, including bitcoin, will go.

In fact, I separate the speculation component and the real use of bitcoin, I understand that they are related, but I am more interested in the real use.
You ask about differences by implying that they are either absent or insignificant. But tell me, could we imagine in 2013 that bitcoin would have a bandwidth problem? How often did we see this problem in those years? And in 2017, this problem has already become a new reality. We can call it differently, but the fact is that bitcoin/its demand has radically changed.
And now if you look into the future and think that "speculators and their influence on bitcoin will be the same as in the past, technical improvements are not critical", then I think this will be a mistake.

And how do you act if passing the KYC is a prerequisite in order to use the site? I see some kind of contradiction in your desires - as far as I know, if there is a license, then the KYC is required. All licensing governments try to know as much as possible about the service and its users.

I think no excuses will work anymore. In fact, Conor is a waste material for both UFC and boxing. I think he is well aware of this, so he is only trying to make as much money as possible while he is interesting to at least someone. I wonder in what area he will work after he finally retires from the fighting.

From a mathematical point of view, single bets are much better, since although they are unprofitable in the long run, they are much less unprofitable than multi-bets. I can't give a link now, but there have been many calculations on this topic.
From the point of view of psychology, it is still easier - it is much easier to come to terms with the defeat of the team on which the bet was made than with the fact that the multi-bet lost due to any one event.

Crazy numbers. But maybe due to the fact that the audience is starving for the spectacle (due to the covid epidemic and the ensuing recession in the entertainment industry) they will receive this money. I'd love to watch Connor get beaten, but in fact, such show-fight fees are disrespectful to athletes who fight in normal battles for normal titles but get much less.

The irony is that most TOSs have a warning that they can be changed unilaterally without direct notification to the user (usually a link is provided to where the current TOSs are located and where changes will be made). That is, the user must check this link every day to keep up to date. On the one hand, it is easy, on the other hand, if you use 20 different services, then it becomes a little real.

I just thought that speculators can accelerate the price of bitcoin and lead to these sad consequences (high fees, etc.) even if the development of bitcoin at some point will outstrip user requests. That is, it turns out that in any case, speculators can lead everything to an absurd situation. This is both funny and sad at the same time.


I don't think that a 10-20 percent price increase can be called a new hype. Perhaps the price can rise up to 20-30k dollars "on old luggage" (technical part), but can it stay there for a long time? I doubt it.