Apart from Bustabit/bustadice, try Bitvest.

Their volume is pretty low (in terms of the wagered amounts), but they offer a range of cryptos that you can invest in (BTC, LTC, ETH). Their low bankroll also sort of balances out the fact that they don't have a great deal of gambling volume, which gives you a greater share of the profit pie compared to others.

But whatever you do, make sure you diversify. You never know how circumstances may evolve into the future in terms of dice sites going bust or owners going rogue (not suggesting any site in particular here, but there is always a default risk).

That's the point from the sportsbook's perspective, at least.

Their business is essentially offering this service to you for a fee - and that fee is an inherent disadvantage on your part due to subpar odds that they offer.


I think that there are a few concerns that may result in a suspension, the biggest of which may be insider betting. This is why you see extremely low limits on newly established leagues such as esports imo.

I doubt that centralised sportsbooks are going to change their ways in terms of restricting accounts on big profits, because most of the time a) you are playing against the house, so your win is their loss (of course, they would also hedge some of their bets) and b) sporting events are not truly provably random.

But as others said, betting exchanges have no net position in any bet, so they would have no trouble with you beating the market (just as any crypto exchange wouldn't mind whales profiting on derivatives, as long as they get their share of fees).

Rendered part II:

Video link: https://youtu.be/V29glfgbtQI
Display Name: magnetobtc
Duelbits ID: d7a8f2ed-8544-509c-8abf-1550ca42644d

Thanks again Hhampuz!

Certainly. And this is the fallacy that a lot of investors tend to fall prey to.

Gold bugs such as Schiff seem to believe that no matter what your point of entry is, as long as you get your hands on gold, you are guaranteed a long term profit. This is completely untrue given the fact that gold has not outperformed the CPI over the past 5 decades even when its current price is at an all time high.

A similar logic should be applied to BTC if you are a truly 'intelligent investor' (quoting Ben Graham here). Even though BTC is a good store of value in the long run, there are no guarantees that it will be if you buy at peaks and sell at lows. Even if BTC markets go up long term, if you engage in that type of counterproductive trading, you could lose money on your position even if the wider market make sizable gains.

And don't think that just because inflation is low these days, it can be ignored. History has shown that future inflation is more likely to be mean-reverting, not to be extrapolated from the past.

I doubt it.

QE is basically on everyone's agendas right now and will likely continue to be in the future. A lot of central banks have been swayed from a hawkish, conservative stance to a much more accommodative and experimental regime due to the effects of the pandemic.

When the vaccine comes out there is no doubt that the fiat economy will rebound. It would be unrealistic to proclaim otherwise.

But I also believe that BTC and crypto in general will have a great year, as they are increasingly seen as a hedge against downturn (further evidenced by this COVID crisis). The fact that institutional investors and even retiree funds are drastically increasing their positions is a great sign in terms of short term returns at the very least. BTC and fiat economy both having a good year simply aren't mutually exclusive.

First vid:

Video link: https://youtu.be/BYqVZDw1V28
Display Name: magnetobtc
Duelbits ID: d7a8f2ed-8544-509c-8abf-1550ca42644d

Part II incoming soon 

Your expected value at the end of the day should be relatively the same (assuming that you don't have information regarding the match that would result in you having an advantage over the house). As others have mentioned, these odds are entirely dependent on the projected probabilities and therefore price of each outcome.

So does it matter? Absolutely. You don't want to be betting on an event where there is significant spreads that leads to a very high house advantage -  that would be shooting yourself in the foot. And that can only be determined by looking at the payout and probabilities of each outcome of your 1x2 bet.

But I wouldn't pick the match that you bet on solely on odds of outcomes you don't bet on, because at the end of the day you are likely to have a disadvantage either way against the house (again, assuming no reliable tips). Pick the one that would give you more satisfaction if you win because after all, it's all entertainment.

Roobet username: MagnetoBitcoin
Video link: https://youtu.be/LVb6SUIUM5o

Thanks Hhampuz!

That's not investing. It's pure speculation (which fits this board).

I doubt the bull market has come to a conclusion. There seems to be a general market consensus that it'll be a matter of time before $20k resistance is breached. Whether or not $20k can be established as some form of psychological support begs another question altogether.

But the fact is that you are not playing with your own money. I don't know the significance of the savings to your daughter, and whether or not you are even authorised to access it. If you are not, I suggest you withdraw your investment or at least consult your daughter before you proceed - that's my bottom line even as an avid long term BTC holder.

I think it's a matter of time.

Although it must be said Binance is uniquely positioned given its lobbying power in countries with lax regulations (e.g. Malta) that will likely allow it to continue offering services at least to some users without any verification. But it's certain that these restrictions will only get tougher.

It's one of the side effects of institutional adoption and greater maturity of markets - you simply can't have both ways. To attract these institutional players that bring about greater liquidity, the ecosystem must be well regulated and certain counterparty risks are eliminated to the greatest extent possible. There is no getting around this tradeoff, unfortunately.

Definitely. Binance is still somewhat of a growth oriented company that is consistently coming up with new designs, concepts and promos.

Coinbase is more of a defensive player right now trying to hang onto its market share in the US where it dominates. I don't see this happening for two main reasons:

1) The reputation of Coinbase has consistently deteriorated over the years from a startup to the big player that doesn't care about its customers. From crappy customer support to constant suspensions of user accounts, there is a lot of fear at the very least for just using Coinbase.
2) The awareness of global alternatives, especially Binance, has advanced at a very quick pace.

Given the fact that Binance offers much better service and innovation, it should only be a matter of time it captures a significant market share from Coinbase. Whether it will topple Coinbase's status altogether is a separate question though.

And they deserve to be. They are essentially deposit taking institutions that issue out tokens as a receipt of deposit.

The legal loopholes that allowed them to exist without much reserve requirement was particularly dangerous. I remember USDT started announcing that they were no longer 100% backed by fiat (as they wanted to invest into assets that brought them a profit).

Without a centralised system of deposit insurance, a "run" is sure to happen with such loose standards.

Note though that this is entirely different from decentralised cryptos which have no obligations to redeem tokens for a certain underlying asset, which is why the regulations should be entirely different for these two asset classes.

Weird. I've used Coinjar extensively in the past and never had any issues. A few weeks have passed since your complaint, has this been resolved or is it still ongoing?

Definitely keep consulting their support. When I used them they were very responsive to my issues.

One thing to note: Coinjar will allow you to send dust amounts but they will not actually get propagated onto the blockchain, which means that essentially you are wasting your money when you send amounts like 0.00003 BTC. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "smaller amounts", because if it is, then that could be an explanation. The $500 tx would have definitely gone through either way though.

I noticed this for Roobet:


To the best of my knowledge you're actually playing with BTC. The USD figures are only there for your reference, not because your balance actually gets converted to USD whenever you deposit a sum of money. That's an important distinction to make.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily a con. It's simply a display feature without much repercussion.

Nope. It's literally designed that way.

If you think of each betslip as a negative EV event (which is true for the average bettor since the sportsbook obviously has to make money on spreads), accumulating them using a multi/parlay/accumulator bet just magnifies your inherent disadvantages.

Whether the last bet that you were hoping to win loses or not is entirely luck. No point being superstitious about this stuff.

Remember that human brains take tough losses and represent them as more frequent than they actually occur. So if you are especially distraught after you lose the last leg of your multi, then you are likely to think that it happens far more often than it actually does.

Your last point is probably the most important. The difference between retirement funds and JPMorgan/Paypal adopting is that they are not in the business of speculating (or at least as much as financial service intermediaries). They generally are much more passive and their investment horizons are indeed much, much longer.

Resultantly, what we will see is likely a very large gap between institutional demand for BTC and new supply from minted coins, especially after this halving.

But whether or not more retirement funds in other countries start offering this will largely depend on the regulatory decisions made by international counterparts of the SEC. I think that diversifying into BTC is a must-do considering its inflation-proofing properties as it is entirely decoupled from the fiat regime, but obviously regulators seem to have an issue and think that this is inprudent.

Trying with big amounts is even more dangerous, especially when arbitrage opportunities usually arise from exchanges such as HitBTC, Yobit, etc. that hold ambiguous regulatory statuses and a history of less than reputable behaviour. You may be putting your capital at risk here even if on paper this trade is guaranteed profit.

And that is basically the flaw of all of these calculators - they don't take into account the fact that most of the times when these arb opportunities arise, it's because of inefficiencies (disabled/delayed withdrawals, for instance) that make prices inaccurate. It doesn't necessarily mean you can take advantage of it without risk.

Add a pricey monthly subscription... I'm not sure about that at all. At least sites like BitEdge push notifs for arbs for no cost.

Doubt it. Any influence that Schiff has over BTC would have been priced in a long time ago anyway. Him maintaining his past stance on BTC as some sort of con job has become what the market is expecting on a daily basis.

Most precious metals stackers are already aware of bitcoin anyway to the best of my knowledge, and there is a great proportion of that community that is open to the idea of BTC.

Schiff has a history of gold bugging and hyping up PMs for absolutely no reason, advising people to buy regardless of market cycles or conditions. Pretty much everyone knows his personal interest in SchiffGold and the lucrative spreads and commissions he earns from sales anyhow. It's best to ignore this guy, he doesn't have a lot of influence either way and is as hypocritical as ever.

No doubt.

It's a balancing act for the short and long run. In the short run rebranding is definitely going to take a hit on your player revenue, but in the long run if you continue to offer good services distancing yourself from the CS scene will 100% be beneficial when you are doing business primarily in crypto. It makes a lot of sense to do that as soon as possible (after you accumulate a certain threshold for bankroll, for instance) to build up a name.

But who am I to say anything. You guys seem to have your stuff together.

I'd say that this is an inaccurate designation.

We need to firstly distinguish between cryptocurrencies and exchanges. They are two completely different concepts. Cryptocurrencies themselves are merely stores of value and mediums of exchange per se, just as any other currency. It is not, primarily, designed to be a speculative vehicle to generate returns the same way shares are; nor does it carry out the duties of an IB/wealth manager.

Secondly, it is apparent that major institutional players are heading into the crypto scene on a daily basis. So it is far more accurate to say that cryptocurrencies as an investment is more accessible in general - not that it is inferior/of a lower class.