The no withdrawal fee for ETH is really competitive compared to other casinos that are actively charging $1 or so right now (which is way above market fees, may I add). Considering the fact that these sites (Roobet, for instance) also have a large CSGO player base, CSGO500 definitely has a lot of potential in terms of tapping into this market.

But I do think that perhaps a rebranding is necessary to suggest that it is a crypto-accepting casino.

Especially with CSGO skin trading taking a hit in recent years with trade holds etc., perhaps distancing oneself from CSGO at least in its name would be a good publicity move. Just my 2 cents.

This is not true. Most live dealer games still have manual shuffles although there are certain games like infinite blackjack (I believe) that do employ continuous shuffle. So events should still be dependent on each other - it's just that it may not be feasible practically.


Advantage play is not cheating, although if it's against the ToS of certain casinos they can always kick you off their platform.


You can obviously count manually via hi-lo, zen, whatever, but the point of the thread was to discuss whether or not an algorithm can be created feasibly to reap any potential advantage. But no productive discourse was produced - so I'll lock the thread

Go with Binance. Split up your trades over a few days if necessary.

There is no point shooting yourself in the foot by going with an unregulated exchange that may offer a higher limit or no limit at all for non-KYC users. Things will look fine and dandy until they aren't - take a look at HitBTC, Yobit, etc.

These exchanges will ask you to KYC eventually without warning, citing their ToS. But what they're really looking to do is to appropriate your funds and to hold it indefinitely.

Stick with Binance for now. And as others said, even Kucoin may not be the greatest choice atm with their fake ID debacle.

Has anyone tried to come up with a program that counts cards at Evolution or other live gaming providers' tables?

Whilst I understand that they generally use a crapload of decks (8 for most games, I think) and have insanely bad deck penetration, isn't it theoretically feasible to still take advantage of certain variations in the count if you monitored enough tables with an automated program?

Surely Evolution has some sort of safeguard against this that I'm missing? 

Unfortunately, that's what it takes for mainstream bitcoin adoption into day to day transactions - a massive crisis.

People don't realise that a stable fiat currency is the exception rather than the rule. A lot of people seem to take the stability/value of cash or cash equivalents for granted. Treausries are deemed to carry the riskfree rate or whatnot, even though there is always a serious risk of fiat depreciation.

I wonder what Venezuela is doing with their Petro at this point. They should probably move their fiat transactions onto a blockchain anyway so that the government can more efficiently revalue and debase the currency as required 

Raise it with a financial services ombudsman or equivalent in your country if necessary. Inform Binance beforehand though that you will be pursuing this once the 30 days have elapsed.

A lot of these exchanges put up a facade of compliance in their ToS. But since there's nearly no one that is actively seeking recourse they seem to ignore the very regulators they are governed by.

It's a matter of principle and enforcing your rights. What's the point of the GDPR is it's not adopted in practice?

I think you are confusing two things here - OP is talking about prediction markets still offering bets on a Trump presidency with the expiration date at or after inauguration day 2021, not old bets on the election results not being paid out.

New bets that offer a delayed settlement isn't all that bad. After all, it's just any other instrument that has a settlement condition and date. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that per se.

But as I said previously, when you've got books setting arbitrary conditions for settlement that's when the problem starts. Not the offering of the bet itself.

You're right on the tax revenue part. Indeed, inflation can lead to a significant amount of "bracket creep" that increases tax revenue - but is this necessarily the reason there is a 2-3% inflation target? Absolutely not.


You're also right in saying that nominal income is an illusion.

But I think what you miss is that there is generally a correlation between inflation (to a moderate extent) and real GDP. People tend to respond to higher prices for whatever reason (sticky prices, for instance) by producing more real output. Is it rational to increase real production when only nominal wages increase? Absolutely not. But that's the general observation.

1:1

magneto

I'd go through a checklist to ensure that you are making the optimal decision.

Check up on your particular exchange first. Do they have a historical record of suspending accounts that are suspected of using mixed coins? If yes, then consider whether or not you value privacy or the convenience of the exchange more. There is a real chance that you will never be able to use your account there again if you do get suspended. Coinbase comes to mind as one particular culprit - they love to suspend accounts on every possible suspicion.

If there is no historical record of this type of suspensions, mixers are certainly warranted to protect your privacy. Since CM and others offer their services for free anyway, it's worth using it. Just make sure that you still keep a record of all deposits and transactions for tax purposes.

I've actually followed you guys for a few years now on and off. It's a shame that people aren't using your services.

I'd summarise the lack of interest into the simple fact that house edge is not the only determinant of the utility/satisfaction that a gambler gains from a game. The gambler enjoys aspects of the game itself as entertainment, and social interactions gained from chat rooms etc. and essentially pays a price for this through his negative EV.

Your game with a 0% house edge is stuck in an awkward middle ground, where it does not appeal to average consumers of games of chance since it does not offer them much utility in the form of social interaction or thrill (since objectively, your game is far less polished and interesting than established table games or dice/crash etc.); but it also does not appeal to APs the same way that full pay DW video poker/BJ does since in the long run their EV is zero and they're taking on an unnecessary risk of ruin.

I don't necessarily think that it's an advertising problem. I've seen your ads running for years and have been aware of your operations, but just have never been compelled to play it due to the reasons I listed.

EDIT: I also noticed that your bankroll is a measly 10 LTC and is crowdfunded - why would anyone want to invest in an operation with neutral EV from their perspective as the house?

I think it is completely fine.

As long as contracts specify exactly what the settlement conditions are, there should be no issues with market forces determining a price on each candidate's victory. If Trump supporters decide that the election should not be over until electoral colleges cast their votes, and that there is a market for that bet, then sure. Supply and demand will determine odds.

My only concern is that it sets a precedent for bookkeepers in the future to arbitrarily determine the winner, since settlement conditions on these bets (after Biden's projected victory, that is) are often vague and the ultimate rights of interpretation are generally reserved to the bookie. There is a clear conflict of interest there and I don't think that is particularly safe, even though it may be understandable that the fervour of Trump supporters disputing the results has led to this decision in the first place.

What are you babbling on about?

Deflationary risks around the world right now is much more prominent than any significant hyperinflationary risks. Central banks around the world are trying to somehow circumvent the zero nominal bound for short term interest rates. They have plenty of room to maneuver upwards if there are any prospects of inflation.

Of course, there is a risk with widespread QE that inflation spirals out of control after the lockdown ends. But I think that it's very unlikely this will be the case with most advanced economies since inflation expectations have been so low over the past 2 decades. Definitely diversify into safe havens just in case, but I wouldn't bet on hyperinflation.

I think the surge was similar in other countries too, mainly because of people being bored during lockdown and the presidential race. Not because of any particular advances in gaming technology or whatnot.


This story has absolutely nothing to do with regulation imo. Nor do I think that a nation's economic recovery can be attributed to one particular sector, let alone a relatively small gambling sector.

But yes, it doesn't make sense for a country to pursue draconian restrictions only to miss out on taxation revenue from gaming companies that would simply be forgone if the only choice facing consumers are unregulated casinos.

We have seen this coming a long time ago.

My only concern is that these companies are most likely not into BTC for the long run - they seem to be taking advantage of a fad that exists as a result of a bullish resurgence and market rally in 2020 and beyond. If markets crash, you'll see a lot of these firms withdrawing their interest altogether.

Now that's not necessarily bad, but I don't think it necessarily construes actual adoption. Actual adoption would entail offering a permanent line of business involving BTC transactions or integrating BTC into a diversified portfolio, which no mainstream firms have done thus far.

Yeah, but I guess FTX's offerings are far more appealing than PredictIt given that it's got a pretty sizable orderbook, while PredictIt limits to US citizens and I think $800 USD per bet.

The only concern with this token is precisely that they may also refuse to pay out on Feb 1st. Although they did settle the TRUMPWIN/TRUMPLOSE tokens this month it's no guarantee that they will do the same in February. They have ultimate control over the interpretation of settlement conditions:


It's certainly a very interesting deal either way given that the winner has been long called, and I might put some mBTC on it just for fun 

The "reset" that you're talking about will inevitably come. No doubt about it.

And I do believe that crypto, probably BTC in particular, will at the very least be seen as a bridging currency if fiat systems around the world do collapse. Keep in mind that is the worst scenario, as Bitcoin and other blockchains are more than capable of handling day-to-day transactions as a permanent medium of exchange as well.

It's difficult to time when this transition will come though. I remember Mike Maloney and a lot of other goldbugs predicting within the 2010 decade, which obviously did not materialise. Instead of trying to precisely conjure up a date for when this transition occurs, I think it's far better to continue to dollar cost average and diversify out of assets that are dependent on the fiat system - this includes cash, cash equivalents (e.g. Treasuries, bonds), preferred/common stock etc.

To a certain extent. The reason why it works is partly because markets are irrational, making support and resistance levels somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Obviously, I'm not saying that there is no technical merit to support/resistance levels. Sure, there could be large whale orders at certain price points that pose a tangible short-term barrier. But I think that at the end of the day, the psychological impact of breaching a support or resistance level is far greater than any tangible changes in market fundamentals.

Whether this "still works" or you should worry about this phenomenon is entirely up to your investment objectives. If you are a long term investor, there is no reason to be concerning yourself with this. But if you are a day-trader, you sure need to incorporate these elements in your trading algorithm/strategy to feasibly turn a sustained profit.

I doubt that there is a more accurate measure per se. Market cap obviously takes into account all coins, regardless of whether they are lost or not.

The seemingly obvious thing to do is to subtract an estimate of lost coins from the circulating supply of BTC. However, that would prove to be completely unreliable. There is virtually no way to distinguish simply dormant coins of long term holders from actually lost coins on a consistent basis.

And even if there was, there could always be the chance that lost coins can be recovered in the future. This is more likely now with BTC prices increasing exponentially, it gives a lot more financial incentive for wallet recovery services to be sought after.

Policymakers simply never take into account enforceability when they put in place these laws.

Any jurisdiction can start taxing 5% on all gambling transactions. The reason that they don't do this is not that they are content with forgoing revenue, but rather the simple fact that they know it's not feasible to collect revenue.

Especially with a ton of unregulated online casinos around that have a great reputation, this can be easily circumvented. Consumers when presented with a choice of casinos with identical odds/house edge, but one with a 5% tax on it because it is regulated, will invariably go to the unregulated establishment.

Argentina needs to think long and hard about this, but I doubt these bureaucrats will come to their senses any time soon.