How about splitting your funds into 50/50 the first half you invest in Cryptocurrency buy any desired currency and HODL it into your wallet or ledger and the other half you bet in gambling and casino's. But ultimately for this to work is you to set limits of bets like betting with small amounts so you wont lose it quick and to learn to strategize and win the game. But if you're unfortunate and loss then you shouldn't touch the first invested funds Nah, not gonna work out OP has most certainly already tried something to that tune before. The root cause of the problem here lies in an erroneous short-term prioritization (in an obvious conflict with longer-term goals), and unless he deals with his priorities first in a productive and constructive way, these measures are not going to cut it. He will likely find a thousand (or more) excuses to gamble away the remaining half of his funds anyway. As I see it, the only long-term solution in this case is to change his attitude in such a way that gambling no longer remains a preferred choice. And that means looking and going for a more appealing and attractive use of his stash of coins other than gambling |
|
|
|
People think bitcoin halving is a good chance to speculate this year but they don't understand the nature of halving. halving the reward will reduce the miners revenue by half and keep the cost the same. If prices continue to go down, many people will be bankrupt. that will cause great damage and maybe miners will sell off their bitcoins. At that time, the market will be really bad And you suggest what exactly? Indeed, it is a good chance to speculate, or are you going to tell that the speculators should pack and go home? But without them the prices wouldn't be where they are now, and, quite ironically, there wouldn't be as many miners sticking around either, able to earn by the price being in many thousands. It is exactly because of the cryptocurrency speculators that mining has become profitable in the first place (and while we are at it, they have nothing to do with the halvings). In simple terms, and figuratively speaking, don't bite the hand that feeds you (i.e. open market) |
|
|
|
...
And what's the point? But I can tell you one. Unless you are seriously into this kind of thing, i.e. fell in love head over heels with a certain game (e.g. blackjack), it makes no sense getting into this business (if we can call it a business in the first place) just because someone has been lucky to win $15.2 million. In different terms, Don Johnson (whoever he is) started to play BJ not because he wanted to earn from it but for the simple and perhaps singular reason he liked the game |
|
|
|
How do you combat the urge to gamble with your cryptocurrency? Instead of holding (as an alternative to gambling) you can try active trading Most likely you are gambling because you can't look at your coins sitting idly. Trading is, of course, a longer road to success but if you are impatient, it may be the way to go, or at least to try it out. Once you get the feel and hang of it, you can put your coins to work in a way that you yourself consider meaningful (that's a must for a workable strategy). In that case, you will no longer feel the urge to gamble. In other words, you should first figure out why you act like this and then, with that knowledge in mind, consciously and purposely change your ways and behaviors |
|
|
|
It was likely a proverbial dead cat's bounce, and we are going to do that again and again in the coming days. Just testing waters now, I guess, like if there is enough support for a tasty and refreshing long squeeze, the BitMEX style. Let's call it a false bottom (buckle up as we come falling through). So whoever bought in may be forced to sell out at the end of the day
Suits me, I always say. I'm really not prepared (or shall I say, not well-endowed in BTC enough) for any kind of big move this whole year. I've already been forced to sell for economic reasons, so chipping away at savings. Dead cat's bounce though, didn't that use to mean the bounce before the final nail in coffin? Suppose these terms take on new meanings in crypto. What's your end game for bitcoin? For crypto? Y'know when you play the game of coins there is no middle ground, so I'm all in The difference is likely that I'm on the fence most of the time, actually on both sides of it, the short side and the long side. This way, I'm fine as long as crypto doesn't kick the bucket, and thus going to enjoy the ride while it lasts (hopefully, it will be a never-ending game for me) Kim Jong Undead |
|
|
|
Ah right, I just opened the charts properly and saw the 8111 low. Lucky whomever bought that dip, as we're back at 8800 now, which made me think it was the 10% drop rather than the almost 20% Sorry mate but we crashed again It was likely a proverbial dead cat's bounce, and we are going to do that again and again in the coming days. Just testing waters now, I guess, like if there is enough support for a tasty and refreshing long squeeze, the BitMEX style. Let's call it a false bottom (buckle up as we come falling through). So whoever bought in may be forced to sell out at the end of the day Glass coffins? Disney did their best!
Vatican is second to none We see in few days how it will move after halving I can tell you how. It will move in both directions, and likely not just once |
|
|
|
What would drive it upwards is the lack of selling and not buying and that is something people have been missing out for a long time honestly No, it doesn't work that way The lack of selling coupled with the lack of buying (cause otherwise we would see prices rising steadily) means less liquidity in the market. And the latter inevitably leads to higher volatility, not the consistent upward momentum Why would there be less sellers? Because every other way of making a profit is actually lacking and everything goes down, whereas bitcoin is a great long term investment for you, hence people would not sell their coins to keep making profit instead, and as long as we go up like we do right now there is no reason to keep selling so they will keep it instead (or "hodl" for better understanding) Things are obviously a lot more complicated than that As I'm inclined to think, most of the price action that we saw recently is explained by squeezes, both long and short ones. So it doesn't matter whether "Bitcoin is a great long term investment" or not (while we are at it, this mantra doesn't seem to work anymore either). Sellers can sell on margin, just as buyers can buy on margin too, and this is what has been going on for quite some time now. Put differently, sellers, or lack thereof, as you mean them and as we know them, don't play a significant role in this game of stakes |
|
|
|
 My ex still misses me but her aim is starting to improve |
|
|
|
I am referring to the Martingale as it is, the classic Martingale and not one of its variations Well, I told you it was your call But as it turns out, it is not anymore. In fact, it has never been in the first place. Even if we consider the Wikipedia entry on Martingale as an authoritative source, which we shouldn't, it is definitely not what is meant by "classic Martingale". Here's a dictionary definition of Martingale dated as back as 1828 (taken form here): 3. (Gambling)
Defn: The act of doubling, at each stake, that which has been lost on the preceding stake; also, the sum so risked; -- metaphorically derived from the bifurcation of the martingale of a harness If anything, this should be considered the classic Martingale (its definition). But it doesn't say anything about odds, then the odds can be any, so you are in no way limited to earning only your base bet amount at each win |
|
|
|
A better approach is to risk small amount of money and play a game with a lower odds. The winning chances may be less, but if you're lucky you can win good amount without losing your money It is only the amount of money that matters here Whether you play with low odds or high ones, ultimately, it will be six of one and half a dozen of the other. When you make enough rolls (on the order of a few thousands), it will boil down to just two things. The first is the amount you wager at each stake, and the second is the house edge. After so many rolls the odds as such, high or low, become irrelevant as it all gets averaged out to the house edge |
|
|
|
That's basically one of the reasons why the majority of wannabe traders are losing in the long run. The correction will come, as any bull run inevitably and inexorably ends with a bull trap. And if history teaches us anything, this is a given. But we don't know when it is going to happen and at which price levels. But we can be certain that it will be brutal once it starts. We will likely see something like the flash crash which occurred in March but it won't be as short-lived
Yup. There we go, no 10% price dump and instead, a 10% bump and just 2 days to go to the halving. And then today another 10% dump to where we were 2 weeks ago. Pure psychology at work here, little much else, no knowledge or willingness to look at fundamentals just pure "it's getting scarcer!" buying Well, it looked more like a 20% correction Regardless, things are going along the path that I had outlined more than 2 years ago. As Bitcoin's market supply is limited and will be even more limited after the halving, we should expect evermore insane levels of volatility coming. In fact, since the beginning of 2020 we have already witnessed the effect I described in that 2017 thread, though I didn't really anticipate it to reveal itself at these prices Crazy days, but we'll see crazier yet! Will glass coffins be a success? Remains to be seen |
|
|
|
One thing that I can put my chips on is that you can use the house edge against the house, sure luck plays a big role when you are gambling but when you do not incorporate skill and you rely on luck all the time then you will inevitably lose, now back at the house edge, there is an exploit that you can use when you basically know the edge of every game in the house, this loops will not help you win in a sense but it will help you lose less which means that you can play more And how is it going to help you? Even if that will be about losing less? Let's assume that you know the house edge and so what? This knowledge will only tell you how much you will be losing after a few thousand rolls (more like a a few hundred thousand but still) if you bet without any system or strategy in place, like martingale or whatever. The opening post of this very thread shows that abundantly clear. But if I'm missing something here (who knows), you are more than welcome to chime in |
|
|
|
The problem is not that people do not understand this fact. The problem is people believe they can beat the facts. We all know gambling is favored towards the house in a big way. First is the house edge, second is the limits on bets (which limits martingale tactics for example).
Then,,, you have to deal also with normal emotion of chasing losses or believing in streaks.
Lot of people tend to think this way, they think they are winning against the house but literally they cannot Is 31 million rolls not enough to prove the opposite? And it's about time this misconception should be put to rest for good. You can beat the house edge by using the random nature of bets (rolls, in case of dice) against the house, and there is nothing particularly extraordinary, fantastic or mind-boggling about it. Your profits won't be big, and probably not worth the time and effort (unless the very reality of earning something instead of losing makes you ecstatic), but it's a fact, a statistical one, regardless of opinion |
|
|
|
Being someone with the longest tongue for the pun on the forum (presumably), I decided to start this thread dedicated to the best handpicked puns out there. If you want to add more fun and pun to it (and to the forum), please follow the pattern below (a pun and a picture explaining it or adding even more fun to it):
 And so what if I can't spell Armageddon? It's not the end of the world! |
|
|
|
-snip-
It seems I understand what you mean. Maximize chances of victory by implementing the Martingale strategy. To be honest this strategy is very tempting and of course every user has to make more bets to get a win, I mean double the bet if the previous bet loses. Even so, I don't think that all gamblers like this strategy because of limited capital or so on If you feel interested, you may want to look into this thread. It deals with a lot of gory and pesky details of implementing this strategy in a way that actually allows to win something in the long run and not bust in the process. Indeed, you have to make more bets to score a win but this is not what I meant. You must literally make millions of bets to accumulate some profits, and that may take plenty of time as well as patience But be warned that this strategy is not for the greedy hands Martingale strategy does not actually make the gambler win more, but can increase the chances of winning because the stakes are increased gradually Technically, you don't so much win more as just win something. But something is still better than nothing, right? |
|
|
|
That said, if you are implementing some strategy that allows you to take home small profits while not taking many risks (yes, it is possible), it could formally be claimed that the more you wager the higher your returns are going to be. However, we should keep in mind that you can increase the wagered amount in two ways. The first way is to increase the size of your stakes, while the second to increase the number of your rolls without changing the size of your stakes Not really. Implementing "some strategy" won't make you rich But seriously, you may want to learn about the newest and the hottest Martingale-DOGE strategy It probably won't make you insanely rich, but I never said anything to the contrary anyway. Although it allows you to earn only small profits (the specific term I used), "a win is a win", no matter whether it is big or small, short or long. Regarding casinos banning those strategies, many have effectively already done exactly that, and a long time ago. For the Martingale-DOGE strategy to work properly, you need doges (as the name casually suggests) and you need your base bet amount to be as small as possible, ideally the lowest possible denomination of the currency. Apart from that, you would also need high betting speeds, the more the merrier. Only a few casinos fully meet these requirements and criteria, with wolf.bet being one them (no advertising or proselytizing intended) The more you keep on wagering, the higher chance of getting wiped Rolls are independent of each other, aren't they? It doesn't matter for how long you didn't bust as chances remain absolutely the same. I call it the Gambler's Fallacy in reverse (obviously, you are not the first to come up with this idea, that getting busted gets closer as you roll on) |
|
|
|
Then, if you are using a strategy which is not relying on luck, you can no longer say that luck determines the fate of your balance as it gets eliminated from the equation. This logic cannot be challenged. So the whole question under these assumptions comes down to whether such a strategy exists for real. And as my experience proves, moreover, even as your experience seems to prove, there is such a strategy, the one you dubbed Martingale-DOGE. As you can see, there is no contradiction in my words and line of reasoning. If we are talking about a working strategy that is actually able to overcome or work around the house edge, luck or its absence is no longer a factor (which you seem to understand intuitively)
Your strategy isn't for greedy people, that's for sure Def not for the weak hands and feeble minds But seriously, since we accept that trying to make big money with gambling is always a bad idea, we can use strategies that are about something else. For example, by making flat bets on a dice site with 1% house edge, we can learn what 49.50% win chance really means Yes, that's what this topic is about (you may want to read the OP finally) Or, with your Martingale-DOGE strategy we can learn that the famous mantra "no-one-wins-with-gambling" isn't necessarily true. It appears that you actually can win(not big, but still, win is a win), and not because of luck or other uncontrollable factors, but with a strategy that statistically guarantees your winning during the next 100 years or so In fact, if you reinvest the profits earned this way (which is another aspect of the strategy in question), you will be able to enter an endless loop of postponing the reckoning indefinitely into the future by increasing the killing streak as soon as it becomes possible (until you trip over the house limits). Indeed, you individually are still not guaranteed from busting, but if we take 1,000 gamblers and put them all to work, only a few will bust at the end of the century (provided they won't bust the casino first) |
|
|
|
I'm not sure that higher odds (i.e. lower multipliers, or payouts) stand for a more aggressive approach, while lower odds for a more conservative one. As it seems to me, we can't actually draw such a distinction here (aggressive or conservative) when we refer to odds on their own. Personally, I would consider a more aggressive strategy the one which involves a higher percentage of your balance that you stake at each roll. Conversely, if you go small, that should be considered a more conservative strategy
Sorry for misunderstanding, higher odds = higher multipliers and payouts, along with higher bets you have really aggressive play In dice higher odds, i.e. higher win chances, stand for lower multipliers, i.e. the amount received on a win (payout) But enough nitpicking as this is not my point altogether. The heart of the matter, or point at stake if you please, is that no matter how high or low your payout, multiplier, or odds might be, over the course of your gambling life it all eventually comes down to the house edge (and whether you can live with it) So we can't really say that we are betting more aggressively with higher multipliers than with lower ones, at least not if we make thousands and thousands of rolls. By extension, that basically means that it is the percentage of our balance at stake which is what defines the aggressiveness, or lack thereof, of the utilized strategy (aka risk exposure) |
|
|
|
If the world economy continues to go downhill (which is almost certain), don't expect too much from cryptocurrencies either (just in case, I eagerly hope to be wrong on this one). So, to rephrase your question, we should rather ask ourselves which cryptos are going to outperform Bitcoin on this slide down, i.e. not fall as much and actually rise against Bitcoin. I think these are the currencies among top altcoins which already lost much of their value. These are Ethereum and probably Litecoin as well as EOS. There can be pumps and dumps at times but they will be hard to predict and time
The cryptomarket will experience some bullish scenario because the market have practically perform every procedure of the bullish market after halving, there's chance that the bullish market may not big as we expected because of the pandemic but the bullish market will definitely happen. But what is going to push it up? But really? Especially when everything else is crashing down? Indeed, if the economy restarts (highly unlikely in the near future), cryptocurrencies will have something to build up the momentum on (e.g. money flowing into financial markets). On the other hand, if the economy keeps spiraling down, what is going to drive the prices of cryptocurrencies up? Bitcoin has likely already run out its upward potential due to halving, and if there are enough open marginal long positions, it won't be totally unreasonable to expect another massive squeeze of longs in the coming weeks |
|
|
|
Wagering more does not make you rich automatically. You may wager for years and make no profit at all, while someone might just wager for a single day and become a billionaire. It all depends on your luck Let me tell you that I agree with you That said, if you are implementing some strategy that allows you to take home small profits while not taking many risks (yes, it is possible), it could formally be claimed that the more you wager the higher your returns are going to be. However, we should keep in mind that you can increase the wagered amount in two ways. The first way is to increase the size of your stakes, while the second to increase the number of your rolls without changing the size of your stakes Obviously, your returns will be consistently greater only in the second case because when you simply raise the stakes, you also raise your chances of busting. Although you could claim that more bets also increases the chances of losing the balance, this is not so for the simple reason that rolls are independent of each other unless you also happen to bet big chunks of your balance at once. But then it goes against the assumption of gaining via small winnings |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
