When I played slots on a tablet device I thought it really entertaining and addicting, maybe due to the fact the tablet's screen isn't too small like a smartphone's one, while being very interactive. I also thought the experience was much more immersive, however I still prefer desktop for the convenience when doing multiple tasks at same time and also because it's the device I use the most during the day. Moreover, desktop is the best device to browser safely, without misclicking places you weren't supposed to with your fingers.
True man. Tablet PCs are just the best of both worlds when you're talking about digital gambling. The screen is sufficiently big to allow for a more immersive experience, plus it's portable as well. Really good stuff. That's the very reason I never really dabbled into investing for a tablet pc, besides the fact that it's extra costs that I have to fork. I believe I'd get addicted to it as well which is something that I actively avoid lmao. In any case, to each his own I guess. If you think tablet PCs are for you then most definitely go for it. I think it's a worthy investment considering the fact that it offers you premium entertainment. |
|
|
|
One of the rarest topics I have seen discussed on this gambling board is devices and online gambling. We know that in the past, the only platform through which gamblers could have access to online casinos was by using laptop or desktop devices. One reason for this was that online casinos used a technology called Flash, which at that time worked on computers only and not mobile devices. However, things turned around with the introduction of a new online programming language, HTML5. When HTML5 was introduced in 2008, it was made with an eye toward both mobile and desktop computers. It was much simpler to get anything to operate on a variety of devices if it was coded in HTML5. This was fantastic for developers since it allowed them to create fewer websites for less money, but it also meant that a single website would function on any device that had an HTML5-compatible browser. We are no longer restricted to playing on desktops and laptops, but can now enjoy playing our favorite casino games on our smartphones, iPads, and other mobile devices. Personally, I am still stuck in my old ways of using my laptop to visit an online casino to play. Which device do you find most convenient when accessing an online casino: a laptop or desktop, a smartphone, or an iPad? Secondly, which do you find more convenient: playing a casino game through their app or through their website? most casinos out there put so much effort in making their websites functional and aesthetically pleasing too, without placing much care on their mobile app. For that reason alone, I have remained an avid fan of visiting gambling sites using my trusty laptop or PC if I can help it, and only ever use Phones to visit gambling sites when I really feel the need to. I think the portability that phones offer are both a blessing and a curse too, as it insinuates the notion of being able to gamble wherever you are which could incite addiction in the process. That is also a reason why I refrained from using phones for gambling as much as possible. With PC, you can rest assured that when you stand up from your chair and start touching grass, you won't have that tic to check your phone and gamble. |
|
|
|
I am also confident of a Donaire KO win but his inactivity plus his age might be a factor if he can't stop Santiago in the first half of the fight. Donaire is not fast anymore but he is accurate although he might become slower with low output in the second half.
Santiago since his draw with Jerwin Ancajas had an 11-1-7 KOs record. His lone defeat was the controversial majority decision of Gary Antonio Russell. He might be underestimated here but he is really capable of beating Donaire by decision.
I think the best approach Donaire could take in this fight and every other fight he may take should he reconsider his retirement is to be technical, but retain the explosive power of his punches. Given that he's not fast anymore and that he's aging, his stamina is also bound to be lesser than back when he was still in his prime. So less movements, more technicality, and retaining the same punching power would almost always guarantee him a win one way or another. As for Santiago, i believe if he couldn't KO this guy, he still has a chance at winning via technicalities. I think he knows that too, but judging Santiago's performance and record, this isn't going to be an easy retirement fight for Donaire. |
|
|
|
It's so saddening that this still happens. Fixed matches is really common despite it being considered as cheating. And many people still do this even though it's not really legal and has repercussions with it. It's not only in Brazil, but in almost every part of the world, even in online games, NFTs and the likes, there are fixed matches. But it's still disappointing that people resort to do such thing just for the sake of money. They set aside their morals for an amount they can earn because they prefer the easy way instead of doing hard work.
If this happens in somewhat large scale, what more in small scale sportsbetting and gambling, right? Most likely it's rampant in local gambling and betting and perhaps they might even have organizers for fix matching for events like this to guarantee a win and a winning prize. Hopefully, this will be eliminated, but I doubt it can be done easily as it's rooted and has become a habit already.
Just because it's morally unethical doesn't mean people will not do it. If that was the case crimes wouldn't exist in the first place. If you'll ask me, you shouldn't be disappointed with the players who are caught between choosing a quick buck or winning a game. For me the problem is with these manipulators who would willingly tip the odds in their favor in any way they can. If these manipulators are taken care of, incarcerated or the likes, then I'll bet you match fixing wouldn't exist. The players aren't the problem. It's the system. |
|
|
|
|
Definitely Carleo's is the most rollercoaster-y (if that's even a word) and funny as hell too. Just these people getting taken over by greed when they're supposed to have it all. He literally had the casino by the neck and would've gotten away with it too if not for his stupidity and greed taking over his mental. Still, he got it coming, no good comes from easy money as they say.
I'd say the most underwhelming has to be Birges. Imagine building a plot like that so thick a telephone book would be embarassed. Only to be cucked from your freedom by your son's girlfriend. Like I know that is damaging (and he probably got it coming for him as well) but to just be snitched out by someone you could've known so well is just something. Although I believe this snitching is in retaliation for idk abuse either on the son or to the girlfriend. Whatever mans, they deserve the time for their crimes.
|
|
|
|
I was reading more about this White Card, and the main question I have in mind is:
Do we really need them?
I mean, it doesn't make any difference, is only like a clap for the fair game, but I don't feel like we need them. And what I don't have clear is if that white card is a local thing for Portugal, or if FIFA will adopt it a make it a global thing.
Another thing that I don't like at all, is the referee giving cards to a non-player, for me feels like nonsense.
Today, I would agree with your statement, but only because the white card as it stands today doesn't have anything good going for it, it doesn't dictate games, does not impact the performance of teams on the field or whatever. I can see them improving upon the concept and maybe playing around the rules a little bit to offer more incentives into getting a white card, but that could come a long way. Still, I think it is a great initiative in a game that is mostly defined by negativities. A little positive outcome could mean so much especially if it's given the weight it deserves. For now, it's useless but it doesn't mean it should outrightly be removed. It doesn't disrupt games anyway, so until the officials find out a way to make use of this white card, I think it's great if they keep it. |
|
|
|
In this forum and other forums where gambling is one of the topics of discussion, one of the recurrent topics is people who write about how their gambling addiction has ruined their lives. We usually encounter topics like "Gambling ruined my life," "I lost all my life savings to gambling," "I gambled away my entire salary," etc. Then they go on to tell a sad tale. It makes me wonder: why do gamblers tend to wait until they have suffered a catastrophic loss or a string of losses before quitting or seeking help?
Because you can never realize the repercussions of your poor decisions until it effectively disrupts your way of living to the point of notice, most gamblers at least. They will carry on with gambling and may even spend their life savings away without care because "next win's gonna cover for it", and the moment they lose all of it, that's when reality hits them. I can tell because I've been with a couple of recovering gambling addicts for a good amount of time and they always tell me that "they couldn't notice until it's too late". why do gamblers tend to wait until they have suffered a catastrophic loss or a string of losses before quitting or seeking help?
I think it is due to the vicious cycle of loss-chasing the loss-worse loss and the denial of the fact that they are having a problem. Indeed accepting the fact that one has a gambling addiction is embarrassing to their therapist and family. This will not improve for those who mindset has the risk taking attitude, but some people understand their problem quickly and seek help quickly too and such people though rare often save themselves from catastrophic effects. Often it is the family who have to bear the burden, so possible addicted gamblers should keep that in mind and how much of a shock that would be for them. That plays a part too. The fact that they downplay their addiction as something ordinary affects their perception of things. That ultimately leads them to gamble more and more until the consequences of their actions become irreversible, like a divorce, massive loss of funds, or whatever eye-opening scenario. Sometimes they even see this as the world fucking them over, basically blaming it to someone else. |
|
|
|
"Are people really having the wrong concept of savings?" This topic and question was triggered earlier this morning after writing on two separate threads where it seems people are already misunderstanding the concept of saving
saving according to Google search from Banco Central de la República Argentina |
"Saving is the portion of income not spent on current expenditures. In other words, it is the money set aside for future use and not spent immediately."
The word "use"(spend) is the key word of concentration because it seems people talk so much of savings as if one isn't supposed to use their saving even until death and I began to wonder what the purpose of saving really is.
We ought save money so money will save us and some also say that we out to save for raining days and we should know that out raining days might differ and one should be free to use their savings and not feel they're doing something wrong when using their hard earned savings.
What's your concept of savings?
You said it yourself. You are the only one with the authority to use whatever the hell you want your money to be used for, especially if it's something that you saved. If they want to keep it til their deaths to maybe pass on to their grandkids or relatives, why not? If they wanna use it for retirement, why stop them? It's not about when your rainy days arrive, that's where emergency savings come in, but with what you want to do with your money. Some of us are frugal and prudent enough to look forward decades into the future, when they are already building their own family for themselves. Do we have the rights to stop them from saving their money just because it doesn't match our "definition of saving?" I don't think so. Let people enjoy things, it's their money, their rules. |
|
|
|
In economics, we really have to be independent since we graduated from school, whether it's school or college education. we are forced to have to work and save in preparation for our mature future, especially at the age of 25-27. Not a few also start their own business with the hope of success at the age of 30-40.
But that's all just theory, in practice in the real world it sometimes doesn't work out like that because sometimes there are boy who are already independent at the age of 20 or even 17 years, sometimes there are also those who are late by the age of 30 and are only independent. And our parents also don't force us to do it all, even though we are already successful, our parents will still want to give us because it is instinct.
As a second-generation Asian that is borderline forced by my relatives and family members to stay together whatever the situation may be, I found the appeal in the western approach of child-rearing and raising, especially in the aspect of forcing your kid to be independent by the time they can have jobs legally, which I think is one of the reasons why a lot of westerners are a little on the independent side and are most definitely self-made. In any case, it's been noted that the less people you have to feed, the more money you can save, thus the logic behind leaving your family behind to focus on growing your personal financial stability is a concept that has been looked upon and observed in a lot of cultures, particularly the westerners as I mentioned. |
|
|
|
I'm a high school teacher. I was given the opportunity to assess my students understanding of bitcoin today after class. I was shocked to find that most of them knew very little or nothing about it. Since the majority looked interested and willing to learn more, I made the decision to explain the concept as well as practical examples. When the lecture was over, I was thrilled that I had introduced the subject because many of them were enthusiastic and had asked wonderful questions. In the next two to three years, some of them will grow to be adult, and it's good to let them know about some financial decisions and actions they will take as they are growing into adulthood. I also made sure to tell them not to engage into it for now not until they have have grown to have a much more wider understanding of he system. Cause there are cons as much as pros in it.. [17/02, 03:18] Osep Nysc:  [17/02, 03:24] Osep Nysc:  [17/02, 03:26] Osep Nysc:  [17/02, 03:29] Osep Nysc:  No hate on what you do OP and as a matter of fact I applaud your act of service, teaching these younglings on how awesome bitcoin is in multiple aspects of the coin. Going back to my statement, I think the primary reason why they have little to no idea of what bitcoin is or cryptocurrency even is because of the fact that you may live in an inopportune area? I don't mean any offense. I doubt the students even get proper internet connection to begin with, let alone the opportunity to learn what bitcoin is in the first place. I do hope that something comes up in your area that would allow for more technological advancement and therefore an opportunity for these kids to learn what bitcoin is on their own. I think it will serve them well in the future if they do, and I give you a massive thumbs up for paving the way for them. |
|
|
|
|
People who pioneered in this industry's already bagging in millions every day, miners could also fall in the same situation. The industry is very generous in making millionaires out of regular people and honestly, this is your easiest yet the riskiest venture towards earning your millions. So yeah, cryptocurrency, when done and used right, could easily bag you thousands of dollars in the process, maybe even millions if you are smart enough in dealing with your expenditures and savings as well as your investments, but that doesn't mean bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are all rainbows and butterflies. Huge risks are involved in investing in this industry and more than often, people who are none the wiser fall to the this old trap and find themselves losing money in the process, so proceed with caution as always and do your research for god's sake.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing about bitcoin naysayers is that they will always find excuses and reasons to hate on bitcoin. I couldn't trust people who are so consistently negative of something promising like bitcoin despite the years of proof it has already provided; not even if my life depended on it.
Or maybe I'm only saying this because I've spent most of my life around bitcoin and crypto, well whatever that is.
Personally, I wouldn't want you to trust these people, they are naysayers, they'd always say no, regardless of any valid point you throw back at them. Talking to them is like talking to a brick wall, you can never change their ideals. Some of them make valid points tho, which is something that could really scare you, but provided that you studied bitcoin personally, I'm pretty sure you have enough knowledge of who to trust and who not to. The decision to falter is entirely yours.
|
|
|
|
As time passes and we become better informed on challenges and obstacles we face. I believe we will naturally acclimate and adapt to the changing world and its shifting circumstances. Our survival and prosperity will depend upon us doing so. The only question is what form our adaptation will take. I think there are always people doing crazy things we would not expect, taking things to extremes that are both shocking and surprising. When it comes to topics like climate change and global recessions, I think it will be no different. There will be many who will address these topics in ways we would not expect, using any loophole or advantage they can find to do things that are unexpected.
Our culture and society will adapt and shift to meet these challenges head on. To some degree, I think these changes are already manifesting. They say the best way to predict the future is to invent it. And undoubtedly there are many who are taking this to heart.
Our adaptability can only go so far against the raging tides of the economy. That much can be said when we look back on the worst economic crises we have faced like the Great Depression and the 2008 recession. Yeah, humanity persisted, but at the expense of multiple millions of people dying of starvation, loss of hope, even lack of affordable medical assistance since everything was practically golden during those times or whatever those issues brought along. I get what you are saying but romanticizing resilience can only go so far. I hate being cynical regarding topics like these but it comes with seeing the reality of things. We have to avoid recessions as much as possible, we can't romanticize the suffering of the many, especially if it's not our stomachs that are rumbling of hunger and it's not us dying of preventable diseases because of lack of money. |
|
|
|
|
They can do all the contingencies they want to subvert these odd abusers and account spammers but they will just keep popping up. KYC is a good measure but nowadays it's getting easier and easier to falsify documents and therefore be able to use them for something like gambling. There's also the fact that some use some sort of tracking that read's a player's/gambler's pattern and compares it to an account they suspect of abusing these advantages, but it could only go so far, especially if the tracking system could be overloaded with data, which some could be AFAIK.
In any case, in this battle against odd provider vs the gambler, the gambler will always win, might as well carry on with their day to day as usual instead of picking a needless fight.
|
|
|
|
There's no doubt that a healthy Davis is very important to the Lakers. However, no matter how well he performs on the court, he can't be called a player who provides consistency for the team. I mean, his systematic injuries have devalued his talent since he hasn't played even half of the regular season games in the last two years. Unfortunately, the trend is the same this season since Davis has already missed 24 of 59 games.
Am I missing something here? I don't have that impression about Anthony Davis. As far as I know, even Anthony Davis is considerably no doubt injury prone which keeps him from playing limited games this season, he's the most consistent player in the whole Lakers roster. It's always a big production you can expect from him once he returns to the court after a long period of recovery. There might be a series of off-night performances on him but that wasn't usual to expect. I also don't see injuries devaluing his talent right now. He's still a beast. However, the main point is, that was all useless if he's always sidelined. yeah, he is a beast when he plays but he cannot be a beast on the sideline. That is why his health is crucial to the success of the Lakers. His availability is hard to bank on because he gets injured more and more frequently. And if ever the Lakers get into the playoffs, that availability will be a big requirement to be successful. Every time I see AD on the floor, I ask myself if he is getting up or if is he injured again. At this point, I think the Lakers will do better next season if they acquire a talent that could be available more even with lesser talent but definitely cheaper than Davis. Exactly, It's not as if Anthony Davis' abilities are indispensable or whatnot, and I mean this in the literal sense. There's a lot of future talents out there and they may even buy out a couple free-agents as well to fill him in. Better to get someone who shows up more with a little less talent than depend and bank on someone who gets the job done only almost half of the time. As for Davis, he needs some sort of intervention, he's becoming the next Yao Ming of this game due to the number of injuries he incur every season, not good for someone who's reaching past their limit. In any case, the Lakers' best bet here is to have him be filled in or be outrightly replaced by a more consistent player, never mind being better. |
|
|
|
For sure Donaire's gonna be the hedge of the bets, all eyes were on him since day 1. As for Alejandro Santiago, he has to prove something here in order to gain the favor of the public. Donaire's a more popular, and a more experienced fighter, Alejandro doesn't seem to have the best fighting record too. Anyway how you can be sure this will be the last fight for Donaire?
Others say that it will be a good exit to consider by Donaire after being a champion again. Much better instead of just doing a retirement after a loss. For me, I'm not thinking that way because if Donaire wins here, he will think that he can still match with other bantamweight boxers which is actually true. I do believe that Donaire will just consider retiring if he won't win another match here in the Bantamweight division. He needs to see for himself if he is still capable of being dominant in this division since after all, Naoya Inoue is nowhere to be found on 118 which is no doubt, no one in the Bantamweight can beat that monster. I'm sure that if he losses this fight, that's it for his career. His age has caught up to him, but he's still fighting, that's one thing I really applaud about Donaire, which until this point to me is just "a Manny Pacquiao knock-off" honestly. But seeing how hard he's trying to prove that he's still got it just made me respect the man on a newer level. Anyways, yeah, retiring after a loss isn't a great track record to leave your boxing career on, might as well take up another potential win before hanging your gloves for a positive win rate. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Emotion is just like a double blade which it could really be a disadvantage but at the same time it could really be an edge considering that AI's couldnt able to assess particular conditions which you would really be making out decisions basing into your own analysis.This is why its better to assess your own predictions basing up with your own skills and analysis rather than on making yourself that relying into these AI which i dont
see for it to be that relevant. Also, it should really be that separated because there are really that things which arent meant to be touched up by these things or not really
that relevant at all.
Well, the thing is that with an AI, you can use it to obtain lots of data points, and still decide for yourself. It can make the process of gathering the statistics much simpler for you. You don't have to trust what the AI thinks, you can simply use it as a faster search engine. And I would like to add, AI might not be able to obtain the latest information, and since this is sports betting, we need to see the fresh news and even speculation so our decision is back with accurate data. I would only trust AI on historical information but not on sports betting, there's nothing we can trust here but ourselves if we want to be a winner. As of now, AI language models like ChatGPT do rely on archived and past information to run. Thus using it for information regarding who would win in tomorrow's games is going to be kaput. In any case, I see it improving in the foreseeable future and provided that it was given sufficient information that it doesn't need to make shit up anymore when asked a question it has limited information about, it could be of great use to people who are looking to predict games and outcomes for themselves or as a form of business. Anyhow, that is still too far from the future, so we can rest assured that the integrity of today's games aren't in jeopardy, at least in a way that we don't know who'd win and who'd lose. |
|
|
|
All that talk about risk aversion and not taking risks in life reminded me of the video I watched years ago. I managed to dig it up. It nicely shows how human psychology and basic instincts can make us turn down even great opportunities. Here's the link (put it in the OP as well):  Very interesting veritasium vid. It sheds light on how our brains are built with pessimism. I've heard about a study as well stating that the brain is most likely to retain memories and learn from them if they were of negative nature. Losses, rejections, regrets, those could be good reasons why a lot of people wouldn't take bets like that consciously. But slap a game in it, make it flashy enough and a throw in a lot of gambling mumbo jumbo in the mixture and you'll find that people will flock upon it like pigeons on bread. |
|
|
|
We'll see that after the fight, but getting into the top 20 is already a big achievement for Jake Paul, compared to the top 10 in the Cruiserweight he is more popular and getting paid more than all the other ranking Cruiserweight contenders, after he got his rank, things will be tougher for Jake Paul he cannot go back fighting old MMA fighters
he needs to level up and fight boxers that are close to his rank.
He will shock the World if he landed in the top 5 and the Cruiserweight Champions might take him seriously, that's part of his dream, its a cinderella story for Jake Paul, imagine he brought something new to the boxing industry.
I wonder will his train take him to the Championship.
Jake Paul is not a serious boxer. The reason he is in a "Cinderella Story", as you say, is because he is a pretty little princess who has no substance, no real skill and obviously no honor, since he sold that for a cheap career as an social media influencer instead of seriously training to become a real boxer. He has been fighting the weak and old for exactly that reason. Because he wants to get to the top the easy way while taking selfies. He does not care about skill or boxing. Although I greatly dislike Jake Paul and his equally shallow and superficial social media influencer brother, Logan Paul, who as everyone remembers has no problem throwing away honor for social media likes (If you remember the Japanese suicide forest scandal). So obviously dishonor runs in the family. But thats not news to anyone who knows me and my dislike for the Logans. Not to sound like I'm a Jake Paul Supporter but I think he does have some skill in him. I mean, He knows the game, he packs some punch albeit I wouldn't really compare him to pro boxers, and he gets wins. Honestly not a fan of his cheap tricks of only ever fighting people that are past their primes or that aren't great boxers in the first place, but he's got some skill and some boxing experience. The fight isn't officially sanctioned by any official boxing organizations anyways so I think it's only fine that he's able to fight and get bets placed on his side. I wouldn't agree with the Cinderella Story part though as per @goldkingcoiner statements, he pretty much had everything laid out for him and all he needs to do is to just sit in the front of the camera and act since day 1. |
|
|
|
The same way of strategy as the lotto is that there's a higher chance of winning so if you have the time to risk with this kind of game because of the higher chance of a return for sure you'll grab the opportunity but of course not all the time it works with the different person still ideal if you manage the risk on yourself. For me Martingale is not ideal too and as a gambler it just double and increase the number and amount of losses.
Talking about the example you made with the lottery games, it's less risky but the chance of winning is very low, I've seen many people having multiple attempts upon years without being lucky to win, sometimes we need to think extensively and come up with a new approach and such idea may influence having a new or entirely different result from what we have been having in the past, we just need a change in strategies. Haha. I met people who played the lottery all their lives, but never won. To be honest I do not understand these people because the chances of winning is so small that I do not even want to try their luck. I personally would rather play slots or bet on a soccer match and watch it online. Unlike the lottery, slots or betting on sports are fun for me. Well, the prospect of a million dollars/pesos/whatever currency they use is enough to blind these people of the implications of getting there. You could literally be slapping their faces with the factual evidence and they will dismiss it because "I don't even spend that much on it, just a few couple dollars", or "any chance that is not zero is good enough". These people are desperate as hell to get their big breaks they'd be more than happy to take the infinitesimal chance at getting a win than actually working their way up there. These people are beyond helping, and honestly speaking I think they should be given help (considering the fact that I always advocate for helping gambling addicts), because most of these people are downright addicted to this lifestyle, and are just too in denial. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
