I consider it to be something becoming rather regular in almost all industries, not just in crypto casinos (or casinos in general). It's a process that can't be helped imo, especially if businesses were required to register under a legal license that the government issues (or a centralized group that manages it in general). It's actually a type of brainwash imo, it might be weird or odd right now but as people are gradually forced to do KYC in almost everything, they'd just end up accepting it in the end.

As for the second thing, I think KYC would still be involved even if login wallets were used. There may still be casinos that wouldn't put in KYC, but it'd only be a matter of time imo.

I don't think I've had any tbh. I've played with live dealers a few times but none of them really stuck for me, nor did I really ever want to actually interact with them (yes I hate socialization). I do interact with them if they start talking like I think it's basic courtesy to do so if they start it, but if they don't well I'm also perfectly fine with that. I just sit there and play while malding about how shtty my luck is for that day. I honestly would be bothered if it was over the top kind of dealer thing, heck I'm actually a fan of dealers, either male or female just wearing those neat clean types of clothing. The one that makes them look really really mature and clean and professional, just gives them the vibe of being able to talk to you and answer pretty much anything you throw at them.

I don't think any of the robbers indicated anything about being a gambling addict? This is just a case of robbers choosing to attack gambling casinos instead of anything else, which imo makes sense to rob from since well, it's a casino. If they see that the security that they have is less than what they can't handle, then they'd try to handle it ofc. I wouldn't put it past that they have no gambling experience, I reckon they at least have a bit but I still don't think their gambling tendencies are at fault here. They're just thieves at the core.

Doesn't seem like they actually lost out but rather instead their profits were less than expected? So I guess any of them weren't really losing anything nor have they really made any wrong general investment decisions since they still ultimately profited. It is kind of weird how they expected or thought of crypto as an easy way to make money, it may have been true foe the early days but I don't think it applies to recent times now, not to mention it also requires a lot of know-how on what to do to exactly profit.

I think the general result from the infographic is not winning in matches but rather winning/profiting off of it in general. Though I do think this infographic either showed what you actually indicated ( only losing more than winning in their entire gambling experience) or the people who actually won can actually be described as "barely" profiting off of their overall bets. Overall I wouldn't really consider this to be actually true or accurate, a lot of information on the internet is put over the top after all to attract views and attention.

First time? I reckon you should just let it go if you're not shorting, but if you are then I don't see any reason why you should be confused or disappointed, rather you should take advantage of differences in prices like this to profit. Price dropping down isn't an impossibility, you as well as us don' really have foresight so we don't really know what exactly is going to happen in the future. I honestly want you to just experience maybe this season without expecting much so that you can realize that this kind of changes is rather normal in the market.

Can we please include a proper introduction to general financing first or something?  Pretty sure it's skipping a few steps which may make it rather difficult for students to suddenly enter crypto-related courses. Are there specifics to how they're going to implement this or is it still on the works?

Hoping for the best for this though. I think a lot of the younger generation are rather interested in crypto but are afraid of actually entering it since you'd originally think it involves money, which it does, but only when you're investing. There's so much more involved in it in terms of development.

I think this decision was made in the first place since CZ went to the Philippines to handle the issue of the SEC? Iirc after the issue went up he tried to immediately fix it by applying for a license.

No...? I mean, if employees were able to steal money from their companies, I'm pretty sure they're just that skilled (if you can call it a skill), addict or not. Let's not even mention that identifying an addict in itself would be rather difficult, but in the first place, any employee can steal from their companies if they were skilled enough and they wanted to. These are similar cases related to gambling but there are probably a whole lot more other cases not even related to gambling. I'd rather make companies actually improve their security against outsiders and insiders.

I think people who are interested in it are mostly investors, not to the art but to the capability of the team behind the NFT project to bring out hype to the project itself rather. I've seen a LOT of artists imo, and only a minority of them are into NFT's and they don't even have that much traction in the NFT scene even though they have really good art. That's how I personally have seen the NFT scene though, and the various projects that have popped off and sold and generated a lot of profit.

100% free spins. As much as I hate it, being given a direct cash deposit kind of gives me the idea that I can earn more money which may influence me rather negatively imo, free spins, on the other hand, is like something that's part of the game mechanic so I wouldn't be able to take it out and can only use it to actually get more possible rewards. Not to mention that cash rewards are probably rather small, like those you'd get from bonuses from online shopping and whatnot, not really worth it imo. I'd rather take the chances of me hitting it big than getting small rewards.

That's because it can't be trained...? Gambling at its core is simply playing by relying on luck. You may argue that some skill is required for some games like poker, but in the end, that's mostly about mental skills and nothing actually solid. Other than that it's basic counting skills in card games which are mostly invalidated now like in blackjack by using multiple decks. I also don't think mental training would be considered as a course even or is it something you can intentionally train by teaching it rather it's gained instead by being put into stressful situations instead.

If there were ever to be a course related to gambling, it might as well be education on basic finance responsibilities and how to not fall into addiction when it comes to vices, which includes (afaik) gambling.

It should roughly be controllable, but I don't think there's any streamer that would like to be a 100% gambler type of streamer. Say you only use money you got from streaming as the money you'd use for betting, you should be able to last pretty long unless you're stream involves betting big, which might just ruin the entire plan and well make it impossible to last long. Not to mention that I don't think there's anyone that would want to watch a streamer gamble 100% of the time, people enjoy watching a variety of content after all imo. There's also the issue that most gambling games are rather simple and static in terms of the process.

I play mostly on a single or two slots in a single session, but it never really lasts that long. I play like for a bit, then jump to another slot, then a bit again, then jump to another game instead of another slot, depending on what I feel like playing. I never really had a pattern of sorts, I try not to have one since it makes it seem like a robotic thing which makes it feel tedious and boring. I try to change the variety I play, whether it be the type of game or the type of that specific game (e.g., type of slots).

"Experts", yea that, don't use it, it's better to use analyst as a general term for anyone who tries to read the market which btw, also doesn't mean that they're right or wrong, it's just a general term to describe anyone who tries to read the market. I also wouldn't actually trust any willy nilly, try to do your own research just like in any investment.

On Ops comment about $30k, I wouldn't put it past it actually happening, but still DYOR imo, especially around the last 2 months or so.

I honestly don't think that's true for this match. Even if it's an exhibition match, the least they could do is match players with a similar skill level or so, it wasn't even a matter of training hard, it's like matching someone who trained for 20 years to someone who just picked up working out a week ago. I wouldn't really consider it as anything else other than a simple hype exhibition, wouldn't even call it a match really. To simplify, it's like the odds between a very weak vs a very strong team.

At the very least, you shouldn't expect it to happen in the next year. This kind of sentiment has always followed Bitcoin after a dump, say after the dump right after CoVid happened. From there you can always see that Bitcoin pumped to high prices once again after a few years. We've only been bearish for what, a year or so at most? I wouldn't expect it to be gone with that amount of time, at the very least 1-2 years.

We're not in a bull market...? Even if we were hovering around $25k earlier, the market movement was rather slow and steady, even seeing dips like what you were talking about. Zoom out, look at the bigger picture.

I think befriending people and socializing in physical casinos isn't anything odd, you'd most likely play together in some specific gambling games after all. Not to mention that I'd like to think that gamblers have this open mindset of socialization since it's an integral part of casinos themselves, hence why the setup of people being together at tables. That doesn't mean that there aren't any individuals that wouldn't do anything wrong or bad to you.

I think the women thing is kind of biased? Just in general hiring attractive personnel, whether they be men or women with pleasing personalities should work. Also casinos wouldn't pass up on that money, so selling alcohol instead of giving them out would definitely be a part. Maybe a reduction based on VIP level or amount bet on that certain session instead.

I think men are more open to risks since there are generally more opportunities open for them even if they say, lose out on one venture or another, in a cultural or vague way, at least that's how I see/feel it. Though now with times changing I wouldn't put it past for women to slowly integrate themselves and grab a part of the industry, or even dominate it in the future. I'm guessing the numbers are still low since women are still in the middle of transitioning over, maybe give it a decade or two.

This is only the case if you borrowed before the inflation. Lenders naturally increase the interest rate of their loans as inflation rises, and if you were to borrow at the wrong moment you may end up paying more rather than paying less. So I guess the correct thing here is borrowers (who already have loans) before high inflation hits profit by paying less, while lenders during high inflation increase their inflation rates and therefore profit if it settles down.

Honestly wouldn't consider borrowing money if possible. I don't think it's that big of a business opportunity if you were required to get a big loan to even start it.

Even if people were to suddenly start mass selling because of it, it doesn't exactly mean that people wouldn't buy it anymore. Heck if the price drops, you can probably expect that more and more people would try to buy in. It might temporarily set back the price but it isn't exactly something that'd affect Bitcoin as a currency, it'd still remain as a currency and can still be used after all. If it happens and you're holding, then just keep on holding it. A minor setback shouldn't influence your decision and ruin your investment. Dumps like this have and will always be a part of the market anyway (at least until the entire supply hasn't been mined).