They have to allow some of them

As long as the majority think it is impossible to win. Casinos cannot but allow some people to win and then let them run away with the spoil since otherwise no one would be playing. This is a required trade-off (even though many casinos nowadays are laying themselves out to skew it in their favor by every means available like KYC/AML requirements), and as long as most players lose in the end, it is okay (read, it is quite the opposite of "that is not the way of doing business certainly"). In fact, I probably shouldn't even have started this thread as it could potentially change such attitudes (like "it is all about fate")

I think it is a little of both

But as the saying goes, many a little makes a mickle (or something to that tune). People apparently don't like to be seen and known in the hood and in the world as gamblers while they don't like to have their identities stolen either. Add the two things together, and you will have an almost insane level of hate toward any "KYC/AML-friendly" casino, especially the one which tries to impose these policies on players wanting to withdraw (according to the first-hand reports)

You seem to have messed up with quoting

So I fixed it for you in my reply and advise you to do the same in yours lest you should be accused for plagiarizing your own comment. Regarding the poor and the homeless, the solution seems to be straightforward and kind of intuitive. It is these unlucky ones which should provide these services (some part thereof). Obviously, not the high-end services which require skill and expertise, but simple and easy ones. The problem solved

It fact, this is pretty much how it happens now. The rich pay the taxes, and through these taxes the lowest strata of society get their support and sustenance. In this way, the removal of taxes could actually make the lives of these people better by encouraging them to be productive and useful to the society as a whole (instead of being parasites)

There is another approach

As you can just try to consciously avoid the situations which trigger your loss of control. Indeed, it is not always possible, but the successful implementation of the approach you mention (i.e. deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you typically lose control and kinda get used to it) is not always possible either. There are things which will always upset you, and losing money, as it seems to me, is one such situation


If you feel an irresistible urge to continue, forcing yourself to stop gambling won't come as painless as you think it should. If you succeed at it (which is not given at all as if it is in fact irresistible, it is, well, irresistible), you will likely start to experience something like the withdrawal syndrome

Okay, let's look a little bit deeper into this

And when we do that, we cannot but see that those casinos which "rarely ask" ("often ask") are also often accepting regular currencies. So it kinda makes sense. And as you say yourself in your reply, they are asking for verification "when it comes to withdrawing a higher amount of winnings"

Therefore, it immediately begs the question, i.e. does it actually have anything to do with the real purpose of KYC/AML or rather with the casino trying to prevent people from making its bankroll run dry and instead forcing players to keep on gambling (KYC/AML being only a convenient excuse)? So what's your take?


And here we are

Such development is highly unlikely if you ask me

Unlike exchanges (though it is fully applicable to exchanges as well, especially those trading only cryptocurrencies, not even speaking of the DEX variety), the total majority of online casinos are cryptocurrency only, i.e. you can neither deposit nor withdraw fiat. Thus they are encouraged to get the softest regulation possible as it means more players, and that basically means no KYC or AML. Regulating such casinos comes pretty close to regulating the whole of the Internet (read, it is next to impossible and prohibitively expensive)

Glad you asked


That's a skewed view (actually two views) on how to run a martingale setup (my way)

Variance here means that you earn only on long losing streaks which don't come too often, and are actually statistical outliers. That's why it is called variance, i.e. variation from the average (the average here being your average losing streak). In layman terms, you are looking for some really long streaks but not long enough to bust you

So you set your increase on loss as well as multiplier pretty high, and start small, the bare minimum. Given fast enough autobet, you wait for an outlier which will come sooner or later and bring you dough, like a couple percent at once. Then you increase your safety margin. Indeed, you may still bust but you must be extremely unlucky to end like that

But that's not what I mean

Let's admit it, casinos or otherwise, people don't like KYC policies and having to submit their personal information. Just the fact that some exchanges are legally bound to demand from you your identity doesn't mean either that this information won't leak into the net and be used against you. It is a pretty common occurrence that personal details get stolen (or declared stolen while actually sold to interested parties), so no amount of government regulation is going to prevent or stop this


Personally, I don't smell a lot of difference between Macau and Curacao. Is there any? Just asking

I don't know about 300 years ago but in the Medieval Europe (more specifically, in England) you had to pay a certain amount of gold coin irrespective of your income. In other words, even if you had no income, you still had got to pay a tax. It was called a poll tax, otherwise known as head tax, since it was levied as a fixed sum on every person. And if you couldn't pay this tax, you had your property confiscated and yourself turned into a beggar. It was a pretty ruthless system for simple folks which had been causing social unrest and rebellions

So much for 10-20% of your income

That's not a secret and has been known since the beginning of fiats

During the American Civil War both sides, the confederates and the unionists alike, were printing paper dollars (gray and green backs respectively) like there was no tomorrow. And it did actually happen so that there was no tomorrow for the former. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense as the winner takes it all, while "there's no sacred ground for the conquered and no rest for the wicked"

So no matter who wins, the means (in this case deliberately devaluing the national currency to squeeze more blood and sweat from the local populace) justify the ends. Wars are extreme cases, of course, but there is a lot of ground in between. I mean, for the printing press not to stop working even for a second. And that's why Bitcoin counts as there is no salvation in paper money, at least locally (globally only gold is likely going to make it anyway)

It is more about doubling your bet after a loss

Probably, this is what you meant to say. And it actually works quite well provided you can run pretty long losing streaks without busting. If this is the case, you effectively turn the tables in your favor and now, instead of being lucky not to bust, you become unlucky to bust if you bust (there is a subtle difference if you think it through thoroughly)

But casinos are very well aware of this approach, and they typically don't allow you to pull off such a trick by either raising the minimum bet amount, which makes employing martingale an exercise in futility and stupidity, or limiting your bet speed, which makes martingale useless as you can't get enough variance without risking too much

Hard learning is nowhere near enough

I mean no matter how hard you learn in order to trade profitably and become a successful trader, you simply may not have it in yourself. Your capacity for long-term profitable trading should be sort of built in or hard-wired in your brain chemistry. In other words, if you are not internally built for it, no amount of learning is going to help 

If anything, you should start from rewiring your mental setup which on its own has nothing to do with trading as such. But is it really worth the effort, time and money if the positive outcome is far from guaranteed? To put it differently, you can't become an Einstein in anything unless you are already born into that Einsteiness

But that's how things are in real life

People are weak, and their faith is weak too. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing such an endless stream of people whining and crying around about Bitcoin crashing and them losing money. So if we talk reality here, people looking at the charts "sometimes" are actually proving how feeble, frail, and shaky their faith in fact is

I think we couldn't even call it faith, rather fantasy about "Bitcoin domination" in the future. If this "faith" was as strong as you assume it to be, there wouldn't be a need for inspecting prices once a week or so. Really, if you were a true believer in something, would you have to check the object of your belief for its existence every now and then?

Isn't this sentence composed of mutually contradicting statements?

To me, if you are afraid that someone will be using your personal data (identity, etc) for their obscure, probably nefarious purposes (which is a reasonable and totally justified assumption in the Internet), you can't "don't mind KYC". The point is, you can be damn sure someone will in fact be eventually using the details you provide about yourself in the ways you may not quite like, so you can't possibly be pro-KYC in places like online casinos, exchanges, or in any other place where they ask you to provide personal data (no offense intended to WB or any other decent casino out there)

There's a whole lot of misunderstanding and confusion about martingale

And how it can be employed in an efficient way, both in respect to risk/reward ratio and total profits. More specifically, your approach itself (like making a certain amount of dough) per hour is skewed. With a proper martingale setup you earn through variance. You can wait for it days on end, and when it finally comes, you earn a certain percentage of your capital with one long losing streak ending with a spectacular win

Obviously, you should discard in your mind how much you make per unit of time (as otherwise you won't have enough patience to stick to your strategy) and think exclusively in terms of variance, i.e. how much of it you can survive, how often it should come and how much profit it should bring. Variance is what you should be looking for, not some dust you earn after each winning roll

It is definitely not the only way to success

As there are many ways to the top. Personally, I don't mind if cryptocurrencies (say, Bitcoin and a few other major cryptos) turn into a strong and robust store of value (competing stores of value). Then people will keep bitcoins and spend fiat. If you ask me, it is a pretty good "compromise". Fiat currencies are going to lose their value like they have always been doing (maybe a little faster due to people moving their wealth from fiat savings into crypto) while Bitcoin will be rising and gaining more power, momentum and impact as a solid digital store of value. Really, what's wrong with that as long as you are able to spend your bitcoins in the "old way" if you choose so?

So you expect to reach your investment target in a week or so, right?

Well, I actually don't mean that you should sell or buy every time you look at the charts, but it still seems to me a bit counterintuitive to check prices now and then if you intend to keep your coins for years. If you do, then seeing the price crash may make you nervous and anxious about the future of your investments up to a point where your faith gives in suddenly, and you sell at a loss. This is a real-life scenario with the implication being that you'd better not check the prices "just out of curiosity" or "for fun"

No, I don't do that

I'm still starting with the minimum possible amount, which is 0.00000001 doge. However, I have compiled a spreadsheet that I use to check when I have earned enough dough to increase the multiplier. Right now I'm at 129.9% but I couple my bets with trades, so when Dogecoin goes down, I will deposit more and thus I can raise the multiplier, and vice versa. If Dogecoin goes up, I withdraw some coins to sell into the rising market (though there haven't yet been a lot of volatility recently to unleash the true power of this approach)

Here're the last stats as of November, 1st:



After that I first withdrew everything (the withdrawal was fast, for the record) and then deposited a certain amount of my own coins, with which I'm rolling now. Indeed, as I bet my own money now, not free coins, I have set even safer parameters which allow me to survive longer losing streaks. So yes, my system is working

And sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear

I can help you with Russian in case you need it

See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2361336.0