Well, I wouldn't call those dudes "regular people"

I refer to the strata of society that frequents Las Vegas-style casinos ("crème de la crème"). They are definitely well educated and we should expect more Bitcoin supporters among them than among the regular crowd. I wouldn't actually be surprised if many of the nouveaux riches turned out to be the new rich specifically because of and thanks to Bitcoin. This is what casino operators must take into account as well

But really, I don't argue with that

Well, at least with your first point. In fact, I've rewritten about that myself a few times already (and probably even in this thread as well). Casinos are perfectly well aware of this approach, and that's exactly the reason why they do two things. First, they limit the betting speed. And as the example of wolf.bet clearly shows, this is an artificial limitation because at wolf.bet you can easily make like 4-5 bets a second. Second, in most casinos with coins like Dogecoin you are not allowed to start with the lowest possible denomination. You guess why

Regarding your second point, this is an obvious case of appeal to authority (otherwise known as an argument from authority). And do you know that it is listed under the fallacy category? In simple terms, I'm not smarter that thousands of mathematicians but I'm not sure that they actually think the way you think they do. Honestly, it is all pretty coherently explained in the OP (read, I don't argue with either statisticians or mathematicians). To recapitulate, I'm not lucky to survive, I'm not unlucky to bust (and yes, I'm still rolling)

Oh, in fact there are many points

Paper bitcoins (or whatever) would allow physical exchange without anything going to the blockchain itself, ever. That would likely lead to higher awareness of common people about crypto and its advantages (you would be able to buy beer with it), thus promoting greater popularity of cryptocurrencies. From this perspective, it is a good thing

The problem arises when someone decides to create more paper bitcoins than there are real ones. But this issue can be dealt with if every paper bitcoin in existence means its digital version locked on the blockchain, the implication being that you can then spend only this paper bitcoins and can't create a transaction with their digital counterpart

These would be mostly of no help

People don't listen to what their friends tell them (most of the time), so why would they follow what they read in a book? Or rather, why would they even bother to read such a book in the first place (since that would mean agreeing to and accepting the fact they are financially illiterate)?

Any field of human activity requires literally years of hard training and deep learning, and still you are not immune to making silly mistakes here and there. In such situations ("from rags to riches"), it is more of a question of not losing self-control immediately (once you get the money), let alone competently and efficiently managing your new wealth


You don't even need some deep "financial literacy" as common sense would suffice

And that's what the "betting theory" tells us

If you lose on 1.01x and your balance gets decimated, you still have enough to make 9 bets with the same bet amount (though you can go with percentages and reduce that amount proportionately). The point is that it is highly unlikely (next to improbable) that you will see more than 3 losing rolls in a row on this multiplier. And that means the results of your rolls pretty quickly converge to house edge (i.e. you will be losing only the house edge at each bet on average), with the implication being that it is one of the best ways to boost your wagered amount without risking too much (other than the house edge, of course)

We can't know that (since they have privacy mode on)
 
The leaderboard only shows aggregate stats and we don't know for certain how many bets these guys actually made to get so high a wagered amount. Remember, the Wolf Run goes on for 24 hours nonstop, and given the speed with which you can bet (in an automatic mode), you can make quite a few bets during that timeframe. What I mean to say is that you don't necessarily have to bet whole bitcoins to come close to that total

Thanks for the detailed explanation


But what's in it for them?

As far as I know, online casinos don't show ads, and I'm not sure if Google would like to have them there anyway. In other words, casino operators are likely quite happy with mobile versions of their gambling platforms. If anything, it will be mostly for marketing purposes should such apps appear, and for this end we might expect some big guns in the field (say, PrimeDice) to release their own gambling apps on mobile (and then add a desktop variety too)

That's exactly what I was trying to explain in some other topic over here

When you try to suppress your emotion, say, anger, you will only make it stronger because you won't be able to suppress such a primal emotion. Instead, you will only get angrier for not being able to control it. You will probably also feel frustrated in addition to just feeling angry (and still more so afterwards). The best course of action is to let such an emotion run its course (release it as you correctly point out), i.e. to succumb to it until it expires on its own

In that case you wouldn't have to control your emotions

So it is not about controlling one's emotions in the way we control the car while driving, where it should turn left or right, accelerate or stop immediately. Our emotions are not going anywhere as they are hardwired in all of us, and it is impossible to rewire them. If you are panicky, you will always be panicky, as simple as it gets. The point is, with experience comes the understanding what situations you should avoid at all costs, and those are exactly the situations which trigger your primal emotions (fear, anger, etc)

In this way, if you want to make yourself into an emotionless trading war machine, do not let let yourself get dragged into situations where your emotions take complete control over you (and for many people it means just staying away from trading altogether). This you can control

But let's admit it, this is a minor issue really

So you want to play poker but for some obscure and incomprehensible reason don't want to have anything to do with Bitcoin (even though "when money talks bullshit walks" and all such witticisms). But you play and you win, ending up with your pockets full of Bitcoin chips

And so what? The winner takes it all, right? So it is not a casino's headache, not in the least. Yep, you got it right - it is the loser who is to pay for the "adjustments according to the current exchange rate" (unless the winner changes his mind in the process, so to speak)!

But that's what already happens (and has been happening all this time)

People are often stigmatized and labeled for just being different from the rest of the pack, and I don't necessarily mean some difference sort of carved in stone, so to speak. You can just have an opinion somewhat different from the party line, and already be a target for communal disdain and contempt. On the other hand, if you gain support and bring in enough people, you can do the same thing against those who so foolishly chose to disrespect you

In other words, the balance is still going to be mostly the same, i.e. more power means more responsibility, but on average it will level out to what we have right now. As you can see, we can change the variables (or the limits) in pretty wide range here but without dramatically affecting the bottom line, which basically means we do not need to "enhance" the human being itself as it all revolves around environment (which we can change)


It is still a difference of degree, not of kind or substance (read, it will be a gradual change)

But how do you know that?

There's no way to know that unless you can actually make it happen (which is unlikely). And if you assume that the price will crash to 7700, why don't you expect it to crash further? See, you can't say that as it is no more than our expectations and ideas where the price should or could be. But the market knows better and it doesn't care about what we think or assume (read, we are more often than not proved entirely wrong)

There's a difference

With the second strategy you can obviously play longer. If you bet all on 1.01 and you don't win, you lose all apparently. Really, given the house edge, we are all going to lose in the end (if we don't stop halfway, grab the profits and hit the road, of course). On the other hand, though, if we are playing for fun and personal enjoyment only (which we should anyway), the longer we play the more we entertain ourselves, right? So this is the difference

It is the same with most books on trading

Either the approaches laid out there are no longer working (apart from just being too vague and non-specific) or their authors don't have a clue about trading themselves. In other words, more often than not it simply doesn't make sense to teach anyone for the money which the potential mentor can earn in likely a tiny fraction of the time he is going to spend on teaching unless it involves something else, of course (I mean, other than money)

Если мы упростим телефон, то в итоге опять получим банковскую карточку

Едва ли что-то можно придумать более простое - разве что прямой провод (зачеркнуто) интерфейс в мозг. Да и то, думаю, большинство людей станет путаться в собственных мыслях (они и так у большинства путаются). Другой пример, у нас есть фотоаппарат, но для селфи и пьянок (зачеркнуто) вечеринок мы можем прекрасно пользоваться и телефоном (я сейчас не рассматриваю качество снимков, а чисто удобство использования). А почему? Потому что фотоаппарат ведь не намного проще телефона (если вообще проще). Другими словами, те же яйца, только в профиль, поэтому люди повсеместно и пользуются телефоном как фотоаппаратом


Ну как бы предполагается, что проблема не в технологии или ее реализации в конкретном изделии

Humans are social beings

And not to go mad they need to connect and bond with other people. So if you did something wrong, the rest of the pack may choose to ignore you until you have redeemed your wrongdoing. Obviously, the level of such "ignorance" is going to depend on the gravity of your "crime". This is not possible right now because we have not yet reached this level of integration (but we are well on our way)
 
But there are pitfalls with this idea too as someone may be ostracized for the entirely wrong reasons. So, on the one hand, we need an extremely tightly-knit society for this to work in the first place, but then, on the other hand, for this to work properly everyone should be totally responsible for his own actions and decisions to avoid what is called the herd instinct (otherwise known as the mob effect)


Actually, no, I don't mean anything such. To get an idea, think of the world as one large village where everyone knows everyone else on the societal level (and what he is potentially up to). This doesn't mean losing personal privacy, though. It should probably be valued and maintained even higher and stricter than ever in history

PM'ed

Could you please expand more on this?

As far as I know, modern browsers support notifications, so in this regard there is nothing that such apps offer that browsers don't. Further, I'm not sure if in-app advertisements are somehow different from same advertisements presented on a web page (if what I think is what you mean, of course). All in all, we need to find at least one example of some useful feature (i.e. not contrived or invented for the sake of example) at which a mobile-friendly site would suck while a mobile app shine

Then I don't get it at all

I mean why would anyone (i.e. not just casinos) want to have a mobile app if they could just go with website optimization making it mobile-friendly, more responsive, etc? It would be a waste of time and effort if you can get everything from a mobile version of the site that you would get from a standalone app. Or maybe, it is exactly as you and I see it, i.e. it is indeed pointless, apart from obscure marketing purposes and that kind of thing? What's the catch?

The codified law of a country typically reflects the already existing rules of "moral conduct"

If it stops doing that, and the law system is not adapted accordingly and on time, this may lead to a revolution (or a coup). That takes long years since the society doesn't change overnight. Nonetheless, these changes are objective and they are prone to accumulate over time, so they can and do have such grave consequences. But we would still need law enforcement anyway, at least as long as something else doesn't take its place

For example, the term ostracism has its roots in the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, where someone breaking the law would be expelled (ostracized) from Athens by the local citizenry. In the same way, if a criminal or wrongdoer could be quickly and effectively isolated from the society (to the extent of the gravity of his crime or delinquency), there would be no need for special law enforcement bodies


I think that technically (or rather, physiologically), we would still remain same human beings as before. It is our environment that we operate within that should change dramatically for us to stop being "human beings" in the most casual sense of the word