This is called overreaction, isn't it?


The same is equally true with respect to permabears

Who are eager to reshuffle their old stories about Bitcoin going down to zero soon. And so what? Even if so, enjoy the ride while it lasts (taxi drivers' motto). We are heading to the next Bitcoin halving, and if anything, this is a strong fundamental (unless it is going to fall flat on its face like it happened with Litecoin's halving last time), no matter what moving averages are telling us right now. Fundamentals rule the world and conquer the markets

That's why winning a lottery should also include professional financial management services

But you can't actually force people to use such services even if they were required to hire a financial advisor after winning a lottery since who would be buying tickets then? If you win and are obligated to follow some financial expert's advice on how to spend your money, technically, it won't be your money at all. The latter makes the whole idea of lottery somewhat weird and contradictory


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

Well, maybe I'm missing something here

But frankly, I don't see how Ripple is much different from other fiat currencies for the reasons stated. Yes, it has its own exchange rate and it is not dependent on any other fiat currency. But that's exactly what makes it one such currency itself (and its centralized nature, of course). As I see it, the distinction between fiat and crypto lies in who or what controls that currency. If it is one entity like Ripple (or the FED, for instance), it can be considered a form of fiat, public or private, digital or otherwise


In this way, Libra is a token, a currency derivative (perhaps, that's what you wanted to convey)

Yes, that seems to be correct

It also shows that I started small and at some point in time earned only 10 doges. My setup didn't change much since then apart from making my terminating strings longer as well as letting variance more leeway without changing my exposure (all of that has been explained in the thread). But quite honestly, I don't see what you are getting at here and what you are trying to get across


I may be lucky in earning so much, but I'm not particularly lucky at gambling that long for the simple reason that no luck is involved in that. The primary goal of my system is to let me last as long as possible. In other words, there is little luck involved in me playing all this time without busting. Regardless, you can collect like 42 doges within a period of 7 days (the so-called 7-day streak). I missed a couple days, so it should be relatively easy to calculate profit margins

Other than that, you seem to be missing what I'm specifically looking for with my setup

Presently, I'm rolling at wolf.bet

And their betting speed is likely the highest out there for the time being (like 4-5 bets per second). That's basically why I'm so interested in running this setup - to feel it with my own skin in the game. Well, with at least some part thereof (however small that part might be)

You see, 10 000 gamblers is not particularly different from just a single one if the number of their bets stays essentially the same. As you can also see, I have made over 12 million bets by now, and if you ask me, it is not something you can easily call a small sample size, by any means


Maybe, that the system has been working so far? Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day (or two), while the proof of the pudding is in the eating (I'm all practical)


I started with free coins, basically with nothing to dance on (first records are telling everything). You guess how much I made, percentage-wise

Could not agree more!

That's the essence of this whole thread. As long as you don't bust is already long enough to my understanding. And we can help ourselves last longer by choosing the right settings for our martingale setup while taking advantage of the bouts of variance through both accumulating profits and making our losing streaks longer and longer until we become virtually invulnerable and indestructible. That's technically the reason why so many casinos out there don't allow betting with lowest possible denominations or intentionally limit betting speeds (read, enjoy the ride while it lasts)


You can just look at my stats here and guess whether it works for me or not. Anyway, here come my recent results:



I've encountered a few good outliers that helped me increase my balance during the last couple of days (but not too good to destroy me yet)


It's been discussed in the thread

But really, what makes you think I'm so heavily invested in this?

After all, the bets are automatic and after a few improvements that have been implemented recently on the site, there are no more memory issues or cpu cycles wasted, so it just runs somewhere in the background. And yes, I'm having fun since otherwise I wouldn't even bother to look how things are going on down there - something like "you're all going to die down here" in a little girl's voice (if you know what I mean)


Variance is the new word to learn this time around

But isn't it what I'm writing about?

I think if people paid directly for services and goods they are supposed to receive in exchange for taxes paid, that would encourage them even more, in fact, in a sort of absolute way. If you don't pay for something, you don't receive it. Simple, isn't it? And it doesn't really matter what type of currency, crypto or fiat, you pay in or choose not to pay as it is just a simple exchange of goods, not some obscure and potentially shady stratagem or scheme involving payment of taxes (extremely prone to abuse as well as corruption)

In fact, there's nothing surprising in this story at all

As I'm inclined to think, the vast majority of us would behave in rather strange and bizzare ways if granted a sum of money we are not used to handling. And financial literacy or management wouldn't make a difference here unless you already have a prior experience of this kind (read, you have already lost some monies in the past and learned your lesson hard, which is the real literacy in these matters)

In such situations people are not able to think clearly and rationally, whether they are financially literate or otherwise, as their primal instincts and emotions come to surface leading to grandiosity, promiscuous tendencies, compulsive behaviors, various addictions, etc, and ultimately to rash decisions culminating in a frightening and irreversible decline of one's personality (or worse). That's why a winning ticket should come with a financial manager by default

The gambling industry capitalizes on Bitcoin's popularity and value

Okay, you may rightfully ask why other sectors in this industry don't do the same and that would be a fair point. The short answer is that their business model is different. If they tried to integrate Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency into their games, they would lose control over some parts of the game as people would definitely find a way to exploit that distinction somehow (for example, building a market for game things outside the game itself). With an in-game currency the company behind a game retains its full control of the game

I'd say it is more about the number of bets you make

Yep, given the same betting speed it still comes down to how long you roll (given the same bet amount), but technically, it is the number of rolls multiplied by your average bet amount (if I'm not missing something here). In this manner. betting 1k for 3 days on end should be the same as betting 100 satoshi for 1 month in terms of wagered amount, even though the times are obviously quite different. Correct me if I got something wrong here


You don't need to wait a whole month

That would be an enormous overkill as rolling around 1000 times will typically suffice to see where the house edge is. It pretty fast approximates to that number (1%), or whatever it is (I tested this approach at other casinos)

I definitely see your train of thought

But if we are to follow this logic through, then there is no limit on how long a losing streak can be, no matter the multiplier, as the odds remain the same, right? So if you lost 4 times in a row on 1.01x, you can then lose time and time again, which is statistically totally true, by the way

To correctly understand probabilities, we should never forget that they only refer to future events as probabilities don't exist with respect to past events since the latter already happened, i.e. their probability is strictly 100%. You can't unhappen something like it never happened. There are no snapshots to return to if something goes wrong

Yep, I start with the minimal possible amount at 0.00000001 doges


Well, that depends on how you are going to end up

If you leave with your balance multiplied, it could be construed this way, i.e. you always end up winning at the end of every series of bets, every losing streak. That point I agree with. However, and this is what the part of my post you quoted refers to, if you end up broken, with no coins left, as this is the inevitable outcome of any martingale setup provided you run it for long enough (unless you are following the strategy described in the OP, of course), that mischance will eventually catch up with you, totally and irreconcilably

Define the sender here

If by that you mean an individual from the casino staff and not the scammers, then you can't know that. But you can't prove otherwise either as the sender's address is a legit one, i.e. the one belonging to BitCasino. In other words, this is not what is called address spoofing. As the Internet suggests, "spoofing is the act of disguising a communication from an unknown source as being from a known, trusted source". But these emails were not from an unknown source but from BitCasino itself (technically, from BitCasino's email service provider which had been hacked)

Думаю, это под шумок уволили. Не было бы блокчейна, придумали ли бы какую-нибудь иную отмазку. А так и блокчейн грязью облили и себя отбелили. Типа это не мы, а блокчейн виноват


Пару дней назад имел счастье воочию наблюдать оплату с телефона в гипермаркете Магнита, да

Прямо перед мной стоял продуманный мужик лет пятидесяти, который долго и упорно пытался расплатиться телефоном. Сначала он на нем что-то набирал (пароль, видимо), потом он его стал прикладывать к терминалу на кассе. И так и сяк прикладывал, ничего не получалось (возможно, не той стороной прикладывал). Потом плюнул и стал пытаться расплатиться банковской карточкой. С карточкой такая же фигня приключилась (потом вроде расплатился с третьей попытки). Я прямо спиной чувствовал, как очередь позади меня была готова порвать этого мужика на американский (зачеркнуто) британский флаг

Opinions vary on this one

For sure, Bitcoin is an asset, and a speculative one at that, for the most part. However, it is still a good value transfer vehicle, and still more so if you don't want to show your wealth to anyone, especially the prying eyes of the government and their greyhounds. It doesn't know borders, so you don't have to bother about ridiculous financial regulations (read, limitations) imposed on international money transfers (which could be a pain in the ass). This is where Bitcoin can be not just a substitute but often the only option available (say, for the unbanked)

That would be of little help

You would still have to use dollars, euro, rubles, whatever, whether you like it or not. And these are the biggest scams ever aimed to steal from you and your wealth (read, you are forced to "invest" in what they tell you after all). I know what you are going to say next, namely, that now we have crypto so we have essentially won that right back. Honestly, I wish I could agree with you

But is it really so? If crypto is just an assortment of speculative assets (for all practical intents and purposes), how much is it actually different? You still remain a toy in the hands of a bunch of rogue and extremely selfish market manipulators and whoever else might be hiding in the dark out there. In fact, the only real choice we have is to use what we've got to our advantage by gaming this very system

We need a proper perspective on the situation

For example, the US may be fucked but it doesn't matter if the rest of the world is even more fucked up. So if the elites (world government, aliens, etc) keep things this way, the US is essentially okay. Regarding excessive money printing, it doesn't in the least affect the future generations, and for two good reasons

First, whatever insane amount of money gets printed, it is almost instantly balanced out by prices. Rising prices are a sort of knee-jerk reaction which resets the balance at a new level. And second, a new generation can just reset the currency itself (and start printing new money like never before)

Governments are famous for their inefficiency and incompetence

And I'm not even speaking about being outright corrupt which is in fact quite common and widespread as history has proved it so many times (as in "when money talks bullshit walks"). The implication here is that if taxes were not taxes but rather direct payments for services rendered and goods provided, they, first, wouldn't be so high (as there wouldn't be a "third party" and thus no risks of inefficiency and incompetence), and, second, there would be less tax evasion, and for a good reason (actually, for two obvious reasons). People would be encouraged to pay such "taxes" as they would be just regular payments (read, you know what you pay for), and there would be less avenues and loopholes for deliberate tax evasion

Well, there is more to it (but thanks for the link, I will look into it)

Just 5 losses on 1.01x is a rare event, when 15 would be an extreme outlier no one has probably witnessed ever in the whole gambling history of the world (though who knows). But that's the whole thing about outliers that they are outliers, i.e. something which shouldn't happen but nevertheless does happen in real life, no matter what (read, statistically improbable is not the same thing as statistically impossible)

Further, if we calculate the odds of this highly unlikely event (like 15 losses on 1.01x) and then calculate back the losing streak for the 9900x multiplier, we would seemingly have two losing streaks very different in length though still having the same odds. But does it mean that such an outlier on 9900x will in fact be as likely as on 1.01x? Remember, these are outliers, i.e. they are not required to follow any rules per definition (otherwise it is not an outlier)