It doesn't really look like it'd be good, at least compared to standard online casinos imo. I mean if it was we would've probably seen adverts of some companies playing around with it. It's also just a bot, so no accountability of the sort happens between the two parties if there was a scam/fraud happening there, which is more likely to happen (it is telegram, and bots, a combo you can expect scammers to be using).

There's also a list here made that contains info whether they use KYC or not, probably better to look around there than bots in Telegram.Granted the vast majority of them requires KYC, but you can see a couple few that doesn't need it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5381143.0

I'd be fine with entertainment. Just have to set some rules beforehand, maybe even stricter since you'd be mostly gambling all the time since you have no other past time (which sounds kind of rare, only having one hobby but eh idk I'd give it the benefit of the doubt). Income though? Never even crossed my mind. I know the entry barrier is really low but it still baffles me how people can expect an at most 50/50 chance of giving them enough money to support their entire life.

I don't think the government's incompetence is an excuse for you to gamble the money you'd spend to feed yourself tomorrow though? Start from the bottom, there are a lot of jobs out there that anyone with basic mental faculties can do. Move up from there.

Oh they'll stay. You can say that land-based casinos will simply turn into a premium place for big places. More like a part of a big facility for entertainment stuff. This would only happen btw if most land-based casinos do become obsolete or less relevant, so they turn to that path. Right now? They're still working just as fine afaik. There are a couple of countries that still rely on land-based casinos as their own main source of attraction and maybe a couple of others that even if it's not their main attraction, still have a sizeable amount of customers.

Maybe if the world turned completely digital (Like completely, literally everyone), then maybe we'd see a shift but that's like still half a century at least imo.

I'd go with no. Probably. With how much the boat has turned and rowed the past month, I think the market would probably see some sort of stability for now with $70k, maybe even $60 or $65k if it goes down as the base The halving itself wouldn't have much of an effect immediately on the day it happens afaik so I reckon we wouldn't see any big waves, at least going up.

Going down though, looks completely possible (and I'm more inclined to it happening really) but we probably wouldn't see a massive dump. Just a sway to steady things out.

I liked reading their articles when I was starting out, granted it was the only known source of crypto info I knew in general back then but I soon left it, and even more so their analysis articles lol. I was a victim back then since I was a weak hands trader with no knowledge whatsoever so having someone do the analysis thingy for me back then seemed like a great idea. Turns out I was just dead wrong. Sooner or later I realized any analysis, not just the Cointelegraph one, is simply similar to mine (not in the result, but in nature), a guess. Turns out it would've been a lot better for me to just study on my own, even if it may take a longer time compared to investing immediately.

There's a reason why people still keep doing them really, it's because it makes profit. And a lot of it if you manage to get the timing correctly. Sadly it isn't for everyone since a lot of people overextend their purchases so they just belong to the countless people who actually lose their funds, especially if you consider how the team dumps a large amount of tokens that are enough to crash the market entirely, not even giving original buyers the chance to recoup a bit of their losses. That's why I don't generally try them out. I'm mostly part of the buyers that lose their money instead of those that exit early after all.

Rarely? I've done it a lot iirc, there were times where I was just tired so I just went yolo in crash, my go to game when I want to finish stuff. I always try to go over and beyond so it usually ends up crashing most of the time lol. There were instances that it crashed at the beginning yes, but there were a lot of times where it at least went x2 or even x3 but my greedy ass just wanted to keep it going for more so yea, here we are with only a rare few moments of me actually getting money back from all in bets.

100k. Still more than half a year and I expect to see more positive impact on the market by the latter end, so 100k isn't that out of the picture imo. Well even if it didn't reach such an amount by then, I reckon it'd be somewhere close. Maybe at least 90k? I guess if we don't see 80k by say, October, then I'd safely assume that 100k might not be reachable. Either way I'm mostly in profit anyway, so at this point anything goes for me.

Well with all that aside it's all just predictions anyway, educated or not there's still a chance of it (or not) happening, so best not to expect much imo.

Sounds like you're just being nosy op. Everyone has their own story, and while I do believe that your judgment has its merit, it doesn't change the fact that you're simply assuming the details from what you saw and not the complete picture. He may be overspending in your eyes, but who knows? He may be just so rich that such a cost may be a drop in his eyes. Or it's not even his retirement fund, not that odd for them to have the resources of profit even if they were of old age.

And let's be real, it's not odd for people to just ignore calls, regardless of who it's from especially if you're in a bad mood. An idea here is that the old man is simply trying to chill out after having a bad day, either from work or from family issues, pretty sure most of us have at least felt that, or at least something similar to that.

The accountability increases the thrill of the game itself, which is what makes it fun imo. It doesn't even have to be money really, it can be anything that would make you feel nervous of losing but in almost all cases, money would be the best option for people to use. Profit as well can be a good attraction to users (though I don't particularly use it as a reason to gamble),  so without those two then I don't think there's any purpose in gambling no? If you wanted that, you can just roll a dice that you own or buy a cheap set and well, just endlessly roll it yourself.

I'd much rather consider the one where you just put in coins and wait for it to fall gambling than this one. Rather than gambling, I'd most likely assume that machines only allow a set % of players to actually win by manipulating say the claws grip or timer or something. It's just that there are so many things the machine owner can do to cheat the system that it doesn't seem like gambling or skill anymore, just random winners.

Though in hindsight I guess rigging it makes it more of a gamble than a skill.

Didn't know it had a term to describe it really. I assumed it was just its own thing. Anyway, I've done it a couple of times in the past, but never really made any major profit out of it since all I chose were a bust, nothing new there though. I spent the bare minimum I can get myself to spend it, not much that I'd take a big hit even if I lost it. That's really the only method I'd use to manage risk, unlike other crypto where you'd invest thousands.

And I'd never consider this a long-term thing. The activity itself? May stay for a long time. The trading part? Short term.

$100k. The drop wasn't anything surprising imo, it was bound to happen since the entire 2, or 3 months had been a pretty positive constant growth for Bitcoin. Was bound to happen at some point and it happening at the ATH was probably for the best since anything higher would've probably made it crash a lot lower. And now that that's happened, I'm assuming we're going to see a slow rally once again towards $100k. The assumption of $100k by the end of the year still looks like it's holding strong imo.

You don't need to buy large quantities in the first place though? Amount (of the coin) isn't really a limiting factor when it comes to investing in crypto. It does influence the amount of profits you get but that's par for the course. Sure, altcoins give off more potential in terms of profits, it's not impossible for your money to grow 2x or more in a couple of weeks or months, but it is rather dumb to count your profits when it hasn't happened yet lol.

Granted in this case though I think any sort of investment is better since it comes from funds you use to gamble.

In some way maybe. But only when the level of addiction is pretty light. It's pretty easy to persuade someone at that point really, doesn't even have to be a family member. Even a random YT short that can make you self-realize how stupid you're acting can help. Deeper down? It needs more than words. Words don't necessarily get through someone who's addicted, so even if a bit of force is needed, that's really the only way you can effectively help imo.

There might be some cases where love and friendship and all that nice stuff can actually work, but most of those would probably be an outlier in most general cases. Each person and family has their own attitude so saying that it works on one means it works on another seems kind of a dumb comparison.

Seems like Trump was just an investor plus a sort of spokesperson for the casino. Anyhow, there are a LOT of aspects of how a business can simply fall out of the competition imo. The simplest answer would simply be corrupt practices, thereby attracting close to zero positive revenue to the casino or just plain out lost in terms of competition. Can't exactly pinpoint what since I don't know how the business worked in the first place plus the competition of the area around it.

Businesses come and go so it's really nothing new. Especially in cases of a casino (or just an entertainment plaza in general), which rely on people wanting to go there, which increases the risks involved compared to say, businesses that are involved in selling goods.

Help them set up clear-cut rules that they 100% should follow all the time. It can be about the frequency of gambling sessions, amount for each bet and the amount for each session, or even more if you can come up with it. Simple yet the best method to prevent someone from overspending when it comes to gambling.

As for companies doing stuff to help players, they already do. At least, if you count them plastering about prevent addiction foundations and whatnot in their page at a small corner. They usually don't have that big of an obligation to do so since they're still a business. Who'd want to stop users, regardless of their circumstances, from playing and therefore paying them?

I've got no idea how credit card debts are something inevitable lol. If you're planning to use your credit card in the first place, considering it as a debt is wrong since it's something you should be paying off monthly. A business investment can sure be a worthwhile thing but only when it succeeds and taking loans on the "assumption" that you will is just, well, dumb. Student loans, on the other hand, are something that's not really an assumption since it's a streamlined process that an institution almost guarantees for you to succeed in as long as you don't give up midway, so in a sense, it's something worthwhile. Sadly I don't know how the specifics work since I don't think our country even supports it (they instead use scholarships I think?)

As long as it's a situation where you can't guarantee the process, then it's not something I'd go under debt for, at least for the most part though. Rich people often use debts afaik to avoid taxes or something? Unless you're at that level I don't think you'd ever use an "assumption" to support the growth of money you borrowed. 

Well you just remove the face factor and literally everyone has the same factors involved in both online and offline, habits. Some people often show it pretty blatantly with no intention of hiding it and from that, you could create a sort of character for that person so that you can preemptively notice what type of cards he has just based on what he does. When he calls, you can say his card is neutral. Raises means his card is somewhat good. That's just the bottom-of-the-barrel description though, some may just be baiting you out.

Each person has their own habits (purposeful or not) so you can't really describe one as a general description for all. They may even showcase some obvious habits so that you'd fall into their trap or something.

Funds, or dares. Without any sort of stake, it's not really a gamble. And if we wanted to play without gambling anything, we would've much preferred to play other types of games that aren't in line with gambling games, e.g. Valorant, Dota2, etc. We actually did this once. Played a couple of rounds of poker without any stakes at first but immediately went boring so we dared the one who lost to follow the orders of those who won (their collective decision on what dare the loser is going to do) and well, it was the embarrassing sort of orders naturally. This was back in my college days.