Is this a match even? Just look at the odds, 1-7, that's pretty much saying that Browne has close to no chance to win the fight, unless Beterbiev is feeling under the weather or throws the fight altogether. I guess that just goes to show how good Arthur is. I wouldn't even bother winning on who's gonna win the match tbh, I'd rather go for choosing a different option (could still bet on the winner, just that since the odds are so far apart it probably isn't even worth it, unless you're going for Browne as the winner) such as a total number of rounds or something.

Well, that's pretty straightforward-thinking. It's like assuming that everyone who is rich is successful, and everyone who is poor is a failure when there are quite a lot of variables that have influenced them to be called "successful" or a "failure". Not to mention that the starting point of all sides are unequal, so really, asking for poor people to just "manage" their funds isn't really possible sometimes (some are just real asses that don't want to do anything hence just fail, this is what I'd probably consider as the real poor people).

What OP is saying is kind of idealistic really, kind of like there's a will there's a way. Unfortunately, will isn't enough to feed your stomach when you're at that point. Honestly just live life the way you want to, being rich doesn't equate to happiness sometimes anyway (sometimes okay?).

It's because they know how to do their stuff, and have the assets to ask for loans with whatever collaterals they have. It's like comparing someone that started at something vs someone that currently has nothing. It's a different situation between them and us so to speak, they have the space to handle losses, while most newbie investors can't even handle losing $100 on a single trade. That's just how stuff goes, it's like the value of money is rather different between the two just because of the sheer difference in capital between them.

Hmmm, not really I guess? I do look at the site and see whether they're new or not, all new casinos are typically red flags for me so I never dare to even visit their casinos. I mostly take the safe path, so I just go to casinos with good reputations as well as been made for at least a year or two? Though I guess seeing even an old casino with cheap hosting would make me think twice again before trying them out. After all, if it lasted a year already, even if they started cheap, they should've made enough profit to improve their current state. If that were to happen then that's probably another red flag.

Horse racing is pretty much how like sports betting works afaik? But in this case it's like having multiple teams in one match so you have quite a lot of choices to pick from. What I do in sports (which I assume is similar to what you should do in horse racing) is pretty much study the history of the matches of the horse, if possible get some info about the current state of the horse at the time of the game and stuff like that then make your assumptions based on that. Just take it like sports betting, DYOR, then make a guess.

Factsss. It's pretty much just how casinos try to offer that juicy signup bonuses and what not but you have to perform their KYC procedures to the fullest before even getting them. Really, unless it's a present that wouldn't necessarily damage their funds, they'd probably give anything. Like maybe a badge, or something, but money? Hmm I don't think that's going to happen. Maybe increased odds? or rather than odds, it's increased rewards. Still, you have to spend money AND win so idk, counts as a bonus I guess but it's just a marketing strategy to make you play more.

 Never heard of them. Pretty much why I only choose one or two that are quite reputable and has a positive reputation. Though I have doubts whether they're really a suspicious activity. The fake bonuses and whatnot are indeed red flags, but looking up the Gibraltar license only gives them the capability to operate in the areas under the area of Gibraltar, so technically they faked their license for that one, but not their original license which as others have seen, is a Curacao license.

Granted though that afaik, Curacao license is rather easy to obtain without many difficulties, and they don't even regulate casinos under their name that much. It's pretty much a license in name only I think.

Won't touch upon the topic of metaverse since I don't know much, but borrowing money for the "right reason" isn't enough of an excuse to put yourself into debt. Just earn money slowly then invest slowly, if it's as you said, it's still half a decade, most probably more even before one could profit from such an investment. Use that years to earn money to invest into metaverse, pretty sure that if it's as good as you said, developing in 5 years wouldn't suddenly make it lose it's value in the years after that.

Hasn't his predictions always been like this? It's a loop really, he predicts, it fails, he does it again but his predictions don't change. It's just the same predictions always. It's the usual thing where "analysts" spread their so-called analysis and pretty much try to sway the market to how they want to move. Honestly, I think a discussion on what a person would do when an economic crash happens would probably be a lot better than about him.

And on that note, I hardly have anything prepared really, other than investing most of what I can into Bitcoin (and a bunch of other coins) right now.

Ignoring the issue that it's the internet, everyone you meet has a 50/50 chance of being an ass, pretty sure OP's complaint is pretty valid. From the SC itself, it doesn't seem like OP was being an ass, it was NWOBitcoin that was being one. It's rather obvious really, no need to argue about that. On one note though, is there no mute/block button on Bitsler? Not familiar with the site so idrk, cause if not then that might be an improvement they could take.

Well, ig just ignore pms from now on OP, or at least, the ones being an ass to you. They're everywhere and if you try to react to each and every one of them, you'd probably never see the end of it.

Are you actually dumb? This "Khaizen" of yours threatened the casino, that's more than enough to be suspended on their site. Rather than talking about it properly over with the admin/mod, he instead ranted about whatever the issue was. On that note, checked the images you sent, it seemed like the said person again is malding because of KYC like bro first time? A lot of casinos require people to do KYC for them to be able to withdraw, it isn't anything new, unless you were living in a cave. He didn't "oppose" them. He cried like a little kid.

I sometimes do random numbers when investing, or simply toss a coin to ask whether I'd still go with my investment if I'm unsure not because of the asset, but rather the current state of the market, especially these few days where everything has pretty much just dropped. I rarely do the number generator now though, I just invest whatever I have at a certain day, flip a coin if I should do it the next instead, and call it a day. It really removes the stress once you stop looking of all the "ifs" and just leave it to a coin.

Well in the end the reason for the controversy was because of Amanda losing where everyone else expected her to win. In the end, the result of a match isn't all dependent on the data that was shown or what the fighter has shown. At the very least, it isn't a factor that would 100% affect the match, just like how Amanda lost contrary to everyone's expectations, but still, it is a factor, and I guess it's because most people felt that that factor was enough for Amanda to win, hence why the controversy even rose up in the first place.

Well, I think the term "gambling" is wrong to describe the activity? Instead of calling it gambling, it should be a much riskier option compared to spot trading no? Well granted any type of investment that one just willy nilly enters is gambling in itself, but if it isn't, then comparing the two, options are simply riskier and that's about it. 

Honestly, I don't even see the issue here, pretty sure that they know what they're getting into, whether it be spot, options, futures or whatever, investing means accepting the fact that you can lose whatever you invested in. Trading is a zero-sum game, people win, people lose.

Asking for a loan is a dumb idea in itself though? I mean, if you aren't on the verge of death and can still try to earn money by yourself without trying to put yourself in a difficult situation, loaning honestly wouldn't (or shouldn't) be an option. Yes, investing could possibly net you a lot of money, but that's a "possibility", and investing in a possibility isn't really wrong, but trying to invest what you can't afford IS wrong. You know what they say, invest what you can lose. Even if hodlers say that new ath next year or Bitcoin only has positive growth, the problem is actually before that, and it's loaning itself. Gotta agree with diversifying though, nothing wrong with that.

I found some answers here, one is that it's simply a term coined for online gambling (and one that isn't used at all tbh, or im just outdated). It's basically anything that has a relation with gambling and online from what I gathered. I tried looking for companies under the name and found iGaming and to quote:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGaming_Business
And the other one being a marketing company of sorts? You can find more about it here https://www.igaming.com/, and is different from the magazine one since this one is directly named iGaming while the other is iGamingbusiness.

Didn't really happen to me tbh. I've always considered banks to be something bad but helpful at the same time? It's like adding those qol changes in a game where you won't exactly see it immediately, but as long as you keep playing, they'd pop up here and there and you'd realize how damn helpful those changes actually were. I've also rarely spent my Bitcoin, and times I did were times I just realized they had an option, so I wanted to try it. I'm guessing they asked for a reason, meaning centralization is there for a reason. Same with Bitcoin being made and used by others, in the end it's really a matter of preference ig?

Martingale is a strategy to not lose money, or to break even, not to win. And it's not even for slots, it's just a general strategy really. By the end of the day, Martingale's strategy pretty much relies on luck, so is it still a strategy really? That's like saying relying on luck is a strategy in of itself, and is pretty much just hiding the fact that you're going YOLO on the game (which you are, by the way, just that the rate is different for each player/session).

Pretty much sums up what you'd expect from Martingale and luck based games in general.

It'll dip, don't buy it. Did the exact opposite, I bought it on the dip. On that note, it's actually pretty good advice if you consider it? After all, if it dips then that's an opportune moment to buy-in. Though not that it mattered much tbh, I bought 2 years or so back already so even if it did dip or pump, just considering the price then and now, I'd have profited pretty well. Other advice were pretty much about trading. Didn't really worry about my wallets and storage and the like, I did enough research about that on my own since my paranoia wouldn't stop bothering me if I didn't.

Unless the mods actively try to take action towards this, then ig there's nothing going to happen to both the campaign and the accounts. At most, red tags would be done but that's about it. Maybe there should be something like having x amount of red tags that would put the account into a manual screening by one of the mods? That way they don't have to necessarily review everything but only ones that are bombed with red tags.
Well, I mean, even the community managers are acknowledging that they have a pretty bad rep in this forum. Just look at their new campaign related to sports, which was opened last Dec 09. Note on the bottom says that "Negative trust for promoting 1xBit is allowed" like bruh. They're really pushing for the idea that any sort of advertisement is still an advertisement.