It seems to me that you are implying that the person who sells you the apples gets richer, but in the current situation, the extra money is used by the person who sells you the apples to pay for the increase in the price of electricity and fertilizers. This is a brief summary, because we could consider all the steps in the chain from the farmer who produces the apples until they reach the store that sells them to you.

I doubt very much that those who sell apples today are getting richer.

But well, back to the main topic, according to the data you posted above, it does not seem that household wealth in the USA has decreased, but on the contrary. I am not surprised by this kind of "news", as there is a tendency in the media to make people believe that everything is very bad, that people are poorer than ever, etc. as if a poor person today does not have a much better quality of life than a poor person 100 years ago.

In the end, the underlying message that they are trying to make the population believe is that in order to solve these problems, the best thing is a politician redistributing wealth.

I don't think so. Traditionally casinos, and I mean even physical casinos before the Internet existed, have been used to launder money, both by gamblers and casino owners. Let's think about how important the mafia was in the development of Las Vegas, for example.

Today in crypto casinos, I think it could be used more by the players than by the casinos themselves. After all, they usually have licenses from tax havens, where there are very low taxes, so they can declare everything legitimately and paying very little they have their profits legalized.

As to whether they care about money laundering by players or not, I think they do to some extent, because that is why they are introducing more and more KYC procedures. What is not clear to me is that this is as much in the spirit of collaboration with anti-fraud authorities as it is somehow imposed by international AML procedures.

Here you focus on how to maintain the privacy of your bitcoin, but I go to the second part: I do not quite see how you think financially free thanks to Bitcoin and at the same time have privacy. It's one thing if the Bitcoin is a part of what you have, and for example you have a paid house and a job that gives you a good fiat salary, and apart from that a large amount of Bitcoin privately.

But if we are talking about Bitcoin alone, to be financially free in a rich country you will need at least $2M. This depends on age and other factors but I think it's a good benchmark.

If the Bitcoin you have is "private", meaning the authorities don't know you have it, how do you expect to pay all your expenses?

You can't buy a house. To pay rent you would have to find someone who will accept your Bitcoin and won't declare it, with the risks that this entails. To buy a car the same. Or get a lease.

Buying at the supermarket or clothes you might find solutions, but spending 100% of your expenses in Bitcoin today I see it difficult.


I agree. In my case I am somewhat careful about privacy. Not just with Bitcoin, but in general, but not to the point of obsession.

I hope that for paxmao (OP), this is a one-off thing. He has been on the forum for many years, and I understand that he has been gambling as well. If he has been able to be gambling during these years without having problems I think it is unlikely that he will become a problem gambler now.

What I would be alert if there are things in his life that have led him to be in this kind of trance, a love breakup, a death of a loved one...

If I were him would try to abstain from gambling for a short time.

And why shouldn't it affect? There is less money available due to inflation and the tightening policy of central banks. It is therefore logical that this should affect Bitcoin. I also believe that in this case, there were too many expectations placed on this cycle, and also too much leverage, which has been liquidated in cascade when things have gotten ugly.


This. Where many see drama, others like us see opportunity. Guess who will be better off in 4 years.

Especially nowadays, if you do not want KYC, you must select the casino very well and make sure that it will not ask for it. There is a list:

Information of Crypto Casinos License and KYC requirements

So you can enjoy non-kyc while you can.

As for OP, I would recommend him to try the reputable casinos that are advertised on the forum, such as the ones you can see in our signatures, and find the one that works best and that he likes the most.

To me you pose the question incorrectly, misrepresented. In the current situation, to beat inflation can be done in two ways, saving, as you say, or increasing income above 11%, which is the preferable one in my opinion.

In other threads I have commented that a year ago, which is when inflation began to be noticed, before the war, my income increased, and this has meant that in spite of this inflationary period I have been able to spend more and save more.

It is not an easy thing and not everybody can do it. If you can't increase income, cut back on expenses, yes, but at least try, think about increasing income.

If you are the fish at the table, you are not going to know it.


LOL.

No.


What you think does not define reality. A poker player is a professional when he makes a living from it. Period. It doesn't matter what modality he plays. It doesn't have to be tournaments. Many play cash, sit and goes or spins, although everyone plays a tournament from time to time.

This


I don't know why people insist on these strategies. Surely it is because they follow youtubers who give them "strategies" like this to get rich quickly, but they do not tell them that the faster the "strategy" is used, the higher the risk of bankruptcy increases, until it approaches 100% as you increase the leverage and use it longer.

Keep in mind that in trading you are competing against high frequency algorithms run by Hedge Funds, who have a lot of capital to move the market and who are emotionally neutral, they only make mathematical decisions.

In all the time I have been in the forums and interested in economics and finance, I have not yet seen anyone show evidence of winning consistently in the medium term (not even long term) with these systems.

The problem with artists is that only a few of them manage to make a living from it, being the normal thing that they combine their passion with jobs that give them a living.

What this kind of help does is to stop them from looking for a main job, even if they are mediocre musicians or writers.

In a market without intervention, the best ones live off their passion, others who are good but not so good have their passion as a part-time job and the worst ones disappear.

What this does is to support mediocrity, instead of excellence.

Having said that, I want to clarify that I am not against public aid to people with low income per se, but not as a universal solution offered by politicians to the problems created by themselves.

What I see is the same old fiat currency garbage trying to adapt to the digital medium as a result of the threat posed by Bitcoin. That some are more advanced than others doesn't tell me much. Surely if one of the big players, say China or the Eurozone, launches it first, rivals will speed up the process so as not to be left behind.

Aside from the fact that it's a shame about the OP's case, like many cases we see people being scammed and opening a thread here, when they could have avoided falling into the trap by doing a little research, I wanted to comment on this:


I don't know if it's sarcasm or what, since there are a lot of mixer advocates here, especially those who wear CM's signature. I have also seen others like franky1 defend the opposite, that is, that they put you in the crosshairs of the authorities.

Can you specify why you say this?

I don't know what the problem is with this. Anyone who doesn't know what OP means, which is widely known on the internet, should look it up like you did.


If you ask in the thread, it still gets a pass. But if someone opens a thread to ask that question, which means they haven't spent 5 seconds to google it, I'm going to put them on my ignore list.

Yes, that's the problem, today's problem gamblers can gamble from home or anywhere else at any time of the day. Digital availability, that makes it convenient for someone who bets in a responsible way from home, is a potential danger for problem gamblers, because it gives an ease to go in gamble binges that was not there before the digital era. And it's much harder to stop when they do think about it, too.

Not really.

10 Poker Players Who Went Broke

These are just 10 but there are many more. Even Negreanu went broke several times in the past:

Being Broke but Never Quitting: The Years That Built Daniel Negreanu’s Career

In the case of very high buy-in tournaments or even high stakes games, it is relatively common for professional players to play with the financial support of others (who provide part of the necessary funds in exchange for a share of the profits).

Poker as a career is not only about playing well, but also about having great emotional control and knowing how to manage your finances. Another very common thing is the players who become established and start earning serious money, many start spending as if there were no tomorrow, exponentially increasing their consumption and lifestyle, instead of taking advantage to ensure an economic cushion and a huge bankroll. Then come the rough patches and they have to go looking for financial support and stuff.

I am not very fond of the Chinese Regime and a priori I would rather go to Las Vegas than to Macau, but I would say that it is pretty safe if you go just to see the city and play in the casino. It has been a place where many poker players have gone in recent years to play high stakes games with Chinese millionaires mainly and I have not heard that they have had any problems. China's regime today is not like Mao's, it is open to business.

That only happens in variable interest mortgages as far as I know. Or the mixed ones, which have a variable part. I don't know how it will be in India but in the rest of the loans, such as personal loans, they are usually at a fixed interest rate and it doesn't matter how much the rates go up or down once the loan is signed. You are charged the interest rate of the contract you have signed without variation.

Anyway, in a bear market as we find ourselves, there is usually volatility, which means that any little thing can affect the price. The CPI report affected the markets in general.


The next halving affecting negatively? Explain that. So far halvings have positively affected the price and have the logic that as supply is reduced, the price tends to rise by the law of supply and demand.

It wasn't just that. In addition, the US stock market, which was in positive territory, fell and the S&P 500 closed at -4%, and the €/$ pair, in which the € was recovering, turned completely upside down as well, because investors expect that the US monetary policy is going to tighten even more in the face of this.


Bitcoin is not supposed to protect or fail to protect from inflation in the short term, in a few hours like yesterday. In short periods of time it gets carried away like the rest of the market, what we will have to see when this period of inflation passes is whether it has protected itself well from inflation.


I may be wrong but I believe that higher interests than inflation will not be seen. They will raise whatever they are forced to raise but they will remain below inflation and with the desire to lower rates at the minimum that they can lower them again. Economies are too dependent on liquidity and they are already starting to have a cold turkey.

Even if Bitcoin is supposed to protect against inflation, what is clear is that in this period there is less money available and less money circulating, therefore, it is logical that there is not as much money entering the Bitcoin market.

Well, actually that is an old discussion and after having played for a long time and having read a lot in poker forums, I could assure that there is an equivalence according to which studying poker is equivalent to many hours of practice. So if you want to learn and advance the best thing you can do is to study and play.

In low levels, when you start it is not so important but when you go up levels, and more with how hard the tables are nowadays, there are players who spend more time studying than playing.