..... You missed an intermediate bet ($4). Yes, Joe will eventually win exactly $1. The problem is that the bets increase exponentially, and this can quickly bankrupt him in case of a long losing streak. It's called Martingale. More here: Martingale (betting system)But assume random Joe is rich to begin with. So that the odds of black coming up enough times in a row to bankrupt him are astronomically small. He just keeps going till he's up. Then starts again with that one dollar. rinse and repeat. I've heard when high rollers try this strategy, the house shuts them down after they are down and a betting limit has been reached. So yeah, it doesn't work. What a surprise... lol (fixed that 4$ bet.. I noticed that too right after posting  ...) Or, rich Joe can start off with a $10 bet, thus winning $10, then rinse-repeat. On a ten-fold losing streak (unlikely, but possible), he would have lost just over $10000 and he would then have to bet another $10000 to recover his losses (and eventually end up winning only $10). Although tempting, it is mathematically proven that the odds are against him on average. To quote Ace Rothstein (Robert De Niro) in Casino (1995): "We're the only winners. The players don't stand a chance." |
|
|
|
Guys, guys, guys ('n' gals). Stop what you're doing and go watch this: Sisu (2022)One word: BRUTAL. Solid entertainment. Highly recommended for Hero WOers, to see how it's done. |
|
|
|
....
I never thought about bitcoin as a gamble, but I did consider it a risky bet initially, less so now with all that happened.
Never played scratch tickets, but sometimes buy a ticket when lottery is over a billion...don't know why, really, lol.
Gambling in Vegas is typically not for me either...but I have a funny story about it...many many years back, on my first and the last trip there, in my first game, I put a quarter in the machine and it gave me a royal flush-$250 worth of tokens. I spent some time in the next couple of days (was there on some symposium) gambling away about 2/3 of it in small games, but still went back with almost $100 of free money in my pocket.
Good times...but too much light everywhere.
Reminds me of this "fun fact?"... Imagine Random Joe goes into the casino and decides to play the roulette wheel until he is up using this simple method... He bets a dollar on red (50/50 or thereabouts .The house has a slight edge of course as O is neither red nor black) and loses when black comes up. He's down a dollar. He then doubles up and bets red , loses again, down 3 dollars (he's unlucky apparently) so he doubles up again and bets $8 on red and finally! Red comes up! After all, red comes up almost 50% of the time. Joe is now up 5 dollars! (I think, do the math, lol) Joe now pockets the 5 dollars walks away and never enters a casino again. That's pretty feasible yes? (well maybe not, most folks gamble away all their "house money" and then some and the casino wins in the end, lol) But now lets imagine there are a hundred different random joes walking into a casino and doing the exact same thing, i.e., betting one dollar on the red and doubling up until they win, going up whatever amount, and walk out, never to walk into or gamble in a casino again. Collectively they would be up one hundred times the amount they each won, lets say for arguments sake, $500. Ok, now lets take this one more step and just say they are all the same Random Joe. Random Joe is up $500 dollars! (For that matter, you could scale it up any amount) This leads to the obvious conclusion that random Joe can always win.... right? Can anyone point out the fallacy in this scenario because I cant. I even put it to the test years ago and walked out of the casino up 5 dollars. True story. You missed an intermediate bet ($4). Yes, Joe will eventually win exactly $1. The problem is that the bets increase exponentially, and this can quickly bankrupt him in case of a long losing streak. It's called Martingale. More here: Martingale (betting system) |
|
|
|
|
Socrates once said:
"I know that I know nothing."
Yet he knew so much...
To know is to prove.
Christians, Muslims, atheists,
All slaves of dogma.
Craig Wright got the sack?
Should we really be surprised?
We knew that he sucked.
The bear on the bench,
Made me keep my Bitcoin Cash,
Until I saw sense.
Saylor buys again...
Leave some for us, hornet man!
You greedy HoDLer!
Why change ChartBuddy?
Phil keeps it under control.
Just use your scroll-wheel.
Thank you for showing,
Where we HoDLers are going,
OutOfMemory.
#7wodigestsundayhaikus
|
|
|
|
"Write me a sad haiku about the price of Bitcoin being suppressed"
Bitcoin's value weighed,
Suppression casts a dark veil,
Dreams deferred, hearts pained.
"Write me a happy haiku about the price of Bitcoin being suppressed"
Underneath the weight,
Bitcoin's strength, a happy fate,
Resilience creates.
Looks like AI can't yet count syllables... Good. Mankind is safe for now. No, it's good - that's 5 - resilience is 3 syllables. Scary that it can add rhyming words now too - it's a new variation on Haiku. edit: I'm basing that on the fact that ChatGTP comes from an American company so it likely uses American pronunciation. Maybe you (and the AI) are right. I just checked a few online syllable counters, some report 3, others 4 syllables for resilience... Re-sil-i-ence sounds right to me, but what do I know... |
|
|
|
"Write me a sad haiku about the price of Bitcoin being suppressed"
Bitcoin's value weighed,
Suppression casts a dark veil,
Dreams deferred, hearts pained.
"Write me a happy haiku about the price of Bitcoin being suppressed"
Underneath the weight,
Bitcoin's strength, a happy fate,
Resilience creates.
Looks like AI can't yet count syllables... Good. Mankind is safe for now. |
|
|
|
[...]  [...] Thanks for this. So, it does look like he's no longer officially linked to nChain. Good riddance! |
|
|
|
ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
[...]
The above definition describes the scientific stance on the matter. A scientist cannot say "God does not exist", because he has to prove it, and he can't. So, the scientific answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know." Being an agnostic, my answer to the above question would be: "I don't know, but my guess, based on current scientific evidence, is that God most likely does not exist." To be an atheist is in a way similar to being religious: religious people claim God exists, atheists claim God does not exist -- Both claims are unprovable and require faith!  ___ Edit: Capitalized "God" and rephrased/weakened my answer to the question above. |
|
|
|
LOL. Craig Wright fired from nChain.
The world is beginning to heal.
Wow!  full text from https://twitter.com/agerhanssen/status/1707884086776279486 Christen Ager-Hanssen
@agerhanssen
I can confirm I have departed from
@nChainGlobal
as its Group CEO with immediate effect after reporting several serious issues to the board of nChain Group including what I believe is a conspiracy to defraud nChain shareholders orchestrated by a significant shareholder. I also had concerns about the ultimate beneficiary shareholder and the real people behind DW Discovery fund registered in Cayman. The chairman also took instructions from shadow directors which I didn’t accept
I have also reported that I have found compelling evidence that Dr Craig Wright has manipulated documents with the aim to deceive the court he is Satoshi. I’m today myself convinced that Dr Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi and I’m persuaded he will lose all his legal battles.
The board didn’t take action and my job becomes clearly untenable. One of the things I recommended the Chairman of the board was to sack Dr Craig Wright.
I feel sorry for all the great people that work in the company but I don’t want to be part of something I clearly don’t believe in. #faketoshi
So, has Craig Wright actually been sacked? Because the above is just a post by someone who stepped down as Group CEO of nChain, and has recommended that Craig Wright should be sacked. But has he? I hope so. |
|
|
|
Fun calculation:
On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked from the main Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain. If you had x BTC at that time, you were given x BCH. Consider the following 2 choices:
1. Keep the forked BCH,
2. Sell the forked BCH and buy BTC.
Picking option (1) in September 2017, your x BCH, then worth around x * $500, today would be worth x * $200 ---> 60% LOSS
Picking option (2) in September 2017, your x BCH, then worth around x * $500 would buy you x * $500 / $4000 BTC at that time, which today would be worth x * $26000 * $500 / $4000 = x * $3250 ---> 550% GAIN
For exact values, replace x with the amount of BTC you had at the time of the fork.
Prices are rough & rounded approximations of spot prices of then and now. The difference in outcome is so huge that the accuracy of prices used is almost irrelevant. We're talking about 1 to 2 orders of magnitude gain in picking (2) vs. (1).
tl;dr: Fork your mother if you want fork! Get rid of all your shitcoins ASAP ---> convert to BTC ---> wait. Tried & tested, never fails.
An alternative possibility: do nothing at the time so you don't have to pay taxes on your bch fork being sold. In actuality, your gain was probably more like 0.66X$500=$330 per rather than $500. I split (forked) some, but not all at the time. Of course, looking back, I should have 'forked' all btc I had at the time, no doubt. Besides, although I believed that "small blockers" would succeed (and they did), it was by no means certain back then as few companies (Coinbase, Circle, etc) threw their weight behind the 'large blockers" initially. Surely, it is crystal clear now and has been for quite a while. It wasn't certain. There was even a near-flippening around $2000, if I remember correctly, which was likely pushed by the large big-blocker players that instigated the fork. They learned the hard way that they can't mess with King Daddy... I sold my BCH soon after the fork, but re-bought them, after reading some pro-BCH posts here in WO. I then thought about it some more, and decided to dump them and convert them all to BTC. Boy am I glad I did this! |
|
|
|
[...] and for 1 Transaction it uses as much electricity as VW Factory uses in a day for its production..
You really don't know how bitcoin works.. and more likely you know, but you are just spouting out nonsense talking points from your handlers. [...] Don't bet that s/he/it knows... This is a tough subject, you know... Most people don't quite get it, and I don't believe eXPCrap is the sharpest tool in the box. |
|
|
|
[...]
Very likely will stay agnostic until I die as I do not expect to be visited by angels looking to save me.
[...]
I hope you will. Many people, just before they die, they "see the light", return to whatever religion they were indoctrinated to believe earlier, and they do a quick all-out confession to reserve their place in Heaven. Greedy motherfuckers... |
|
|
|
|
Fun calculation:
On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked from the main Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain. If you had x BTC at that time, you were given x BCH. Consider the following 2 choices:
1. Keep the forked BCH,
2. Sell the forked BCH and buy BTC.
Picking option (1) in September 2017, your x BCH, then worth around x * $500, today would be worth x * $200 ---> 60% LOSS
Picking option (2) in September 2017, your x BCH, then worth around x * $500 would buy you x * $500 / $4000 BTC at that time, which today would be worth x * $26000 * $500 / $4000 = x * $3250 ---> 550% GAIN
For exact values, replace x with the amount of BTC you had at the time of the fork.
Prices are rough & rounded approximations of spot prices of then and now. The difference in outcome is so huge that the accuracy of prices used is almost irrelevant. We're talking about 1 to 2 orders of magnitude gain in picking (2) vs. (1).
tl;dr: Fork your mother if you want fork! Get rid of all your shitcoins ASAP ---> convert to BTC ---> wait. Tried & tested, never fails.
|
|
|
|
....
Dude, I'm gonna break my cardinal rule and bite and give you your much sought after attention. With your shitty attitude towards this thread/topic, why are you even hanging out here, ffs? And while your at it, it's a public forum, so at least check your punctuation/spacing/caps so you don't look like the idiot you are. The question i repeatedly asked myself regarding our good ole RealRoach... In every serious thread there's a serious troll, it seems. [...] R0ach was much better. He was entertaining at least, if you excluded all the Nazi shit. Now we have a failed beggar nocoiner basement-living incel who found god... I don't mind. My Ignore list is empty and always will be. WO is much better that way. Raw & uncensored. Just use a mouse with a good, heavy, free-rolling scroll wheel. |
|
|
|
|
Should children be free,
To butcher and maim themselves,
Because they "choose" to?
What is a woman?
Is that so tough to answer?
Have we stooped so low?
A quick or slow kill,
Makes a better tasting meat?
My conscience says "quick".
Dog meat and China.
I've heard this story before.
Wuhan anyone?
Nice little game, Phil.
Reminded me of El Dude,
In the early days.
Tried to pick 7,
But Phil doesn't watch his thread...
It's OK, no probs.
A wonderful place.
WOers sucking entropy,
From cosmic chaos!
#7wodigestsundayhaikus
|
|
|
|
|
My lucky number is 7.
Winnings go to talkimg.
I hope Rule 8 gets activated.
Thx Phil.
|
|
|
|
In New Jersey I can get it back to my house in under an hour so it reduces gamey taste.
Gamey taste is from adrenaline. The way to not get that taste is a quick kill, the longer an animal suffers and fights the more adrenaline it extrudes into the meat. For years I got my moose meat from a friend who is an aboriginal Canadian (here we call them First Nations) so he didn't have to worry about any silly seasons or hunting licenses. He is also an expert sniper. To get that nice clean kill you're talking about he rappelled with a limbing saw down a cliff to remove a small tree that was impeding the view from his blind to a place where moose came to drink around dusk. He'd set up his tripod and rifle and scope and wait for a moose to come to drink. He invariably harvested the moose with a single shot through the brain. The animal would drop on the spot with its head in the water to wash away the blood while he packed up his equipment and drove his quad runner (ATV) down to the moose. He would immediately winch the carcass up to bleed it and gut it and then quarter it with his chainsaw. It would take him 4 trips with the quad to haul the moose quarters to his truck on the highway. It would still be warm when he got it into the meat locker at the reserve where it would hang for a week or so. Then it was professionally butchered, freezer wrapped, labeled and deep frozen. It was never gamy tasting. In fact because moose meat is so lean, I usually barded it with beef fat and most people couldn't tell it wasn't beef. One time we had a semi-vegetarian guest for dinner and my GF warned me she might not even eat any meat. She asked me what was for dinner and I said "pot roast". I was surprised when she asked for not only a second helping but also a third. She said it was the best beef she'd ever had. When I said it wasn't beef she almost fainted until I told her it was natural hormone-free moose meat humanely harvested. She said it was the best meat of any kind she'd ever tasted. It's all in the kill. I remember I watched a documentary many years ago, which showed Chinese "dog farmers" who produced dog meat for human consumption, to be sold in the black market (I believe dog meat is illegal in China). The interesting part was that these farmers followed a specific practice: the dogs were practically tortured to death by being slaughtered in a slow, extremely painful way (they were first brutally beaten, and then slowly slaughtered/skinned alive), and all this was done right in front of the other caged dogs, so that the caged dogs could see the process. The farmers said that the extreme fear and stress induced in the dogs made their meat much tastier, and could achieve a higher price in the market. There was some footage of the process, shown in the documentary, that still haunts me to this day... |
|
|
|
[...] TL;DR: Too early, just Bart... Xxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx The doubt is pointless #haiku
#quizMerit for the solver  Easy: Too early, just Bart... King Daddy don't give a fuckThe doubt is pointless (correct capitalization, number of words, number of letters in each word, and, of course, 7 syllables). Nice one, Eddie! ...it appears so (as an intent), albeit here is a caveat: King Daddy is either "he" or "it", but not "I", "we", "you" or "they", which makes it speaking in the third person singular...therefore it should have been " doesn't" and not "don't", sorry. Here are the rules: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/don-t-and-doesn-tThat would have made it 5 8 5 and not 5 7 5, sorry. I enjoyed it anyway... Such deviations from formal syntactical / grammatical rules are often accepted (and sometimes even encouraged) in poetry. Here's an example of this, in a great song by Leonard Cohen: Leonard Cohen -- That Don't Make It JunkEddie has the final word. |
|
|
|
[...] TL;DR: Too early, just Bart... Xxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx The doubt is pointless #haiku
#quizMerit for the solver Easy: Too early, just Bart... King Daddy don't give a fuckThe doubt is pointless (correct capitalization, number of words, number of letters in each word, and, of course, 7 syllables). Nice one, Eddie! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
