I'd say that Sports require more analytical skills while Poker requires a spontaneous decision-making kind of thing. Sports give you that time frame of before tournaments to study the players and their opponents, deriving a possible result from whatever data you have (past matches, training, current state, etc), while poker has that short time frame that needs you to decide on what to do after getting your cards and looking at the table. Luck is certainly a factor, but they'd have to be pretty skilled in analyzing stuff even with all that luck.

Unfortunately, even with them saying or clarifying stuff like this, it'd be quite useless in most cases since people don't really even bother trying to understand stuff. The internet is free, and it's exactly because it's free that they don't even bother trying to put in the effort to explore it to understand whatever they see. I'm not shitting on the man himself, he's achieved a lot imo but the way he just shills on the crypto scene is what I'd probably judge him for. It's really pretty bad, and most who have lasted long enough in the scene could easily see that.

Well, it's China being China. Not that I'm offending anyone or anything, but it's been well known on how China wants pretty much everything inside their country to be under their control. They have their own social media platforms and what not, and we all know how they're trying to create their own crypto right? Though I don't think their stand would last after a few decades, that is unless, they have full control over their internet, like every inch of it. If yes, then there's no way for Chinese citizens to use Bitcoin other than migrating to other countries.

That's the thing, you don't. You can't really combat the market, nor go against it since it's pretty much like a wave that overtakes you pretty badly and can't really do anything to go against it. The most you could do is ride with it and try to take the least damage possible. Pretty much just keep doing it, you'll learn slowly how to become immune to the changes in the market that you'd actually think that such changes are normal, you'd get them back in no time since if dips could happen, then you could also say the same for the opposite.

Yep, that's the simple basics of trading. If you want you can try hodling instead so that you can skip all the pain in the ass lessons of what trading is and what are candles, charts, patterns, etc. Just DCA into the Bitcoin market every month, taking a part of your monthly income and investing them and hodling them for at the very least, a few years. It could be any amount, though do be careful since fees may just ruin your intro into it and remember to save it in hardware wallets instead of custodial wallets.

Well, he certainly isn't the first to have the same idea. A lot of people expected Bitcoin to reach $100k even way back, maybe close to when it went down to $30k or so in the mid-year? We all know how the market tends to rise in the ber months after all, and seeing as the last price was at $60k, and the current price not really dropping to below $20k, it pretty much says that the current state of the market is pretty healthy, unlike the last time where it was clearly a bubble. This opens up the possibility of the price steadily increasing over the months.

It's not strange really, what's stranger is why it wasn't even implemented till now. And no, even if physical money did get removed, it doesn't necessarily mean that crypto would be the one to replace it, rather, they'd just digitize fiat obviously. I'd honestly never considered fiat being removed since originally, its goal was to bring convenience in most aspects of financial transactions. Now if the government actually spent the time improving the systems to accommodate the number of transactions done daily, then it'd probably be much more convenient than what it is now. As long as people don't see the convenience of how to use Bitcoin, I really doubt it'd fully replace fiat.

Wouldn't it still depend on how much "convenience" Bitcoin could actually provide and whether said convenience is, well, actually convenience to the party using it? Like take, for example, Bitcoin's ability to transact worldwide without borders and problems and whatnot compared to actually using fiat from one country to another, who says that said problem wouldn't be addressed in the future right? The only real way imo for Bitcoin to actually be the main currency to be used is if Fiat was complete. I hardly think that people would suddenly turn to Bitcoin just because others said its good, when in their current situation, Bitcoin and fiat pretty much does the same thing that they always need it to do.

It's usually better to buy the coin before the burning since burning is done in the first place to reduce the supply so that the price of the token/coin itself would rise up, that or the supply has blown over too much that they needed to reduce it so that they can regain control of the economy of the token. I say usually since it doesn't always apply, it's still an optional kind of thing and you would still need to judge yourself whether it would actually rise up or not. Checking out their white paper and judging whether the project would actually work is still the best decision.

Well, it was quite a natural reaction since most people seem to have that idea where they should buy when it's pumping, and not before the pump. This leads to them basically losing a lot of money due to entering the market late, letting those who bought early on profit from their mistakes. I'm not sure if it's full on FOMO, but there is certainly a part of those who bought late that are thinking of it like that. I'd actually wait a few more weeks since it might drop off before the ber months, then go slowly back up from there. We might just exceed the past ATH then.

Well, that's with the current situation where the value of Bitcoin is still fluctuating by huge margins. In the near future though, I expect it would naturally die down since its supply wouldn't exactly increase anymore and you can't exactly expect it to continue rising even at that point. It would be used no matter what since its use is as a currency, it wouldn't really work as a store of value if there's no issue with the fiat value after all, that would be quite senseless imo. There are also fixes being done to the inefficiencies that Bitcoin has in terms of performing as a currency, so in the long term it would really act as one.

They could be good, but it's not like one relies on the other. Poker pretty much is a player vs player game, while sports betting is based on analysis of the teams and whatnot. At its core, they're both analysis types of games, but the area they analyze is different. Though in general imo, gamblers would have one way or another experienced both sides so they'd have quite the familiarity with both types of gambling. Not to mention that if they're actual hard core gamblers, experiencing other types of gambling once or twice wouldn't really be rare.

But bettors sometimes don't really look at the eSport team only, but rather the sport itself. They love the sport itself, and hence know a lot about it and can easily identify the good teams from the bad teams, and in case of black horses, can easily identify if the match is going wrong or not. Casual people who watch sports can afford to do that, but I don't think in the first place they should even bet. Also you're betting since you're expecting them to win, (or to lose), it's literally the goal imo.

Not really a time limit, a budget should be more efficient imo. Too much isn't that bad, it doesn't necessarily give you a losing streak, could give you a winning one and honestly if you did, feel free to continue. It's money won anyway. Just like in trading, as long as you don't go into negative, I'd reckon that you can still keep going (though if your goal was to earn, then really, stop lmao). YOu said it yourself, it should be fun, so why should they stop when they could still gamble with no loss right? And even if they did use up their entire funds, that was a set budget for you to use to play anyway, no hurt done imo.

I mean it shouldn't, it's a coin that is not really backed by any physical company and is only affected by supply and demand and is located on the internet, unless covid has a digital variant virus, then it shouldn't be possible.

Nothing. Honestly, even without the pandemic, the current progress would still have continued (maybe except for that sharp drop when covid went and spread into a lot of countries.

Bitcoin isn't some magic place where people can earn money man. People may have earned a lot in Bitcoin, but the same could be said to be those who lost a lot. When someone earns in trading, someone loses, so really, it's not and shouldn't be a "source of income" for those non-traders, well at least, not the main source.

The process is generally the same, as well as the type of games and whatnot. The difference is actually like how fiat transactions and Bitcoin transactions are, it's quite comparable to it. As you said, transactions and wins are transparent, and not only that, it also takes into account the advantages that Crypto brings as a currency compared to fiat. Still I don't think there's a full crypto casino that fully uses the blockchain to use it in everything? There's still a mix of traditional casinos in the mix from what I know.

Don't take it word for word I must say. The meaning of the "house always wins" here is that in the long term, users would only lose money, and not really win if they were to keep gambling, while the house, would always earn money even if you win, since you're just going to gamble it back. It's a simple but vicious cycle. Heck, even if you win, just consider the amount of money you actually lost before winning that amount. Sure, you may be one of those rare people who won after a few games, but that case is rare a f and can't really be considered as a normal situation when taking into account other gamblers.

Bots are in the end, an automated process that YOU yourself start or state. It basically follows on whatever algorithm or sort that you set, so really, without any knowledge of what or how to trade, bots aren't worth the effort. They're stuff that is used to make the tedious processes more automated, but those "tedious" processes are repetitive ones most of the time with close to zero deviation. Trading on the other hand, almost always has that random deviation that is sometimes pretty huge, so if hit, you'd pretty much lose a lot.

Well, it's like an investment but with rng elements, basically close to how investments get returned to you depending on how the stock or coin actually develops (former is based on rng luck coded AND how well the game does, latter is based on how well it does). I wouldn't really call them a gamble tbh. It's closer to an investment imho, and besides, it'd actually earn more in the short term since most nft games are play to earn. They basically return a set amount of profit every month, unlike investment which is pretty stagnant most of the time.

I'd reckon they'd want to watch what happens and then make a move based on that plus other considerations depending on the state of their country. Plus, it's still a questionable decision especially for developing countries since they need to take into account a lot of factors since adding crypto into their system may bring more damage than benefits. They may just be too assed to actually regulate or create laws that surround crypto, or is putting their attention into more important details that must be addressed. There's a lot of possibilities tbh, just that it's quite difficult to identify since each country has their own situation.