Kinda unfortunate since Gambling is also a form of profit for their country. Kinda odd how Hotels took advantage of it immediately from a so-called "leak". It wouldn't be odd if someone from the higherups actually accidentally revealed that they would've allowed it already (either its the truth, or some drunken spur) hence why hotels started introducing the scene. Still, though, I hardly doubt that hotels would actually reveal that they scammed people to gamble since they themselves would get hit by quite a hefty fine for it. I'd honestly think they'd only shoot their own foot if there was a personal vendetta here or corruption on going (so that hotels run free while players pay).

Man here we are discussing the success of a few people, who knows how many actually lost instead no? It's great for them no offense, just that these types of articles often picture investing in crypto as something easy when in fact, it takes a lot of luck. Especially for them, increasing their capital by a huge number would require enormous amounts of luck, and not anyone could have that experience.

I'd also reckon that they didn't actually invest in Bitcoin, or rather not entirely anyway. The profits they got were way too big after all, so probably multiple altcoins that boomed, which they took advantage of, managed to make them into quite the billionaires.

Ngl, I'm pretty sure the first wins would be attributed to luck, and then the rest of the vids would center on him making "analysis" and whatnot. It's all the same no matter what crypto YouTuber you watch imo.

Hey that's part of trading I suppose. I myself didn't actually realize that the price went down by quite a lot these past few days since I've been ignoring it when it started going down just so that I'd stop panicking and whatnot. Peeked at it today and I was like, hmm okay. Glad I set up some stop loss before I stopped looking though.  Dips should be considered an opportunity instead of a loss. Take it like this, you lost money due to the dip? Hey at least you're gonna earn more because of it no? And if it goes back, you'd recoup the losses you made early on, win-win. Just, don't get too optimistic, that ruins your life, same with being too pessimistic.

In the first place though, I (and probably most people) have never used the news as a basis to judge if Bitcoin would hit a set price or something. Idk about others, but I just think of Bitcoin as something better than fiat. Not saying that fiat is useless,  it's a case-by-case basis, but just judging by the potential between the two? I'd vote for Bitcoin on any other day.

OP saying that Bitcoin would go to $5000 is the same as the news saying that BTC would hit $1mil, so what's the difference between you and the news? I'd rather say that Fiat has no future ngl, with how the government has handled and managed it to this date.

But there are. There are professional gamblers out there that participate in tournaments for the cash prize. Tournaments aren't there so that gamblers with no money could participate but rather so that gamblers with money and the mentality to actually know what gambling could participate.

Who said to trade crypto anyway? Trading stocks and letting it make money for you seems to be the best option imo. Crypto on the other hand, is just an investment where you could quickly profit, even with the relatively famous coins, you'd only need 4-5 years for you to realize profit (basing it from history and not a guarantee, since most famous coins right now have grown to quite a price after all), while investing in new coins could get you a gain of more than 300% if the said coin were to ever grow (though they're most likely going to die off after that).

I mean, BTC is still used even with high fees, what more other coins that have low ones no? Not to mention that most casinos originally accept BTC and ETH as most of their choices as coins for crypto gambling. Still as of recent afaik, coins like DOGE and LITE that have relatively cheap fees are the ones that are one of the most being adopted, and most accepted by gamblers to use to gamble (instead of the other two I've said). Now if the ETH fees were to go to the level of how DOGE and LITE fees are, you can expect that another new coin would probably be mostly used by gamblers now.

Still, a wait and see attitude is a must since it isn't a guarantee that the fees would actually go down that much, heck or even go lower at that. Not to mention that would it even last in the long run? I'm pretty sure most ( at least I would) would want a coin to actually have low fees in the long term so that I don't have to go and look for other options.

I'd have to disagree since technically there's a difference between the two. Yes, they both rely on a 50/50 chance, but Martingale is there to at least make/skew that 50/50 to your side, making it so that you don't lose it all at once like the 50/50 dictates. It's like it's lying to the possibilities by spreading it out evenly. Unlike a one-time bet, now that's a true-to-life 50/50 chance of you losing money. Yes, the chances are the same as always, it doesn't go up nor does it go down, but a spread out 50/50 chance vs a one time 50/50 chance have different results from each other. I guess that's what gamblers go for.

It's one thing for Bitcoin to be safe, reliable, and transparent as you say, but it's another thing if the governments would adopt (if ever) Bitcoin. Just from what we have now, Government allowing Bitcoin is actually the limit that they could have at it, using it as a replacement for fiat? Doubt that. A coexistence right now (if you could call it one) is probably the only thing we'd ever get since leaders would never allow their power to go over to no one. That's basically asking them to kill their own methods to corruption and whatnot.

In the end, CBDC and Bitcoin isn't something that would actually fight over, well, whatever it is that they're fighting for. One's centralized and one's decentralized, where would they even fight to begin with? It's just one side selfishly declaring their wish to actually create an opposition towards the other, while the other is basically, well, still the same.
And that would be considering that the entire UK population would even start using their Britcoin. Would only happen if they decided to overhaul the entire financial system of the country, which should have implications that would most likely exceed the country itself imo.

I mean, corrupt officials would never agree on the implementation of cryptocurrency just for that single fact that it lets the public know of where they send those funds that they hold. Idk if Bangladesh has the same reason or has another reason, but it wouldn't be wrong to call it partly true.

As you said, the country has almost half of the transactions using electronic money (I'm assuing its digital money, not crypto), so that's also one more reason why they don't need to implement crypto. They have their own simple system, one that let's them be in control, so why implement crypto right?

Cause the martingale system guarantees that you wouldn't lose out as long as your bankroll could handle it. And most gamblers out there aren't in it to play to enjoy, but rather play to earn, hence why. Plus, with the offset of any loss, any wins you get would basically guarantee that much of a profit. So if you can hold on for as long as you can, it's basically guaranteed profit. One-time bet on the other hand is just a 50/50 chance. If we compare the two, it's like comparing one strategy where you're skewing the chance for the overall result to your side, while the other is just, well, hit or miss.

Man, why do people expect traders to have some form of future reading powers to always ask when xxx happens or yy happens. Just hang around the market most of the time, heck even on twitter or in this forum, hang around a few hours every day and you'd easily see any topics related to whatever you're looking for.

Imo though, it's likely to be far off, at least a year or so. The market is pretty well off right now even if we consider the huge minus this past week. Watch out if it goes below $50k, then maybe something is going to happen you can take advantage of, but it wouldn't be a huge one imo.

On the bright side, at least they're all above 18 years old. Still in general, since the place bans gambling, I suppose the action they took was rightfully taken. Though completely banning gambling seems to have taken a bad turn for them, completely removing something people want would just breed situations where they're just going to push through it without any consequences. And hey, if people have money, they can basically almost do anything imo.

In the first place, I highly doubt anything "illegal" is actually operating far away from those in the higherups. You know what they say, the safest place is right under their noses after all, not to mention they can get free benefits if they handle negotiations well.

I'd reckon that Elon did indeed have some influence on the crypto market but only a small one, specifically for the BTC market. Even before his tweets started trending, Bitcoin was already on a bullish run. It's like Elon basically ran along with BTC towards the top, and not Elon pushing it to the top. The same couldn't be said with Doge though, the market there could show you that other than Elons influence, there was close to no reason as to why it suddenly ended up bullish. The next few movements could be attributed to trusting it would go up again, but the start? I'd say it's mostly his influence.

Nah, this is either a daily thing or monthly thing, but definitely not an all-time thing. I reckon that people are quite active with the internet now due to having nothing to do, hence why the news of cryptomarket experiencing huge booms have had them interested in checking it out. I myself have been asked by a lot of my friends on how to actually enter the scene, so it isn't that surprising that it actually made it boom. Not to mention that trading is more popular than social media? Highly doubt that. Humans are social animals, after all, nothing could basically beat (at least right now) social media apps with how they share information and entertainment to others, and imo, trading isn't one.

Doesn't mean that one should shy away from a certain sport they want to bet on though. Just that, it isn't a guarantee that you would actually profit off of it, especially since you know close to nothing about the sports, nor the rules about it. I myself watch and sometimes bet on chess matches, I understand the basic rules but I have no bloody clue how the mind of the players works on it since I'm particularly bad at playing it. On that note, OP asking for the "best" might've been wrong, might have been better to ask the sport that most people bet on instead.

Ok one, Curacao license does not guarantee that it's a safe site. Curacao basically just asks for money and some initial requirements (src: https://www.gamblingsites.org/laws/curacao/) so it's a lot easier to register compared to others. Two, Whatever the site said, afaik, those are Master licenses. Now if you don't know what a Master license is, under their explanation, it basically means that it's a license that can provide sub-licenses to other businesses that would prove them legal. The only difference between the two is that sub licenses can't provide another sub-license to others, while master licenses can. I reckon those are all under said Master license, instead of being the same license.

Lastly, and probably shouldn't be really considered when judging casinos, is that the article was made by Game-protect. Probably shouldn't be used to judge the casinos posted, but there are some reputable ones out there and as I said, Curacao license is quite easy to get compared to others, so there may be a few black sheeps there.

Aren't they basically equal? Like there's an equilibrium that mas be maintained between the three ALWAYS. A club exists because of players, fans exist because of their players, and players group up due to clubs. Players earn profit for playing for the club, the club earns profit for advertising the players to its fans, and fans enjoy watching the players. Without one of these three, it'd basically be non-existent. Without a club, players wouldn't even be able to group up, practice, and play in official games. Without players, what the hell is a club for? And without fans, there'd basically be zero profit for the clubs, even if we consider competitions, the bulk of profits from there come from the audience afaik.

That's why you stop calculating for unrealized profits. In the first place, it's called unrealized since it's only a possibility, and possibilities run two sides, coming true or coming false. It also isn't involved only in trading, but also in starting up a plan to buy something. Never finalize anything until you actually have everything in place. Finalizing buying a coin when the funds used to buy it would come from selling another coin shouldn't be a final plan, but rather one that can adapt to changes.

I think most newbie traders are scared of such services is because they EXPECT guaranteed profit. It's like they expect that pros would always, ALWAYS earn money, and big ones to boot. Then they saw said services, try them out, reveal that they're bad, and that basically spreads to every other newbie trader, that services like that are fake and they don't give you guaranteed profit. Potential Investors aren't afraid of spending money imo, they're just afraid of spending money on nothing since it is their first time investing.

Let them do copy trading I suppose, like what mk4 said. It's still technically them doing the stuff, so i guess if they experience a loss they'd realize that trading isn't all profits and gains.