Well, that's why most need to actually see it in person before being able to take action. It actually needs to be a big thing, so that the authorities have no choice but to move, whether they like it or not. It's a good thing that the internet is a thing today, this makes reporting such things and making a lot of people know about it a lot easier. Also, I doubt there's much to it to even compare irl and digital casinos, especially since digital ones are far easier to actually create and manage compared to physical ones, which makes having more of those have sense compared of illegal physical casinos.

Naturally, even with Robots, the thirst for knowledge and improvement inherent to humans wouldn't be extinguished no matter what. We may be just staying right now at robotic development, but within a few centuries, or maybe just a few decades, a lot of possible things could happen. Interstellar travel could be one.


Isn't that temporary? Currently, the production of robots is more for specialized actions and activities such as what you said, but in the near future manufacturers would employ robots themselves to create and process more materials to create more robots that they can sell/use for other purposes. Robots are indeed opening up new jobs but that would probably be temporary, and more likely that job losses would be more prominent than the amount of jobs robots could provide. Ofc, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, with how the world is proceeding towards an automated world, having humans enjoy life while robots do work is a vision that most would have probably imagined before.

Highlighted the parts that would really make VR casino a difficulty at this age. Not to mention that even if they were familiar, a lot of gamblers would probably take a double take if they should buy VR to play in VR casinos or just go to casino instead and spend the money they could've used to buy to possibly win more money in playing. Not that I'm saying all would do that, there are a lot of rich gamblers out there, and buying a VR gear for the sake of a new experience seems quite plausible, but the development of VR isn't at its peak yet. Sure, it may seem interesting at first, but it isn't enough to warrant them to prioritize VR gambling than irl gambling, especially since at their positions, gambling is just a past time as well as a way to socialize with others.

Besides, as I said, they're rich a f and would rather want quality service, VR has some horrid weird-ass controls plus its graphics isn't that all amazing in my perspective, so I'd assume they'd rather go to those big ass casinos that would provide quality service as well as a good environment.

I hardly doubt there's a good strategy for toin coss, with a chance of 50/50 that pretty much resets for every round, you can only use techniques to actually limit your losses. Most, if not all results of a toin coss are pretty much just based on luck, so if you can keep a straight head, you won't really suffer that much by playing with it for long.

It isn't a strategy mostly due to how the terms are used most likely, it's more suitable to describe it as a technique, instead of a strategy. Though I do agree that it could be considered one, ignoring the definite definitions since the two are mostly used interchangeably after all.

Indeed, there's no guaranteed way to actually profit off of anything, and techniques and strategies are only ways for you to actually avoid being in the read. A good example would be as you said, martingale, which provides you with at least the minimal profit as long as you have enough funds to support it.

Plain luck, Variance plays no matter in this imo. The moment you think of that, you'd start thinking that luck actually follows a logical path and would then start making logical decisions for it, thinking that it's luck, but it's not. A game may have a 50/50 chance, but losing 20 times or more in a row is completely understandable. A dice game does not increase your chance of winning based on the amounts of loss you've had, it's always a 50/50 chance per round. Thinking that because you've had lost multiple times in a row is because of variance catching up is stupid.

Just don't play in the long run, that always guarantees a loss no matter what due to the casino has a house edge. Other than that, there's not much you can do in terms of actually playing luck-based games. That is if you can negotiate with casinos to decrease your losses so that you have the edge instead of them, though that mostly just happens on physical casinos and mostly famous gamblers are the ones that get introduced to such benefits.

Most possibly because of convenience and well, plain coincidence? Not that I'm being nonchalant about deciding this but as you said, gamblers would've played on casinos through their mobiles or pcs which at least provides that they are possibly fair, as well as proper procedures that you can pretty much make sure are legal. However, for those that are not into gambling, finding a slot machine could provide curiosity, as well as a venue of entertainment while at a convenience store, since as we all know, those places are kind of waiting areas for a lot of meetups (or at least, in my place).

I call it coincidence since not a lot of people intentionally go to that slot machine to play BUT a lot of people do come ot the convenience store. They see the slot machine coincidentally, and some would of course be quite curious and try it out.

Well with the tag of privacy, pseudo-anonymity in the name of Bitcoin, it's rather easy to create an image of a medium mostly being used for criminal activities. Though honestly, with enough influence (or money), anything can be hidden from the public eye, and as long as they don't know, no one would really admonish them no? Ignorance is bliss perfectly suits the masses here tbh. Plus, it's honestly more likely for illegal activities to happen on centralized businesses, which just makes it more likely that something is happening under the table most of the time.

Even if we do consider Bitcoin being used instead of fiat, the money originally would come from centralized companies, either through moles or insiders, which honestly still makes the ones at fault the companies by being quite careless. There would still be a window or frame that criminals would use fiat to transfer funds to Bitcoin, so if securities could capitalize on that, and as long as they know that these criminals would go 100% for exchanges or p2p to trade BTC for their stolen fiat, then they can anticipate and intercept, with enough resources used on the investigation that is.

Oh I wasn't pertaining to something like that, what I meant was finding a sort of rhythm when remembering to count the cards, so that it's a lot easier to remember. There's the idea of using the +1 0 -1 strategy in card counting, plus add that to a sort of rhythm that loops in your mind to remind you what cards were in the said categories, which makes card counting a lot easier imo. Apologies if I came out a bit different from what I meant to. It's like a supportive device towards the main core of your strategy in card counting.

But true addictive behavior would find a way to somehow play, even if they have to sell everything they have. Though most addictive behavior stems from "just one more, if only I can win one more I can have the time of my life" mindset, limiting the funds you have may actually just prove to be detrimental, and besides, what's difficulty in face of wanting to do something you really want no? In the end, it comes to changing habits, and yes, I know habits die hard, but other than that, there's really no stopping an addictive action.

It's not an unusual story, just that most of such stories actually go untold. Plus, if someone were really an addict, letting himself go free is pretty difficult. It's difficult to stop addiction, a simple example of how difficult it is to find a habit and changing that habit, try it, you'd find it really difficult.

Any, and by that I mean ANY type of addiction is always wrong. Too much of something is always detrimental to someone, whether it be physically or mentally or emotionally, and that's a fact imo. Addiction isn't too prevalent in casinos, yes, but casinos don't get banned mostly due to the amount of income they get, and the amount of help it does for the economy. Remember that most famous casinos have bigshots playing on them, playing amounts on tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands per play.

Plus, imo, if the best for all were taken into account, they'd put more emphasis on preventing addiction instead of letting it happen even the minority. After all, it's always better to fix the negative than admire (or improve) the already positive factors.

I see your point here, and regulators are quite skewed in judging since they can't really blame the parents now can they? Other than that really I don't think there's any solution to Kids accidentally going into gambling. Regulators should most likely just put a limit into it, or the sites themselves that is, so that even if they gamble, at the very least it won't turn into something worse. To prevent new accounts, you can just link the gambling account to the steam account itself (or the game itself on other platforms).

There's a difference between gambling and gambling addiction here. It may be a thin line, yes, but teaching them about that thin line early on could prove to be quite helpful imo. Plus, let's be real here, we gamble ALL the time, not just in games, we do that in everyday decisions, examinations, etc., and making a kid learn about the consequences of something that he leaves on to LUCK should prove to be quite helpful in their upbringing. Teaching someone about gambling doesn't mean you teach him TO gamble, it's ABOUT.

Here's one for you.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/
Didn't really read it thoroughly, but the article doesn't seem to be lying with the fact that he beat those casinos with pure skill since the first casino he visited already had security cams analyzing his every movement to prevent any type of cheating. Card counting may be done in the mind, but it still needs obvious eye movement as well as some kind of pattern or rhythm that may be helpful to you in remembering (imo that is). That, or you can just have a perfect memory, which is almost impossible.

Although it seems like the biggest factor here was removing the edge for the house, and instead, giving it to the player. I've read some other articles, and they've also detailed about them winning on casinos not only based on skill, but also by negotiating with them on discounts and the like, they then start to break the bank of the casinos.

It's honestly that factor of luck that most people still go back to luck-based games since it's solely based on luck, the fact that they're losing means they also have a chance of winning, unlike in skill-based games where winning is highly reliant on your own skill itself, and luck plays only a minor role in winning. Still, all gamblers have their own preference, and besides, skill-based games on casino still, in one way or another, still have that luck factor, so even if you're pretty bad at it, as long as you have luck by your side, you can still win. It's like how a good hand in poker can still lose to a bad hand depending on the cards on the table.

I'm guessing this is nice to whoever regularly uses centralized exchanges since it probably gives off more security as well as more options, but that's about it. I really doubt the disadvantages there normally was disappeared, it's still not you holding your funds, it's still possible for your money to be hacked from them. A plus would probably be there'd be no way for you to get arrested since it's an official exchange now, though of course that just gives them more excuse to ask for personal information.

Well that is the cause and reason for the development of banks, or for any type of development after all. To make most movements automated so that humans could have a part of time that they could just enjoy themselves, and not bury themselves under work. There's always a price for convenience, whether it be money, information, or anything since nothing really is free, if you're having the time of your life, someone else is suffering from you enjoying life kind of thing.

Truly enough, just like how people blame Bitcoin for the doings of bad people such as scammers and money launderers, asking Bitcoin to save people from every frigging crisis possible on Earth is damn right stupid. Bitcoin is simply a medium, and the most that it could help in case the economy goes bad is to save the value of your money so that recessions wouldn't affect it badly, therefore avoiding a crisis. Other than that? Well, you can use it to buy food or something, but hell, that's its purpose anyway ain't it? As a currency. 

The economy is mainly managed by how the Government manages the market, mainly in terms of employment and the like, while also presenting demand and supply for local products, which boost our local economy.  I don't really see any Bitcoin in there, nor would it actually serve any purpose even if it was added into the mix, other than as a medium used to trade.

Nothing new here tbh, hell I think most people actually acknowledge this in the bottom of their hearts as a pretty normal occurrence. The only thing I don't really understand is their bias upon Bitcoin, or crypto in general, that whenever they get scammed, someone gets scammed, money laundering happens, they bloody blame Bitcoin like excuse me? They're clearly putting Crypto in a too high of a pedestal, when clearly those who use them are the bad ones. And if compared to Fiat/Banks? Hell, banks have done more than enough criminal activity involved to actually be imprisoned for a few decades, but they aren't' in one now are they.

I doubt you could consider luck in coding? That is unless you're just fiddling around the codes and somehow managed to make it work, then that is indeed luck but it shouldn't be normally applied since coding requires knowledge and that can't really betray you, or for any other knowledge-based work out there. Sports betting has knowledge used as well, yes, but the difference is you're basically judging others instead of yourself, which makes it a lot more difficult to actually achieve a result. It's like the difference between knowing how to create your own house vs asking someone who knows how to create a house, the former being you know what to do, the latter being you can only leave it up to someone you "THINK" can do it.

Long story short is people should avoid clicking direct links from any place, or at least, open them in a pc that doesn't really contain any personal information to make sure that nothing gets leaked, even if the said links came from your family or friends. Simply look up the links yourselves in search engines, which may take more time, yes, but at least it guarantees safety. I would've said that most wouldn't even click said link since it's full of numbers and letters, but a lot of people out there are either ignorant or just plainly don't care which are honestly odd, so for those who at least don't want their safety compromised, take the necessary steps even if it makes your search take more time.

Based on what I know, they had a prior agreement based on the attributes a trading partner must have, plus, there was already a warning made back then in 2017 about EU removing their GSP rights, so it isn't really that odd that they removed it now after 3 years, seeing as there's no improvement on the attitude of President Duterte. You can see this in the links provided by OP.

This is basically a fight between the humanitarian side (EU) and Duterte with the realistic side, with the former holding the economic privileges of the latter as a hostage, which is, in one way or another, pretty stupid. I can't agree with how Duterte did the Drug war, a lot of casualties were made yes, but you can't' disagree that his actions did indeed help remove drugs from the country.

Duterte would inevitably be damaged by this no matter what, it is the economic privilege of the country his reign is in after all. EU does account for the 4th biggest trading partner the PH has, but as for the numbers I'm not particularly sure. If China would support PH with trading at this point and possibly fill the void, then Duterte can basically skim over this issue and possibly live on with his unyielding attitude regarding the issue.

I wouldn't even persuade you. Though we can't deny that BTC being a high-risk asset, or an investment right now is a part of what made it quite famous and a part of what made a lot of people get in on the crypto world, It does hinder it's adoption towards its original goal, as a medium or a currency. Still, it isn't completely to be blamed, especially since Bitcoin in of itself isn't really prepared for such an adoption, and as such, made more sense for people to actually see it as an investment.

You could say that it's actually a development most agree on, since later on at the end of the road, it's volatility would be highly reduced, making it a lot more suitable for adoption, as well as a lot of developments then would fix problems with Bitcoin today (fees, speed, etc.).
Most would probably sell, but the same could be said for those who are just waiting and would buy the second they see an opportunity. There would always be demand for Bitcoin imo, and recovery may take a long time, as long as there is supply and demand for it, it would naturally retain its position in the long run.