I haven't heard of it, and I don't see how this can work for a casino, but it's good that you're trying out something new. However, I think it would be better to have zero house edge on the bets, but a withdrawal fee that compensates for that. Plus a faucet or a welcome bonus. And honestly, I don't think anything can work to attract people to a new token that's not even on any exchanges yet. The era of altcoins is over, and there are always tokens that never even make it to exchanges. So depositing any money to the website is very risky because then you'll withdraw something potentially useless from it.

It's true. 5 million dollars is a huge amount of money for most people, but I hope it's not an "all-in" bet for the person who chose Trump. After all, Trump was losing according to the polls prior to the election, and Trump is clearly losing the elections now (even though hypothetically there's still a chance of Trump winning, but this chance is getting smaller and smaller). Maybe this person made the bet for hype and perhaps to show others how much he believed in Trump (to encourage US citizens to vote for Trump). How big is the bet is a relative question, and there are definitely people for whom $5 million is not a big deal.

Not happening. First of all, I think that Biden is going to win, so I'm sorry that such a huge bet is going to be wasted. However, I admit that it's still too early to say. Which brings me to the second point, related to the phrase I marked in bold. In the US, the elections don't work like they do in almost all other countries. A candidate can lose the popular vote, but become the President because of the electoral college system. And thus in many countries it's fairly certain who's going to be the President based on the exit polls, for instance (this is the case in my country), because these can predict with high accuracy who wins the popular vote. But it's different in the US, and the votes gotta be counted, and the electorals gotta vote before you can really know. Not to mention that the win is sometimes by a very low margin. Adding to this the fact that more people than ever voted by mail this year, and their votes will take more time to be counted, I think it's not realistic that the results will be available today or tomorrow. It's more like a matter of a week or two, realistically speaking.
I also placed a bet on the elections (not a big one), and I'm also wondering when will the bet be settled (based on the total vote count or the likeliest winner at some point).

I'm winning some bets and losing others, but mostly losing on average, even though not by a high margin. I think that it's at least partially related to the fact that I'm not a pro in sports. However, I've seen people who seem good at sports, but often have these losing streaks (but maybe their overall balance is actually positive, I don't know), so I'm not sure that's it. I guess one is almost bound to lose because there are many unpredictable outcomes in sports. But I also think that if a person really knows the sport and also has betting skills and strategies, it's possible to win more often than lose, thus earning money this way.

I'm glad that such a big guy is finally incarcerated. In the US, I think he has a good chance of avoiding prison because he's quite influential and resourceful. But this experience still might make him more careful and deprive him of some money. I don't care if McAfee is pumping cryptos or calling Bitcoin worthless, his opinion doesn't matter. Hopefully, now that he's imprisoned for fraud, more people will stop listening to him and taking this guy seriously. Now we need Craig Wright to face the same thing for fraud and spreading false information.

I've never opted out and don't really intend to, so I didn't know this one. But I get it that it's important because it allows to minimize the risk if that's the strategy a person chooses. In the meantime, two thirds seem to prefer single bets according to the poll results.
Yeah, I also wanted to point out that multi bets allow big wins. For instance, I've seen a couple of wins on odds like 1300, and it's would be next to impossible to find a match and place a single bet, taking this risk. So multi bets open new possibilities of winning way more that the bet amount, while also betting not on the no-name teams and events (the odds get crazy because of the combination, but every single outcome might be pretty reasonable).

I agree with the first two points, but I think they can be covered by one major issue as its consequences: scalability. Bitcoin cannot process enough transactions per second, which leads to higher fees if people want their transactions to be confirmed faster and longer waits because there are many transactions awaiting confirmation. And it's indeed a big problem if we're talking about the prospects of global adoption because even nowadays the fees are sometimes very significant, and we're very far from Bitcoin usage being widely spread. As for #3, I think it offers a good balance between complete anonymity and ID verification. And I don't take this argument seriously because fiat is used for terrorism a lot, and yet we use it nevertheless.

The LN has been around for a while, and I don't see any progress with its adoption. It's not user-friendly enough for the majority of users to adopt it. And among those who wouldn't face technical difficulties with the adoption, there's a group of people who won't adopt it anyway due to centralization or due to Bitcoin maximalism. I used to have high hopes for the LN, but it seems that it's not trying to become more accessible or to convince those who don't want to use it. And if people don't accept the solution, it does not really matter if this solution could hypothetically solve the issue.

I think that high energy consumption is not something that can be denied, but I don't think there's consensus on how much of that electricity comes from clean energy. In many cases I agree with the 'reduce' principle. Reducing the amount of trash, cars, factories, meat and other things make sense to me. However, I don't think this can reasonably apply to electricity. With technological development and accessibility, humanity will consume more and more energy. So we should focus on making it clean and not overusing it when it's absolutely useless (like when the lights are on in every room, but you're actually sitting only in one of them), but not on blaming some things altogether because they require a lot of energy.

Interesting opinion, I did not think of it this way. I did see a couple of huge wins with small bet amounts on crazy odds on Sportsbet.io. Losing a small bankroll is not a big deal, and if the bet amount is small and the single bet odds are low, the win is insignificant. That being said, if what matters is the odds, than it's irrelevant if it's a multi or a single bet (it can be a single 3.5 bet or a multi 3.5 bet, and in that case the risk would be equal). However, it does not feel equal because one event going wrong out of many, and you lose the whole multi bet, whereas with single bets it's easier to distribute the money and win some while lose others.

Holidays are just a good time to launch something because people have more time they can dedicate to new things. They are surfing the Internet, and they aren't too busy, so I guess it's easier to get their attention at a time like this. At least, I think that the beginning of January could be intentional. As for Halloween, it could be a coincidence and it doesn't make much sense in terms to getting attention because it's just one day, but this could be symbolic. Like the day we remind ourselves of the atrocities the banks are doing and especially those they did in 2008, and we can see a hypothetical solution to the issue.

Well, I don't know what's driving the price up so much, but Bitcoin costs quite a lot right now, and the election is going to be very soon. I don't know if it's because of the US election or not, but it seems that Bitcoin could rise due to FOMO. As for the US Bitcoin policy, I don't think it will change if Biden wins the elections. Both Trump and Biden are quite old, rich and people who benefited from the traditional system. So I don't think the election is going to change anything in practice, but the hype or uncertainty surrounding it can push the price back and forth.

This round is looking good for me, but the previous one was terrible. In round 7 I have 1 result, 1 exact and 2 close scores! But the tricky matches are ahead, so I don't think my luck will persist. As for Newcastle vs Everton, I stand with the majority (based on the pool picks data on Superbru) that Everton will win the game. Like many others, I chose 1:2 as the score. However, I'm very unsure about this game, so I wouldn't be surprised if they lose or if it's a draw. It's one of those cases when it's hard to be certain about the outcome IMO.

Op, I agree with you that stats are important and help to make decisions as well as fulfill the curiosity if knowing whether you are winning or losing overall. However, not displaying the stats is not illegal, and does not mean a casino is scamming people. Why not make it as a suggestion to return the stats, explain the benefits for players and gather people who are in favour? I think making it a friendly reasonable suggestion would be more effective than accusing a solid team of scamming people.

Before placing a bet, I look at a few factors. I look at the odds, I look at the match history between two teams, and I look how the team performed in their recent games against other teams. If someone who's usually a big player is now out of the game, or if the coach has changed or something, this should also be taken into account. And I also compare the match history with the history of home and away wins (depending on where the game is taking place).
But the weariness of the players is a tricky thing, I haven't considered it before.

It wasn't hard for me to choose the first option in the poll because I don't have such strong feelings about gambling. I'm never absolutely sure about the bet I'm about to make, and I'm never eager to get so much as to pay crazy fees. Moreover, I usually bet in advance, so this situation when I'd have to pay the fees to get the money asap is unlikely.

For me it's not the price that matters. I would be comfortable using Bitcoin for gambling at such price. After all, it would actually mean using very small amount in BTC, and I'm sure the minimum gets in BTC will decrease. However, what's important to me is the fees, and judging by his it's currently going, fees can be very big if the price gets so high. I would be okay with less than 5% fees, but if the fees make it impossible to deposit and withdraw small amounts, I'm probably not going to do that.

I'm glad they decided to turn to Bitcoin rather than create their own centralised regulated cryptocurrency. The latter was already attempted in Venezuela, and it did not go well with their coin becoming a joke. Bitcoin us a risky choice, so I'm interested in how it will work out. I hope this use case will be successful. In this case, Bitcoin is likely to be taken more seriously. But I would be more happy if a more open-minded democratic country would try it.

Borrowing money violates the rule of investing what one can afford to lose very seriously. As for expectations, I think that one should analyze how the price changed in the past and set up a realistic goal for cashing out.
And as for the third point, I think people tend to follow the opinions of others to blame others and relieve themselves if responsibility. They have the right to do that, but I agree that it's not a good choice.

But isn't betting in the favourite team also pretty risky? If you just support the team you like, you are not being objective and are bound to lose sometimes even when you know that the team is likely to lose. Since in this case betting is not about maximising profit, I guess the risks associated with multi bets are also not a big deal. But I understand why you prefer single bets anyway.

Meanwhile, the multi bets are getting some votes in the poll, but single bets are leading.