I am quite sure that GGG won the first fight. He couldn't win, only because of extremely biased scoring from one out of the three judges (Adalaide Byrd). I think he had a narrow advantage for the second fight, but would have been OK with a draw. In case the trilogy fight doesn't end in KO, then we can expect another round of controversy with the scoring. GGG was not happy with the results from the first two occasions and he made it clear to the media back then. And he will be furious if the same happens this time as well.
I also think that Golovkin won the first fight but it's normal for me that many people think otherwise - after all, boxing has always been a subjective sport. But I don't think that there is any chance that after the third fight the disputes will stop, because now Golovkin is already obviously old, so this fight cannot be compared with the first two. The only possibility would be if Golovkin first declasses Canello in every round and then knocks him out, but even so, Canello fans will come up with some reason to justify such a defeat. |
|
|
|
So things are that easy? Just return the money and he's now a good man? If that settles all problems, it's now easy to do illegal things.
That man should face the consequences regardless if he will return the money or not. No excuses, no bullshits, no attachment involved.
He enjoyed using the money disregarding what will be the consequences of it. That guy should learn his lesson.
I agree. Punishment should be a signal that such actions will not be repeated in the future (for this person or for someone else). If you allow the thief to return the stolen and no longer experience any consequences, then stealing will become extremely profitable - because in the worst case, you can return the stolen and become a "good person" again and then try to steal again. This is absurd. |
|
|
|
I also understand the point under which you say that it depends on the game, there are many who make sports bets and by pure logic it is more likely that they will win, since then the chances of winning increase, when we play any game in a casino, for example the slots it is known that the casino will always have the advantage, the house has the advantage, then we are already more subject to "luck" and "random" this is something that we must take into account, of course there are other games that reduce the possibility of losing that is poker, especially when it is in tournaments when they play PVP, so if it is that way, I see that it depends on the type of game.
The difference between betting and casinos is that in the casino the house edge is always known (there are exact numbers for each game), while for betting each event is unique and the player's analysis can be stronger than the bookmaker's analysis. The problem is that the bookmaker’s advantage exist also in betting (it gives reduced odds), so to be in the black you must not only be stronger than the bookmaker, but much stronger. At a distance it is very difficult. |
|
|
|
Although with this technology, I'm not sure this will prevent the protection of children under their age, they can still enter because various ways will be done because the internet is unavoidable, it's quite easy for children to access it.
In fact, I agree with you how important the role of parents is, if you don't want this to happen then parents must be vigilant, even though the internet is now free, they should be able to check it on a scale this will help their children remain a protection that is not wild, therefore I have The principle is that I will continue to watch over my child when he is a child, when he is an adult it will become his own care.
It seems to me that the degree of struggle of those who are trying to protect children/adults from something bad is already very reminiscent of the thesis "let's put everyone in a cage for their own safety." It is probably worth moving from preventing problems to correcting their consequences (for example, punishing parents if their children are involved in gambling), then people will develop a sense of responsibility and not infantilism as it is now. |
|
|
|
It is difficult to enter into any business - especially when the market is growing not at an explosive but at a normal pace and the "pie" has already been divided among the existing players. But this is just a matter of investment - if you have the capital, you can get a part of the market and even if you affect its profitability a little, this will be quickly compensated by the fact that the market is growing and you, like your competitors, will continue to make a profit.
The market is big, capital is the most important but as long as you have a good team that will manage the business, then there's a chance that the business will grow and will be able to compete. Every business starts from being a newbie in the market, but it doesn't mean they won't succeed, because if they do the right strategy, competing against the big players is always possible. In a situation where, for example, a new player buys an already existing project or makes investments comparable in size to such a purchase, it is difficult to call the appearance of a newcomer to the market. I think you have seen such examples in other areas when a large net of supermarkets/gas stations, etc. comes to a small town and takes part of the market from small shops. It's a risk-free move (for them), it's hard to compare it to a new venture even with a very good team, so I'll continue to think it's just a matter of investment. |
|
|
|
The fact that from time to time we get into local crises prevents us from seeing a steady global trend - the average wealth around the world is growing and people are spending more and more money on entertainment. Therefore, I would not worry about the casino, the only question is that people's tastes are changing and maybe online will replace offline, or at least lead to a strong change from what we see now.
It is true that people now spend more on entertainment. I think people are getting more and more attracted to online now. People are getting so attracted to online now that they also spend more time online for entertainment. But one thing remains to be seen whether people will now consider gambling as a means of entertainment. Because there are so many more things online that can entertain people. Now if one's taste changes then the effect can be seen to some extent. To be honest, I'm not young anymore and the thesis that there are a lot of things online that can entertain looks doubtful to me. Video/games/communication, etc. good, but good in small amounts, it gets boring quickly. Gambling is another matter. In my opinion, it satisfies some basic human needs and there will always be a place for it among other entertainment. |
|
|
|
I am neutral on Royse777's flag but I believe that he is still reputable, anyone running a business here in Bitcointalk and doing good will not do something that will harm his business or reputation there were things that should have been done, and out of Royse777 control, there's also risk being a bounty manager and this is just one of them, all the other bounty managers can learn from what Royse has gone through.
As I understand it, this activity always carries a certain risk and in some cases the bountymanager can cover the losses from his own pocket, but if these losses are huge, then what should be done in this case? After all, we can say that the manager is just as affected as the other participants in the bounty campaign. Another thing is that Royse777 associated himself with the project itself (if I'm not mistaken, he wrote about close cooperation with the project team) and was not just a hired manager. |
|
|
|
Based on the result of the poll, the majority of us here are on the safe side of gambling as both the Casual Social Gamblers and Conservative Gamblers are two options that are on the safe side, I hope it will keep this way, this only shows that our community is a community of safe players as they know the harm of too much gambling.
Professional Gamblers - 2 (4.5%)
Casual Social Gamblers - 22 (50%)
Serious Social Gamblers - 0 (0%)
Relief and Escape Gamblers - 6 (13.6%)
Conservative Gamblers - 12 (27.3%)
Personality Gamblers - 1 (2.3%)
Compulsive gamblers - 1 (2.3%)
On the one hand, this is good, but on the other hand, it is not a fact that all the respondents in this survey answered the truth. People always unconsciously evaluate themselves as better than they are and deny problems to the last. I have several friends who have obvious problems with alcohol, but only once I heard from one of them - "yes, I'm an alcoholic." Basically, they always say the "cult" phrase: I can quit at any time, I have no addiction. I think that some of the addicted gamblers voted in a similar way. |
|
|
|
The more the technology moves forward the more the present and the future resemble a dystopian novel in which there is no freedom at all, this is why bitcoin is so important as it gives us back some of that freedom that has been lost during the last decades, however governments are trying their best to stop bitcoin from achieving this with all their regulations, however as people get tired of getting tracked every single day of their lives, like it is the case with this unnecessary gambling ID, I think we are bound to see in the future more people looking to use bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to protect their privacy.
The problem is that people prefer not responsibility (bitcoin and the need to store their keys) but trust in a third party - the state (which means KYC and storage of funds and other things not with themselves but with third parties who have a license from the state). Unfortunately, the stratum of ideological people is very small and government pressure on cryptocurrencies is experiencing very little resistance. |
|
|
|
Missing 20%? There's no missing 20%. The gambling industry there is covering up to 80% of their total revenue. 20% is from other industries.
If casino operations will be halted or temporarily suspended, we are not just talking 20% here. The fact that gambling there can cover 80% of the whole revenue, means regardless of family status, income, professions, job, or pandemic status, gambling is so vast there that it's still the top-performing industry despite the possible lockdown or minimal users inside a casino.
Not the first time that Macau experience that. They know what to do now even amid the new waves of spikes there.
As I understand it, the main problem arises from the overly harsh reaction of the authorities to isolated cases of covid (even if it is just a positive test). In my opinion, this is more a political problem than a practical one, since most of the world is already used to covid and it does not cause as much harm as before. Therefore, we can say that if the authorities go for such severe restrictions, then they foresee possible economic problems and most likely have a plan to mitigate them. |
|
|
|
I think most of the gamblers are aware of better financial positions in general: If you have money to bet on, you have a way to make/generate it. It is most likely not wage but any other income options.
Would I personally trust gambler with his/her debt to me? It's complicated. I personally don't trust anyone with money, although prejudice against gamblers is a bit exaggerated. I think good gamblers would be loyal to their debts. And they wouldn't use someone other's money without a profit/reason.
This is an interesting idea. I've always thought along those lines about alcoholics - they always find money to drink. But I would not say that this speaks of their solid position or the ability to make money. As for your principle of not trusting anyone with money, I don’t know how it applies to business - here you have to trust someone anyway, since you cannot do all the work yourself. |
|
|
|
Judging by the trend of fuck-ups going on in the world, it's likely that in a few years the casinos won't be working as they did before. At any rate, I wouldn't count on it too much. Maybe in the future people won't have the money to go to casinos. But the virtual reality trend may well develop and be successful.
The fact that from time to time we get into local crises prevents us from seeing a steady global trend - the average wealth around the world is growing and people are spending more and more money on entertainment. Therefore, I would not worry about the casino, the only question is that people's tastes are changing and maybe online will replace offline, or at least lead to a strong change from what we see now. |
|
|
|
Everyone talks about reputation, reliability, history and so on. But in fact, there is always a fairly significant percentage of brave (or greedy) gamblers who are willing to take risks and play in a new project if it offers good bonuses. So the easiest and fastest way to gain credibility and market share is to make good investments, offer bonuses and pay them fairly. I think this investment will pay off.
Now day by day it's going to be hard for new sportsbooks to have strong marketing in crypto because we have few very strong casino's and sportsbooks doing business very reliably but still we have good for new ones as well, so they need to do some very attractive bonuses and their terms and conditions are also needed to be very flexible for all users mostly new one's have issues here as someone wins big they stopped withdrawal and starting security checking or other issues which are never been ideal you have to do all things in early part of starting this all. Other things which are also working good are good bounties and signature campaigns are also having very good impact on new ones with good marketing on social media also bring some good number of users. It is difficult to enter into any business - especially when the market is growing not at an explosive but at a normal pace and the "pie" has already been divided among the existing players. But this is just a matter of investment - if you have the capital, you can get a part of the market and even if you affect its profitability a little, this will be quickly compensated by the fact that the market is growing and you, like your competitors, will continue to make a profit. |
|
|
|
"bronze, silver, gold" levels bring an RPG element to gambling
The wider competitive game, I imagine that is more effective then alot of measures. A greater purpose to the game, to the risk taken because it feeds into that overall ranking is something I recognize from general game playing even outside of gambling that's a strategy deployed to increase involvement and feedback in a userbase. I can remember games stats was placed under names like a status, hierarchy all that is a thing  Interesting that it would be highest for the Poker players, maybe because its already possibly a more social game and helps encourage whole groups of players. These RPG elements, oddly enough, have a really big impact on the behavior of gamblers. If I'm not mistaken, then Napoleon had some kind of cynical statement on this subject, like "toys control people." He said this about soldiers who give their lives or health for orders and badges of honor. Gamblers, of course, are in better conditions, but the principle is the same. |
|
|
|
Выполняя требования местных властей в некоторых юрисдикциях Coinbase при выводе крипты требует указать: - ФИО владельца адреса - Назначение платежа - Домашний адрес получателя. источник |
|
|
|
I do not think that there will be no significance if the game involves a transgender or not- what matters is that the game is competitive and is available to all for betting.
There have been some discussions about allowing transgender people to participate to their respective sexes. Since a transgender person also involves the change of hormones and physical physique, there will be naturally some sort of gender bias in their participation to the events. Though this may be the case, I doubt that it would be of such significance to warrant this kind of prohibition.
In terms of betting, there really is no difference. In conventional sports, it often happens that one athlete (or team) dominates all the others by a large margin. But everyone understands that if transgender people participate in women's competitions, then most likely they will dominate there (for some reason, I have not heard of a single transgender who would show good results in men's competitions). Therefore, for the sake of justice, despite all the nuances, transgenders should have their own separate categories. |
|
|
|
|
Everyone talks about reputation, reliability, history and so on. But in fact, there is always a fairly significant percentage of brave (or greedy) gamblers who are willing to take risks and play in a new project if it offers good bonuses. So the easiest and fastest way to gain credibility and market share is to make good investments, offer bonuses and pay them fairly. I think this investment will pay off.
|
|
|
|
True life Story.
A friend i know recently narrated to me how his business almost collapsed due to trust he had for another of his friends who he thought he was helping by recruiting him to manage one of his Retail outlets. He narrated how having put him in charge of that point started observing a decrease in the the profit from there intended for savings and reinvestment. He confronted him severally to know what the problem was, but his friend attributed it to being ill and needing drugs, until one faithful day when he ran into him in a betting shop during working hours betting on virtual football games, how disappointing!
Questions for discussion
- Are gamblers eligible to hold financial positions?
- Do problem gamblers deserve a second chance to hold a financial position?
In my opinion, these are naive questions, because no matter who your partner is (I mean a business partner), you need to do business in such a way that there is control and there is no way to deceive. Business is not a place where you can trust anyone and it does not depend on whether a person is a gambler or not, whether he drinks or not, etc. |
|
|
|
|
My second prediction: 20350 Euro
Bitcasino username: Boristhecat
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
