It should be the right thing to do because he can't relax against a knockout artist. As usual, it's expected that he will use his quickness to tire De Los Santos. Eventually, De Los Santos will be frustrated if he cannot land clean shots on Shakur.

Most KO artists rely so much on their power, but when they face a boxer who knows how to use their quickness and has a high IQ in the ring, they struggle, just like Mayweather did against his opponents. Since Shakur is a big fan of Mayweather, we will likely see a fight that focuses more on technical movements rather than being a brawl.

Yes, Betfury.io deserves a slot, and I'm glad I saw Rollbit on the list. I knew some in the past like FunToken, but I think it's not popular, at least for me, as I'm more attracted to gambling sites with sportsbook integrated already. It's like a one-stop shop for me. Also, with lots of crypto gambling projects with a high failure rate, making it to the list means the team behind them is very capable of making strategies to compete in this competitive crypto gambling industry.

So what do you want us to do, keep guessing?

You presented a problem, you are asked, I think you need to respond because without a response, it's very clear that you are just trying to ruin the reputation of Stake. It seems like I've seen a lot of bad feedback about Stake recently, but most of them do not have evidence to back them.

As long as it does not significantly affect their business, they should not take any action against a gambler. However, if they believe that gambling is affecting their profits, banning may not be the solution; instead, it's only them limiting a certain gambler.


It's hard to take a side in this story, as it can never be transparent. Gaining public sympathy, most likely, people will side with the gambler. I'm emphasizing transparency because we, the public who would judge, may not be able to verify if the statement of a casino banning a gambler is true.

For example, what if they say a gambler broke the rules? Can they be transparent about what rules the gambler broke, and would they provide all the necessary evidence without putting their reputation at risk for violating customer's privacy?

Their predictions are not the same, though. Of course, few of them are right. Personally, I believe in them, especially if my analysis would align with theirs. I mean, we don't have to follow them blindly; we can only agree if their technical analysis is backed by various reasons or factors that would affect the price movement going towards the price movement they are predicting.

Any platform is useful; there are lots of traders who make vlogs for content. But you can easily spot those who have good analysis because they have a good number of followers or subscribers.

The way to manage greed is to stop it. When you are still feeling greedy, simply avoid gambling.

You see, when you are a greedy gambler, it makes your gambling activity too risky, as you are most likely to end up losing due to a lack of satisfaction.

There are two scenarios that often happen to a greedy gambler:

When the gambler is losing money, they will chase their losses, as they do not want to stop at a loss.
Most likely, this will end up with losing everything.

When the gambler is winning, they will still continue to gamble because they are not satisfied with their winnings yet.
Since luck is not forever, most likely, a gambler will end up losing everything.

Did your campaign have an option where you could choose to be paid? If not, then I don't think that's really the mistake. I believe the mistake was your decision to gamble your earnings in the signature campaign. Personally, I have experience getting paid on a gambling platform account in past campaigns, but I never faced the same problem as you. Once I received my payment, I just directly withdrew it to my personal wallet. That was the process until the campaign was stopped.

There's a problem within you in managing yourself in gambling. I think you need to learn more from your mistake so it will not happen again. As a gambler, it's normal to make mistakes, as sometimes we easily get tempted by the kind of winning we envision. It's like gaining experience but at an expensive cost.

Very well said. Everyone must realize that although Bitcoin is very volatile, it's still considered to be one of the safest investments. If we follow the journey of Bitcoin, we wouldn't be surprised anymore if it dumps big time, as it has happened in the past many times and has even been declared 'dead' many times. But look at Bitcoin now; it's starting to be bullish, and with this trend, sooner or later, $30k might be achieved again.

I appreciate the optimism, but it's too early to celebrate. Just because you were able to grow your money doesn't mean you should assume the same will happen in the future. That's not how it works; trading has its ups and downs. So, as long as you experience more ups, that's the time to celebrate because you have achieved the consistency needed for long-term success.

Still, congratulations to you, though.

The biggest exhibition fight in year 2024, if this rumor were to become true.

Manny had a slight excuse when he lost to Mayweather; his camp said that he was suffering a shoulder injury at the time, and yet he still chose to continue the fight to not disappoint the fans. It's some sort of saying that he was not 100% during the fight. So, this exhibition fight or part 2 of their rivalry, hopefully, there will be no more excuses, as it's not vital anymore since they have cemented their achievements during their pro careers. The outcome of this fight is already "off the record."

Hey, OP! Would you mind putting up a voting poll? Let's see if the majority would still choose Pacman as the winner.

It's not hard to understand why people who are greedy in gambling will lose, either in the short run or in the long run; the outcome is always 'loss.'

As experts say, gamble responsibly. When you are greedy, that's already a significant non-compliance with responsible gambling. So, expect that you'll lose; there's no need to further explain this.

No doubt Casimero would fight Inoue in Japan because that is not new to Casimero. Remember, he was called a "road warrior" as he has gone to different countries to challenge their champions. My concern is Inoue's promising future; if he wants to be well-recognized, then he shouldn't be just fighting in Japan.

Most of the big fights happen in the US, so while Inoue is still in his prime, he has to take advantage of the opportunities in front of him.

Here are the highest-grossing PPV boxing events. I believe most of the fights are in the US.

https://worldsportsweekly.com/top-ten-highest-grossing-ppv-boxing-fights-of-all-time

I'm not sure why the capability to pay is still mentioned here. It's not the government that evaluates your capacity to pay, but rather the credit card companies themselves. When you are granted a credit card, it means you are deemed capable of paying your credit, and as individuals, we each have different credit limits.

What the government is trying to do here is to ensure that credit cards are not used for gambling. This is aimed at reducing gambling addiction, possibly based on their evaluation through data provided by the credit card companies, which may indicate a significant amount of credit being used for gambling purposes.

In short, they are trying to promote responsible gambling.

Yes, you are right but I didn't write it well, I was referring to the last Japanese boxer that he beats.


Casimero, prior to getting stripped of his belt in the bantamweight division, already had some impressive wins. I don't think that's what Casimero is looking for because, obviously, their fight is highly anticipated, and there should be no problem with marketing the fight.

Though the possible fight with Casimero has him as the challenger, it would be more attractive if they could bring this fight to the US. More audience means more money, and if Inoue really wants to become more popular, he should consider fighting more in the US.

That's why they aren't the favorites to win. It's a gamble from my end, though, but the fact that Leonard has won a championship back in Toronto (actually, he was the one to give them their first championship), this guy is really unpredictable. All I want to witness is Leonard playing healthy next season. With many seasons he played with PG, I think the chemistry was already built, and we have to remember Westbrook is still on the same team.

I remember in the past when the Clippers were supposed to be in the NBA Finals, but because Leonard was injured, it didn't happen. Despite that, the team achieved major success that season as they reached their first conference final. So, let's see. Like I said, it's a gamble.

From the word HODL, it means long-term hold. So if someone panics when seeing the price drop significantly and decides to sell his Bitcoin, that isn't its characteristic. The same goes for investors who sell when they see some profit, as they are afraid the price will drop.

I think the most important factor to consider when HODLing or holding for the long term is to be specific with your target.

It's undeniable that no one would hold forever. While we are still alive, we like to enjoy the profit from holding. So without a target, it might affect our decision-making in the long run, as you know, emotions could affect our game plan or investment strategy.

Anything above +1000 is already a value for me.

Based on the odds shared by @inthelongrun, I would easily go with the teams that have already proven themselves in the playoffs. With that said, I'm picking the following teams:

@Warriors
@Lakers
@Clippers (I still have faith in Leonard).

If that's what you think, how can you explain, the top 10 altcoins in the market which some have even billions of dollars in trading volume.
https://coinmarketcap.com/

If you think they are just for speculation, I don't think they're different from Bitcoin. To see the bigger picture, look at the dominance; Bitcoin currently has 48.8% dominance in the overall market, and the rest is just controlled by altcoins. Imagine if those altcoins were taken out; panic would surely happen, and I don't think Bitcoin would stay at the current price.

Also, when a huge exchange is hacked, how come it affects the value of Bitcoin? So that only states that the market does not revolve around Bitcoin alone; legitimate altcoins are also linked to Bitcoin in terms of market sentiment.



It reached its ATH due to speculation, hype, and the like, because if it were organic, the price would not have dumped significantly after the bull run.
Just take the last bull run as an example: Bitcoin hit an ATH of $66k. Now, what is the current price?

When we talk about the government, there are good governments and bad governments, so you are lucky if you are living in a country where the government is not corrupt, as they will certainly put the interest of the people first since that's their main purpose for being in the position.

It doesn't sound like 'I am from the government, and I am here to help,' not completely at all, as the government is just here to create laws to regulate the market. Without regulation, the market would be in big chaos. I'd like to cite an example: when the market is in a bull run, usually FOMO happens, not only in Bitcoin but also in altcoins. The best example is in 2017, as I experienced it personally and benefited from it overall. So I know that there are also people who lost a lot of money during that time because they invested in a scam project.

So my question is, without the government regulating the market, where would these people go to recover what they lost, or at least put the scammers in jail if recovery is not possible anymore?


Yes, that's the reality. Not all would, because not all investigate the reasons why they lose in the first place. The lack of education would always result in misleading potential investors. Without regulators, they can still continue promoting their projects that offer too-good-to-be-true returns. And since these uneducated people are still vulnerable, they might fall into the trap again, leaving the market with a bad reputation, with the majority of investors probably just playing some kind of gambling games.



Of course, you are right that Bitcoin does not need altcoins, but what I would like to emphasize is that if we want to witness fast progress in the market, altcoins should be created as they can also create demand. It would result in a vice versa situation where both would benefit each other.

And for the record, I when I say altcoins, I am not referring to shitcoins, because even without shitcoins bull run would still happen, shitcoins are just riding the hype.

You can't blame all that on altcoins or shitcoins. The market was pretty much unregulated before, so the hype was high, and it was easy to manipulate by people who had the power to do so. I believe the lack of regulation is the main problem, which is why the rate of scams was very alarming in the past. But now, look at the altcoins; we have many that have already become worthless because people have learned from their mistakes and are more educated now.

Bitcoin alone can't sustain the market. In order for the market to grow, there should be a demand that will be created, and without altcoins, the success in the long run might be slow.

Do you think Bitcoin will reach its all-time high without altcoins?