So the fact that some people know about this already makes what the OP talked about useless? C'mon! I can't see less than you assenting to what @AHOYBRAUSE talked about, but I can only see that he is overbearing in nature to have downgraded good advice by the OP. This is too-know in my opinion. Fine, some people would know this, but it is not everybody that would know it. For instance, I know what he iterated and explained above and even more than him, but still, it is valuable to me since anyone who is new to the world of sports betting may just come across it and get to derive the clue needed through it which makes what @AHOYBRAUSE wrote so gross and show the level of the lack of accommodation for other people's expression simple because it is cheap to him

You talk like someone who is sensible and has the Willpower towards gambling. But do you think everybody is sensible and possesses the same characteristics? This is why people will not be able to act the same or make attitudinal changes the same way and this is very challenging to some people than you view it. You are talking like this simply because you have your own mind and are not addicted to gambling, but it is a different story for other people. Also, when you have a means to making money other than gambling and you are not such that is desperate for money due to one thing or the other, then you are far better than many other people who are facing the opposite of that.

Many are desperate to gamble and make money for the pressing money needed. They believe that since some people have hit that Jackpot, they can hit it as well. But before they know it, they continue to waste money due to the lack of proper orientation about gambling and the psychology used towards it. Had it been it was some people, they would have sensed the danger and reverted their steps, but such people are such that are smart and wise, they are conscious of what they do and also possess strong minds that will help their Willpower to say Yes when they want it and No when they do not want it. But people with these characteristics may not be common in the society.

I hope you get it now, it is for their benefit to change, but in most cases, they do not have the chance to change on their own unless they find help. That is if the help can be helpful at all because this thing is in stages.

Nice observation OP, but "what turns its front view to you is turning the back view to another person." This adage can be interpreted as the fact that what you are experiencing now is not being experienced by other people and I can assure you that some who never got the merits more when you were getting it might be getting it even better now, time changes.

The merit-sources addition or subtraction may not be the main cause of this even as we wait for the statistics you appealed for. The change in the mood of sending it may just happen as I have seen in many.

One thing I've also noticed about Bitcointalk members is that they are so sentimental and this may lead to sending merits based on odd factors like; your current campaign, reciprocity, and general behavioural changes among others.

Well, the angle at which you are taking this from is just strange, it is merely a gambling angle since you do not have any valid points to back your claims up. Nonetheless, the US election will certainly have an effect on Bitcoin, but mind you, it is going to be a minimal effect as always no matter the disposition of the contestants.

For your information, it is not about Bitcoin alone but all global assets, and if they are being traded electronically, the effect seems to be more obvious even if they are not significant. This has been happening far before the introduction of Bitcoin, and the reason is that the US spends the most valuable and respected currency in the world (USD), the world reserve currency and such that is paired with all assets traded electronically including Bitcoin (BTC/USD).

In this light, since the US election will cause a shift in the index of the USD (USDX), certainly, Bitcoin and all other assets paired with it will feel the effect. It now depends on the market sentiment toward the winner of the election, but the effect would have started being noticed during the counting of votes.

You started by slightly against my opinion but ended by still aligning with it, this is so funny. It is very easy to say that the DEX and the so-called domains that seem untouchable to you can function when the government starts clamping down on the cryptocurrency industry, well, that's if they see patronage. Perhaps, you did not think it through towards the fact that it will first instil fear in most cryptocurrency holders and users and dissuade more than 60% from using it since they do not want to be in the trouble of the government. What do you think would happen to the crypto space afterwards?

Mind you, the strong-minded people that would continue with cryptocurrency if the government is serious about the clamping down may be so fewer than expected, and you think the price of cryptocurrency will be encouraging to the point that is worth daring the government? It will even be on a selling spree due to less demand and people will be losing their fortunes to it. So what is the point of holding it? Aside from that, is it not a gadget that people are using to connect the app, website/domain, or whatever? What if Windows, Android, IOs and others stopped any operation with cryptocurrency on their gadget on the directive of the world government? Think these are through. This is the government we are talking about, unless there is a division within them, the clampdown will total, bro, that will be the end of cryptocurrency.

Really? I think you guys are now deviating from the main goal here. Such a discussion like bankruptcy is not the subject here and no company in any field can be exonerated from this, so it is not necessary but the liquidity's importance and relevance in casinos. All companies are trying to manage their situation and continue to get relevant in the industry, so I do not think it should be the main concern in this context. This is also the reason why we should be so vigilant and attentive to the news and development around the companies we are dealing with and also go for those companies that are strong and well-planned and not those who put it quickly together because of the money they want to earn fast.

We cannot overemphasize the importance of liquidity in every company as it measures their strength and greatness in the industry. A good company should be able to overcome the test of time, and you can see what happened to Stake.com last year when over $41m was stolen. It's obvious that most casinos will not be able to survive that, and this shows how liquid they are and also how prepared they are for the casino business. Also, one must try to know the capacity of the company they deal with, and what they have for them in case of issues, especially when the company is stressed. This is why it is good to always go for the best that are fully prepared. I mean those who will still reimburse their customers even if issues happen because they have insurance and also distribute/plan their risk properly.

I quite understand you, and let me believe that you are talking based on your experience with the casino (I do not want to continue typing the name). Notwithstanding, with this particular casino, I do not think recommending it is the best no matter what they offer. Is it bonuses, perks, game options, responsiveness, UI and any extras you can think of among others, I still believe it will all be to futility and advise people to stay away from it.

What is the beauty of having the best user experience and bonuses but will not honour the withdrawal of the customer? I see this as needless because of their too-bad review here and in other places which they did not turn a new leaf about and also did not do enough to defend themselves about allegations, especially with proof. This could only mean effrontery and a deliberate act to swindle people of their money.

You are never out of points and VPNs have put a lot of gamblers in trouble, which is why if one wants to use it, such a person must be very careful. But I still doubt the integrity and sincerity of the VPN provider if they would be truthful to what they say about a dedicated and if it is static, the risk is still not averted. And honestly, I am just getting to know a dedicated IP now, are you sure that this service is possible? If yes, I am certain that anyone who wants it might part ways with more money to make it truly dedicated.

But still, as I said, one can't entirely trust these service providers entirely because possessing the absolute right to IPs for them to vouch for not being used by anyone is so doubtful in the case of that dedicated IP. However, if any IP is blacklisted is another issue, or should I call it trouble because casinos would not think twice before they continue to block the account of a blacklisted IP. But certainly, the VPN service provider will not know about that unless their clients tell them. This even makes it riskier to use a VPN with any casino unless the gambler carries the casino along in all of the journey to using VPN if the casino allows it.

No doubt, economic growth is good, it means that more jobs would be created even as the economy of the country is progressive. But one may be wrong if he uses that to entirely judge the effect on the standard of living of the residents of the country. Many countries have recorded positive economies in years and the people in the country are still suffering, so some factors are to be considered in line with this as well. Among these factors, the standard of living would depend on the level of the standing issues before the economic growth, the level of the economic growth itself and the sustainability of the growth as some are only too short.

The inflation in the country matters so well here also, and even the population, because a high population may not allow the effect of economic growth to be much. This takes me to the particular country we are talking about, is it a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country? All these play vital roles in this subject because these indexes would ascertain the level of some metrics and statistics to know whether economic growth can make fortune circulate to the point that it would improve the standard of living to a high degree.

I see people referring to the ATH of altcoins to judge, such people will miss out if they do not invest in altcoins due to that and will also cause fear in others from investing in altcoins. Investing in altcoins is good but one has to be smart about it, you do not leave your altcoins for too long in the name of HODLing, that's the gist. This is why we must know the true reversing level on the higher charts for us to know the time to liquidate all our investments in it. Also for altcoins, you do your calculation of the bullish season alone, you do not do the calculation of the effect of the bearish season with it to avoid confusing yourself.

What I mean is that, if you see an altcoin move from $50 to $500 in the last bullish season and move back to about $80 during the bearish season, just buy it when you are sure of the bottom, but never have the mind that it will reach the ATH again ($500) or move above it like many mistakes themselves and others. Just continue to follow its chart analysis to know the true trend it follows and when it reverses. For example, you may buy it at $85 and it reaches $425 max without reaching the ATH again. By then you have gained in multiples, and will still divest if you see the bearish trend activated again. You will now wait till it falls back again to its lowest level in the long-term disposition prior to another bullish season to re-buy it again.

By this, who cares if it gets back to its ATH again? You continue to make your money still, even more than those who are HODLing Bitcoin till eternity. It's all about making money, we should be smart.

You only loop this together without having that constructive argument about it. There is nothing wrong with traders selling at a high level and buying at a low level as long as they know what they are doing and do not subject it to guesswork or gambling. Such must ascertain the levels through support and resistance levels and also with good analysis to truly know the exhaustive condition of the market which is called overbought and oversold condition.

However, this strategy is good for the long-term approach but the short-term traders can still take advantage of it but would be on the lower timeframe. And for those who experienced the market going against what they planned, I can only encourage them to manage their trading properly, there are no perfect traders and analysis/signal, anyone can fail, and at times, closing the trade at a bad price is good to save such trader from more losses. This is more heroic than the way you made it look bad.

All that matters is to make more wins, but thinking traders will not lose is a pure lie, and in losses, we should not still mock anyone. Generally, to avoid losses, I can only encourage traders to work more on their trading management and psychology. With good strategy as well, I don't think any issue would arise.

Whales everywhere I read posts now, that's how people make it look though, but I don't think there will be a serious Bitcoin whale now still having that huge Will to buy Bitcoin that has not bought it already for them to catch the train at the low price as usual. These are already determined HODLers too. Unless they were the ones who formerly sold it and wanted to buy it back. Contrary to your view, I believe that the next growth will be from the collective random and institutional purchases and not whales, that's what I know that Bitcoin needs to appreciate now.

It would rely upon this mainly to have a huger growth with time because most conversant investors are Hodling it already, but I still doubt if the extra purchases can sustain the huge growth for the fear of the lack of determined HODLers who I believe might not be willing to hold it for too long. Let's continue to see how the situation unfolds even as we all know that we are only taking risks, so we should do much research about this and not be blind followers/believers.

I must have missed this thread due to my busy schedule these days. Though the OP is entitled to his opinion, nonetheless, the opinion looks too serious compared to the actual fact. The doxxing of a thing may be enforced against users on this forum but I can assure you that it can't be more than here, what's the point? As we speak, do you know how many investigative journalists are on this trail? You can't know until their success. Your point is however conceived because this is a Bitcoin forum, but if enforced strictly, then it means that neutrality is still not strong here in my opinion. Even in law, in most countries, doxxing is forgivable, and in many other places, it "may" be lightly punished depending on the reason for it, not to mention an online forum.

Fine, based on how this forum was created, we might collectively respect the privacy of the person who created Bitcoin and also opened this forum, it makes sense like that. But when we are now taking it too seriously, I do not see it so neutral to prove the freedom of expression.

I really would love it if Satoshi Nakamoto could reveal his/their identity to reap the fruits of his/their labour. The project is too honourable for the brain(s) behind it not to be known. I believe what people are doing is out of curiosity, but what I don't condone is too many threads pointing to the same fact here, that must stop. But for people to try and relate something to it, I do not have so much concern about that.

Let them continue to try, it will only be the case of "catch me if you can."

This looks like a plan, but at the same time, it shows you are a dreamer and a joker. I remember the time you posted your crypto investment but the amount is "nothing to write home about" compared to the plans you iterated here. By the way, why is the balance showing in ETH if Bitcoin is truly your preference as you claimed here?

Looking now at the image again, you have less than $550 in supposed Bitcoin investment, and by my speculation, I do not think that Bitcoin can still move more than x2.5 in this bull run. So how would you get such enough money to actualise your plan? This plan is good and would have been perfectly done if you had started at a much lower price, but with the level of about $53,000 where you claimed you struck it, it will earn you not so much profits to actualise this plan.

Perhaps in the next bullish cycle, if you are smart enough, you may revisit this.

We should not make any mistakes when we trade and the two you listed above are just a few out of many that traders make in trading. Of course, the traders who invested the amount they can't afford to lose will surely regret it because not only will they be pained when they lose the money but the money will in addition cause them to be emotional in their trading. This could only mean failure even before the trading has started, so we should avoid it. Our trading psychology must be preserved, but there is no way this will happen when the money we invested is too dear to us, we will only be making mistakes with this and will bring out the most fear in us. The money would be like your last hope and by trying to guard it carefully, you will be making too many viable mistakes. Therefore, it is better to invest the money that can be afforded to be lost. If you wanted to invest the $3,000 that can't be afforded to be lost for example, why not change to it to between $300-$500? By doing so, you would have saved yourself a lot and reduced the tension which would be attached to trading it.

As for greed, it is left to us, and we should always know that the term greed can never be good in any aspect of life and business. However, greed itself is relative in trading, it is not all what people termed greed that is indeed greed. Greed can only be guilty of if one has a trading system and plans but reneges on them due to the belief that if they are set aside, more money would be made.

This will only put such traders in trouble as the system and plans initially prepared to be used are for reasons. They are there to guide our paths to success, why regende in them?

You are just entirely wrong here, you do not use the basis of Concern to make a judgment against anyone and anyone who is concerned is wise as it's a means to prove that the person is cautiously bothered about the happening in the market. Perhaps you should have said the person should be more speculative in this regard than fidgeting, but you never said that.

More analysis and speculation are the next steps here for the trader/investor to know the way forward. Also, you cannot crucify anyone for having made any informed decisions after the analysis, especially if the person liquidates his position due to the sense of danger. This is the financial market we are talking about, it is so dynamic and could be so tricky and deceptive at times. For this, you don't blame traders/investors when they lose their sleep on the market situation.

It is better to be concerned but act right instead of being too relaxed the way you are preaching it now. And the only way to act right is to continue to be conversant with the situation and continue to update analyses to reveal the best decision to be made.

It is good to invest but bad to prioritise it over your health. Your health is your wealth and must be the first priority because if you eventually make the money and make it big and your health is not good enough to enjoy it, you will still be at a loss. So, advise your friend better about this, maybe he can find the means to do the two together as it's worthless to gain money and be sick.

Furthermore, necessity is a need, you can't do without it, or else, you will directly suffer. By virtue of that, the investment is not particularly a necessity but the health you cited is. The investment becomes a necessity if you cannot survive without it, just like those who do not have any job/work but want to invest or do business (necessity).

But for those who are working and have other means of income, the investment is not a necessity as their living doesn't depend on it (want).

The simple consequence would be the falling price of cryptocurrency assets. Not even one of them would be able to survive this and Bitcoin will lead the fall. I like the way things are falling into place with what I said that people did not take seriously at the time I started with this forum, but now, they are waking up. I hinted that the government is so powerful since my first months of joining, but as usual, people will say otherwise, they would be calling the decentralization power of cryptocurrency. Decentralization in the face of the government that has the absolute power in this regard? I don't think so.

The decentralization will only work when the websites, apps and other means by which they are being translated are allowed by the government. What if the government blocked that access? Including the CEX and DEX? People often believe in the DEX, but they often forget that it is also running online and it is people that would patronise it for it to function. What if it is now a criminal offence all over the world and strict internet surveillance is used?

I hope the day never comes, so we should embrace and cooperate with any regulation brought by the government, at least, it is better than losing everything.

I must say that I love your points, they are so precise. I said a similar thing in January or thereabout when I last posted here, the issue of being rich and poor is relative in gambling, and no one should generalize it to make it a measure gauge for all poor and rich people. What we should first establish are the amount the rich and the poor are willing to commit to gambling, the rate at which they want to commit it and the frequency of their gambling daily among others. Don't be surprised that the poor may love gambling more than the rich and gamble many times a day while the rich may gamble just once on that day despite having more money. The rich may just wager a little amount and will go his way, while the summation of all the daily gambling of the poor may be way more. Now, of course, if the poor are not addicted to gambling, they should not be doing that every day especially if it results in losses. Aside from addiction, something must have been causing the consistency, which may be regular winning or the fun derived from it. And if the reasons are from the two (fun and winning), then the gambler may still be doing fine since the money commented directly from the pocket to gambling may not be much on every risk-taking, so this is so relative to those factors.

As for the rich, they might also be gambling for fun or seriously as the case may be, and such would limit the amount risked. If your own case is to be observed, of course, rich people are not senseless too, they will moderate their spending while gambling. The fact that you are rich and worth $4m doesn't make you gamble $500,000 at a go, or else you will lose all your fortunes pretty soon. For this, everyone whether rich or poor must manage and moderate the way they gamble, nevertheless, their love for gambling, adduction, risk affinity and the entire benefits from it (money and psychological) will now determine how frequently it is being played by them.

I would have to go by the way of the OP here and I simply do not know what you are actually disagreeing with because your points and those of @Wiwo are two different thoughts which are still needed by gamblers to preserve the gambling psychology and acts. Wiwo was talking about self-examination which is also the main context of this thread, and if you must know, this is the overall evaluation of oneself and not merely being self-conscious. Mind you, those who are self-conscious can still make mistakes due to one of the emotional factors affecting gamblers, while some will not even be easily and immediately deciphered by the gambler, unless the fellow is just so sensitive and wise.

Now, don't be surprised that the reason(s) for the mistakes (hidden or not) may later be revealed through the evaluation that Wiwo was discussing in case you do not know. Which one is now greater?

Also, having gambling rules makes it better so that the gambler will not be randomising the self-examining exercise and thereby causing style drifting in gambling styles and rules. His advice is so on point if I must say. While yours is all about being cautious as a gambler, and nothing more.