Hmm. When I look, I see something different:



The issue isn't that there was a sudden surge in 'comorbidities' in 2020 that weirdly happened to coincide exactly with the Covid pandemic, even down to the March/April surge.
The issue is that there was a pandemic, and people died from Covid. And as you'd expect, many of those were people who already had underlying health issues.

Yes. Arsenal are so much better now than they were a few weeks ago, and Liverpool so much worse. It's why recent form is more important than league position when making bets. Liverpool, Wolves and Newcastle are falling fast, and the biggest surprise here is obviously Liverpool. Confidence is such a huge part of football, and when a winning team suddenly hits a losing run, it can start a downward spiral.

You're brave to bet on a tie in Man C vs Sheff U!!!
But it does make sense, with the odds at only 5%. If the 'real' chance is actually say 8%, and you make bets on 20 of these 5% markets and the 'real' chance is 8% on all of them, then it's likely that you'll come away with a profit.
There's perhaps another angle here, too, if you can find a sports event that is a few weeks or months away, then it's likely people will bet based on each team's current form... so you'd be able to exploit any changes in form between now and the event taking place, by profiting as the odds change.

I'm not sure. There are conflicting elements here. The higher the price goes, the more seriously governments will consider BTC and potentially legislating against it. But the higher the price goes, the more institutional adoption there is. So the situation is that the more pension funds and other institutional investors buy in and become exposed to BTC, the more the government wants to take action... but they'd be taking action not against the cliched money-laundering bitcoin criminal underworld, but rather against Wall St and friends.
So I don't know. The time to ban a thing is before it becomes a part of the fabric of society, i.e. before it becomes a threat. But governments are notoriously reactive rather than proactive, they are slow to move and pathologically short-termist.
Obviously it could go either way, but I take incoming establishment money as a good sign, and one that makes BTC's long-term survival and success more probable.

Yes, the chance of this happening is effectively zero.

You can still profit if the odds look favourable. If you put a bet on now, and then subsequent bets by other people swing the odds in your favour, then you can cash out to profit early, well before 2024 comes around.
It's interesting in that you're not betting just on the outcome itself, but you can also win by predicting how the odds will change over time. It gives two different opportunities to win... Not that you'd know from my consistent losses on the football

You're welcome.

Then what were they? You can dispute the reason, but something has been causing the death rate to surge well above usual levels. There's not been a cold/pneumonia/traffic pandemic...


https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

Once again, I'm not disputing that vit D confers health benefits and can help against Covid. But this doesn't mean government cover-up/conspiracy.

Argh, my impatience was my downfall! I posted my 3 bets when they were still live, and 2 of them lost... doesn't give me a great win percentage
But yes, it's a great platform and I have plenty of winning BTC bets elsewhere on Futuur, so all is not lost. I'm a more successful gambler than my entry here suggests!

Not sure if it's a Biden meme or a Trump meme, but in the interests of bridging the Rep/Dem gap and building a cross-party consensus to heal America, let's assume it's both.

Biden Receives First Box Of Wadded-Up Napkins And Receipts Comprising Trump Intelligence Briefing

I'm not disputing that consumption of vitamin D in sufficient quantities confers health benefits.
The part I take issue with is: vitamin D has health benefits, therefore Covid is a scam/conspiracy/government cover-up. This is a non sequitur.

This is because there isn't a George Russell card. That's just something cooked up by the media. He had an impressive race deputising for Hamilton, yes, but that doesn't immediately make him equivalent to a proven x7 world champion. It's media nonsense, no more than that. And it also overlooks the relationships Hamilton has built up over the years at Mercedes, and the valuable input he has no doubt provided into the build of that formidable car. A world champion does a lot of work outside the car as well.

I think one thing that's often overlooked is how Russell lost that race. Yes, he was unlucky, but consider Hamilton's win before that - when he knew he was right to override team orders that could have cost him the victory. Chances are that if Hamilton were in Russell's position, he'd still have managed the win where Russell didn't. Russell is a talented rookie, he's not yet a world-beater.

Villa to beat Burnley looks a solid bet. Villa were excellent last time out, and have been good all season. They've lost a couple to Man U and Man C recently, but arguably were unlucky not to pick up points in both games.

But then what do I know? My last football bet was Milan to beat Atalanta... and they lost 3-0 at home

The biggest misstep by governments has been waiting too long to implement restrictions, particularly back at the beginning of the first wave last year. Subsequent missteps have involved restrictions being too lax and halfhearted, and lifted too quickly.
'People' need to educate themselves and get a grasp of how a fatal pandemic works, and particularly a basic understanding of exponential progression. Governments fearing the people has been the weakness here, a rare instance where more authoritarian regimes have a better response.

It's an unusual market. Personally I do think there's a decent chance that BTC will drop back below 20k at some point this year - but at the same time I'm confident we'll also see BTC above 50k this year.
So betting 'yes' here to a drop below 20k doesn't necessarily imply a bearish outlook, more a view that volatility will be sufficient that at some point on BTC's inexorable journey to higher prices, it may once again clip below that 20k threshold.

No, Covid deaths are caused by Covid. Underlying health conditions make you weaker and more likely to die of Covid should you contract it, but comorbidities are comorbidities, not the cause. Low vitamin D levels can make you more susceptible, but doesn't change the cause.


^{[CITATION NEEDED]}


But you go on to quote a British MP recommending vitamin D supplements, and backing up his advice with data. Hardly a government conspiracy/cover-up.
The UK health service actively recommends vit D supplements, and indeed runs a service to offer it free to Covid-vulnerable groups: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/get-vitamin-d-supplements/

You can cash out to profit early, without waiting the 3 years. It all depends on how you think the betting will change. If you think the odds will swing in your favour, then you can place a bet and then sell early once they do. It's as much about predicting how the odds will change as it is about predicting the actual outcome of the event. Essentially this gives two separate ways to win.

The issue with this approach, though, is where do we stop? Hormone levels are a determining factor, yes. But what about, for example, height? You could be the most talented and skilled basketball player in the world, but if you're 5ft tall you'd never make it as a professional. How about if you have two really dedicated sprinters, both with perfect diet and training regimen, but one naturally has significantly more fast-twitch muscle fibres, and wins every time. Genetic and other natural variations account for at least a proportion of elite sports performance.

I suppose we could look at the paralympics to get some context. There are many different classifications of competitor, leading to many different versions of each event... but wherever you have bandings, you have some people at the top end of the band and some at the lower, some whose disability means they're on the border of bands A/B, and some who are on the border B/C... if they both get grouped as 'B' and have to compete against one another, then is that fair?

If the aim is to ensure a level playing field that removes all genetic or other innate advantage, then we don't just need a few more separate divisions of competition, we need as many divisions as there are people. Even if we tried to level it up by permitting hormone supplementation, that would only go so far, and would highlight the other physical factors.

I'd argue that elite sport is—and should be—about who is the best, not who makes the best of what they've got. If the fastest and strongest have certain innate physical advantages, and they have made full use of those advantages, then they deserve to be considered the best. If someone is biologically a woman, they should be allowed to compete as such, regardless of hormone levels (excepting of course illegal doping).

I would assume not, as you could then just place many tiny high odds bets and just take your pick of any 3 that win.

But if we can then I'd certainly like to modify mine, as 2 of my 3 bets above have now been resolved and I lost in both

The potential routes to immunity are a) get vaccinated, or b) contract the virus.

Obviously vaccination is not 100% effective, and will not safeguard against all future variants. But if virus mutation is sufficient to render current vaccines irrelevant, then the vaccines will be modified accordingly - modification being in general a simple, quick process, and not really comparable to the process of deriving a new vaccine from scratch. Take the annual updating of the flu vaccine as an example here.

Vaccination or infection are the routes to immunity. Take your pick as to which is preferable.

Obviously this will vary country by country (and likely also within countries), with some stricter than others. But if the vaccine prevents transmission as well as infection, then it does make perfect sense to have restrictions for unvaccinated people, who could be carriers and be infecting others. Particularly if the people without the Covid pass are those who have actively refused the vaccine, and are disproportionately likely to not wear masks or conform to social distancing measures.

I'll enter! I assume it has to be bets that are still open, i.e. we can't just make a load of bets and then post the winning ones here

Username: Cnut237
URLs:
https://futuur.com/q/125875/internacional-vs-gremio
https://futuur.com/q/125872/sao-paulo-vs-coritiba
https://futuur.com/q/125809/milan-vs-atalanta