Yes. But even so, it potentially locks up your Ooms for years, which means you can't place them on other bets in the interim.
Having said that, you can still make strategic bets based on which way you think the odds will go, and then draw the money out early.

For example, I'm sorely tempted to bet 'no' on the below. I think the chance of 'no' winning here should be close to 100%... but given the time it takes to get a manned mission up and running, let alone the actual travel time, I'd anticipate the odds would swing significantly well in advance of 2024, so you could take profit a long time before the outcome of the event itself became formally resolved. Bit of an extreme example, but it illustrates the point - you don't have to just bet on the outcome, you can also bet on which way you think the odds will swing, over any timeframe, and then take profit accordingly.

Perhaps, but I doubt this is intentional, and is more likely due to the phenomenal rise in BTC's dollar price over the last couple of months.

0.4mBTC seems reasonable at most times, but obviously if the price continues to increase then this may need to be reduced. Perhaps the ideal solution is that the minimum threshold could be set to fluctuate based (roughly) on the dollar value?

The table is taking shape now and most teams are in the 'right' sort of positions I think, that will continue for the remainder of the season. The one that might change significantly is possibly Arsenal, who seem to have arrested their slide and are back on the way up. Expect them to be solidly in the top half before long.

It will be black again next season: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/lewis-hamilton-mercedes-black-livery-b1786800.html

Whether this commitment suggests that the contract with Hamilton will continue or not next year is of course open to speculation. Difficult to determine how much Mercedes' decision is influenced by what Hamilton wants, and how much by what they think about the issue as a team. In general I suppose, once you've committed to raising an issue, you don't stop unless something significant happens to address it.

Strategically, the Dems had to make the move as it puts Republicans in an impossible position - A) denounce their leader, or B) be seen as complicit in (and supportive of) the storming of the Capitol and the attempt to subvert democracy.

It will be interesting to see how many Republicans stand alongside the Democrats once the actual trial takes place. I think there is actually a reasonable chance of Dem success, as more Republicans will surely desert their master after what I suspect will be a messy few days as we approach the Biden inauguration. All 50 states are on alert for armed protests. There will be attacks, most likely fatal attacks, which will likely face a stronger police response than last time, and an aftermath in which Republicans will face a difficult choice and be forced to take a side.

I'm going for the bets that offer quicker results, too. I've just made my first 'real money' bet - only a small amount at the moment, but it's a beginning!
I do think 97% is too low; this one has to be well over 99% in reality, as the question has surely already been settled.

It's weird, isn't it? The longer it goes on without news of an agreement, the more you wonder if there is a fundamental problem that can't be resolved. Of course the news outlets are coming out with all sorts of wild rumours, probably none of which are true... but still, why no news?

The word I'd use is gnomic...




Based on the above—and I'm assuming quite reasonably that 'air' is a typo, and should read 'hair'—Trump is a big fan of bitcoin.
He's undeniably volatile and has thin hair: he's equating himself to crypto.

And then he doubles down on this in the next sentence. 'Assets' is another characteristic typo, and should read 'asses'. Asses facilitating unlawful behavior is obviously an oblique reference to his proxy-storming of the Capitol.

This one is really tempting at only 3%! Whilst I do think he'll take office on the 20th, there has to be a reasonable chance, surely, that it will get postponed, given the legitimate threats of violence from some fanatics.
It looks like with the reward limit set at 1,000, the max you can bet is around 38 Ooms. Is anyone tempted? Bet 38 and win 1,000?

I take the general point, but I think that from a betting perspective this is okay. Particularly on the Futuur platform, where if you look into the details of each event, you can see the criteria for evaluating a result detailed quite clearly. So the vagueness or uncertainty of determining the outcome in the real world is already factored into the outcome criteria, and it forms a part of your consideration when entering into the bet.

I'm starting to consider moving to bitcoin, too. My Ooms bets have all come good so far, I'm on a roll, and I'm in profit.
I do of course expect this to change dramatically once I start using real money

I do like the platform, and the breadth of betting options coupled with a nice clean UI is certainly appealing.

I'm glad for them that they got a win at last. It did take a bit of luck, but maybe they can turn things around a bit from here and start picking up a few more points. I certainly expect them to still get relgated, and likely remain bottom of the table, but with a win under their belts now they might start to nick a few points here and there off some mid-table teams.

There are interesting parallels here. Trump is (to an extent) distancing himself from the actions of the mob that he incited, just as Republican representatives are starting to come out against Trump and in favour of impeachment. The whole thing is starting to fall apart. I'm sure that 'Trumpism' will continue to exist and thrive, but for the man himself it looks increasingly like he will be abandoned by his own party.

I'm not convinced by this. Trickle-down as a theory has I think been disproved by the history of the last few decades. The rich get richer and keep the poor at a basic subsistence level where they can. The rich need the poor to be willing to work on whatever terms the rich offer.

Yes, it's certainly interesting and does encourage early betting. Essentially you can win on this by betting on the betting itself! If you make an early bet, and then the odds swing in the way you think they will, you can cash out to profit regardless of what eventually happens in the event. Quite an intriguing approach, and it does add another layer of complexity - when you see early odds developing, are they doing so because people genuinely think that will be the outcome, or are these bets placed on how the betting swing is likely to develop?

I'd expect a lot of chopping and changing between then and now. We are still in (Northern hemisphere) mid-winter, and cases are likely to continue to rise before they get better. I would treat the current calendar, particularly the earlier races, as provisional. We just don't know how this thing is going to evolve.

It's difficult to quantify the Trump effect, but certainly there has been some effect, yes. The US has 4% of the world's population but has been hovering somewhere north of 20% of the world's Covid deaths. The government are certainly culpable, as they are in other countries. The UK with Boris "I've been shaking hands with everyone" "Masks aren't needed" Johnson is little better. Anecdotal evidence from France suggests only around half their population are willing to take the vaccine. The situation isn't great.

Yes, it's bizarre. Most people would think if they did something illegal somewhere where there are a load of security cameras and TV crews, they might get identified and face consequences further down the line. Perhaps it's a mob mentality thing that nothing can hurt them because they are part of a group, and they don't consider the outcome for themselves as individuals. I don't know. Some weird psychology though.

Still no news on the Hamilton contract... wonder just how long this will drag on? Of course it's impossible to tell if there's any real problem here, but still, the negotiations are taking a long time. Really if the two sides can't find an agreement, you'd expect Hamilton to blink first, wouldn't you? Surely? Mercedes can find another winning driver, but Hamilton can't find another winning team. He has the all -time record of 8 championships squarely in his sights, and is financially set up for life - surely he wouldn't refuse to sign because of a reduced pay packet?

It's quite shocking that we are still in this situation, but I don't think we can let governments off the hook. A capable administration would not allow this to persist for a year and act so weakly that once we come around to the anniversary things are worse than ever. Yes, anti-vaxxers etc certainly don't help, but the principal cause of the problem is that governments habitually act only with the short-term in mind, and generally reactively rather than pro-actively. Find a government that locked down before it became a problem, and you'll find a country that has escaped relatively lightly.