I've been on this forum long enough to see perhaps hundreds of casinos come and go. They keep appearing and dying shortly afterward all the time, and I wonder why people still take such a high risk of opening a casino when there is a close to 100% chance your casino will fail That's kinda normal The majority of startups (like 90% or something to that tune) fail within their first year. Nassim Taleb says (and I generally agree with him) that it is required for the industry as a whole to prosper. More or less, people take risks because people are risky overall, and the rewards are high. Besides, entrepreneurs reveal more optimistic attitude toward life, and thus they are prone to underestimate the risks and overestimate their abilities This got me thinking about popular casinos. Of course, we all know the names. But they are usually years old, not anything from 2019-2020. The one exception is Stake.com, but I wouldn't count it as an example of a new casino appearing out of nowhere and attracting gamblers because it did not come out of nowhere (it's owned by Primedice). Is it just me or are there virtually no recent casinos that got popular? Or can you name some examples? And in general, do you think new casinos appearing in 2020 stand a chance against those with solid reputation and long time on the market? Let me guess, many have already mentioned wolf.bet |
|
|
|
Just for the record, I don't believe in all words and numbers I watch every fuckin day, someone is lying big time about the virus and economy Cuz you decided to go with me, here's my reply In fact, the outright lies are not as dangerous as half-truths. When someone tells you a half-truth, you can't actually blame them for telling you a lie. However, it still conveys only part of the truth (as per definition), and when you don't possess enough knowledge and understanding to get or deduce correctly the missing part, you are bound to arrive at erroneous conclusions, and entirely on your own at that (which is the whole idea behind it, i.e. to deliberately mislead) |
|
|
|
Well after all Las Vegas is the town that depends on tourists and gamblers, if they don't attract people they are just on loss, they need to pay bills, they need to cover salaries, but from where to get that money if people are not coming?
It's risky, but it's the only thing they can do actually, if they wish to survive. Of course, they will have to follow the regulations, masks and glows, distancing... Virus or not, we have to eat, and to eat we need to have a job and salary, you can't go against that! So it is not just about Vegas And that's the whole idea. We will have to live with the virus, and that's where things are going to take an interesting turn. We have basically set ourselves up to face a dilemma of whether the quarantine was of any help at all. If people continue to fall ill until everyone pulls through (well, not everyone, but you get the point), it means that with these attempts at social isolation we created more problems than solved. And then we may get stuck in a variety of sunk cost fallacy, stubbornly continuing on the course that has failed My medical relative told me that the quarantine will not lead to the fact that there will be no patients. Quarantine helps reduce the number of infected people per day and thus reduces the burden on hospitals. That is why many countries have established quarantines and other restrictions for their citizens This has been made known straight away However, there are stats (I posted a link somewhere around here) that essentially point out that the quarantine was ineffective for this purpose, at least in the States. In other words, without it there would be as many cases and as many victims. But if it was ineffective, it was actually less than useless, and has only added to our current economic woes when we look at the bigger picture. That's probably one of the reasons it has been lifted and dismantled without much ado |
|
|
|
I don`t believe that trading is based in probability since whales manipulate the market It doesn't really matter Beyond a slightest shadow of doubt, we can, at least theoretically, trace every price movement to some driving force or factor behind it. And so what? If you don't know what's pushing the price, your trading will be probabilistic, pretty much in the same way as coin tossing. Indeed, you can come up with some ideas about the factors currently at play, but if they are wrong, you will still be guessing the next price action (read, gambling) |
|
|
|
Not totally irrelevant, I agree that bitcoin has less use-case compare to some altcoins but the thing is somewhere down the road there are people who are open to crypto especially bitcoin and they are adopting it.
When did any altcoin had more use cases than Bitcoin? It never happened, even if Ethereum has more transactions, those transactions are just execution of smart contracts and moving tokens, they aren't a real world use for buying goods and services Says kettle to pot You make it look as if Bitcoin were widely used for buying goods and services. If anything, "just [the] execution of smart contracts" is everything in today's world. To buy goods and services we already have fiat, and, to be sure, Bitcoin doesn't have a lot to boast about in this department. The only area where it shines (I mean within the cryptocurrency domain) is an investment sector (i.e. when used as an alternative store of value or asset) |
|
|
|
Как, впрочем, и вы. Ни то и не другое Реальный диалог в районном суде: - Да ты вообще не юрист! - Да ты вообще не судья! - Меня Путин назначил!!! - Бог дал, Бог взял! - Я юридически грамотная! Моя логика в другом. Помимо угроз следует учитывать ещё и факт имущественной потери, если уж суды интерпретируют биткойны как имущество Сам по себе факт имущественной потери имеет значение для расчета компенсации, в чем герою этой истории как раз таки отказали (конкретно в криптовалютной части). Но это не особо отразилось на тюремных сроках для криптокрадов-вымогателей |
|
|
|
Well after all Las Vegas is the town that depends on tourists and gamblers, if they don't attract people they are just on loss, they need to pay bills, they need to cover salaries, but from where to get that money if people are not coming?
It's risky, but it's the only thing they can do actually, if they wish to survive. Of course, they will have to follow the regulations, masks and glows, distancing... Virus or not, we have to eat, and to eat we need to have a job and salary, you can't go against that! So it is not just about Vegas And that's the whole idea. We will have to live with the virus, and that's where things are going to take an interesting turn. We have basically set ourselves up to face a dilemma of whether the quarantine was of any help at all. If people continue to fall ill until everyone pulls through (well, not everyone, but you get the point), it means that with these attempts at social isolation we created more problems than solved. And then we may get stuck in a variety of sunk cost fallacy, stubbornly continuing on the course that has failed |
|
|
|
Those who gave a shit comment like "1 or max 2 trades a day is good", I've got an answer here.
It's a strategy to get rekt soon because it's not something compulsory to trade every single day. I've seen many successful traders not even trading for 2-3 years when they don't sense the necessity of trading. They pass the opportunities aside and see for the extreme possibility of their trades going into right directions. You need to trade only if you're sure enough that the outcome will be in your favor, the odds will be in your favor.
If we slightly modify this strategy, we can get a fully working version. The main principle for a beginner to stop trading every time when the number of unsuccessful transactions reaches the number of 3 in a row Yes, this can prevent him from more losses down the road And what next? This trader will get back to where he started at (minus the money lost). The point is, stopping in time won't teach you how to actually earn something. Therefore, in no case can it be a fully working version of a trading strategy nor a main principle as some part is missing. In fact, the biggest and most important part. After all, you are in it not to cut your losses short but to make dough, right? This is your design, and the part which is missing |
|
|
|
Cryptoworld is a world where there's a risk and reward, though we can work here but there is no job security unlike in the real world where we have an employer-employee relationship where we can assure the protection of the government That's an illusion of safety When you are stuck in an employer-employee relationship, as you call it, you can be kicked out at any moment for a plethora of reasons. Your company may go bust, you may cross paths with an abusive and vindictive boss, you may do something stupid on your own, or whatever. The truth is that there is no real protection unless you are the boss. Indeed, when you just start out on your own, you feel scared and intimidated. But with time, you are going to become more and more independent as more and more options turn up here and there. Seriously, who is more independent, Warren Buffett or the people he hires and fires as he sees fit? |
|
|
|
 Bill Gates has agreed to pay for Donald Trump’s wall... On the condition he gets to install windows |
|
|
|
However, we cannot rely entirely on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency because Bitcoin is not a stable currency Therefore it is better to use Bitcoin for long-term investments. You have to do other things besides crypto.
Bitcoin is really hard to manipulate especially that volatility is not the only problem in making bitcoin as your asset. There are a lot of factors that can affect the price of bitcoin such as oil, and other commodities in the market You probably meant easy to manipulate, right? That's why relying on bitcoin is not a good decision and that's the reason why governments are not giving a chance for cryptocurrency to become legalized in their country I don't see the connection here Relying on bitcoin may not be a good decision overall (though that largely depends on an individual and his goals). However, I don't think that's the reason why governments are not legalizing it as a functional currency in their countries. Governments are afraid of competition, but competition would make Bitcoin stronger (not sure about fiat currencies), and that means more adoption and less room for manipulation as well as volatility |
|
|
|
Ну это примерно как застрелить человека (предполагать застрелить), который умер полчаса назад своей смертью. Вроде бы как убийства нет (ибо нельзя убить труп), а умысел на убийство есть
Насколько я понимаю, в законодательстве преступлением считается такое деяние, при котором есть потерпевшие. Пример с застреленным трупом, по-моему, не очень удачный. Можно ли застреленный труп считать потерпевшим? А просто застреленного считать потерпевшим можно? Если умысел есть, а потерпевших нет, то вряд ли это можно считать преступлением. Или, по-вашему, можно? Судят ведь не за умысел, а за преступление Вы не только не экономист, но и еще и не юрист Открою вам такую страшную тайну, как покушение на преступление (ст. 30 УК РФ). Трупа нет, т.е. получается что и преступления как такового тоже нет, а могут осудить как за убийство: 2. Если убийство может быть совершено как с прямым, так и с косвенным умыслом, то покушение на убийство возможно лишь с прямым умыслом, то есть когда содеянное свидетельствовало о том, что виновный осознавал общественную опасность своих действий (бездействия), предвидел возможность или неизбежность наступления смерти другого человека и желал ее наступления, но смертельный исход не наступил по не зависящим от него обстоятельствам Постановление Пленума Верховного Суда РФПо логике суда, получается, что если бы вам угрожали, но при этом ничего не отобрали, то как бы вы, так сказать, не сильно потерпевший, если можно так выразиться. Разве что угрожающих можно привлечь за сам факт угроз Не знаю, как насчет логики суда, но вашу логику что-то я совсем не уловил. Угроза жизни вполне себе квалифицируется как уголовно наказуемое деяние (ст. 119 УК РФ) |
|
|
|
1) It is equally good as a medium of exchange.
2) It is a good long-term value storage You again come up with mutually exclusive starting conditions There is no good medium of exchange on par with fiat currency that would be at the same time as good a long-term store of value. Basically, you have just invented a perfect money, instantiated it (which you can't), and then pitted it against a real fiat currency that is always inflationary and thus can't be a good long-term store of value. Indeed, the fiat currency would lose and collapse, but this approach is meaningless as one can always imagine something perfect, not possible in real life, and ignore this fact |
|
|
|
Хороший коммент от Геннадия М: ...
Получается, если бы преступники ограбили клиента только на биткоины, и не взяли рубли, то их бы оправдали или дали условный срок за хулиганство Там все немного сложнее Вот сообщения пресс-службы питерских судов по этой теме ( первое и второе). Как я понимаю, столь суровые сроки эти деятели получили за вымогательство, связанное с угрозой применения насилия. И в данном случае неважно, является ли крипта объектом гражданского права или нет, ибо умысел на завладение чужим имуществом все равно остается, даже если имущества как такового нет – физически или юридически. Например, у вас вымогают миллион рублей, которого у вас нет, угрожают закопать и тыкают в вас (холодным) паяльником. Смогут ли вымогатели отползти по хулиганке, типа мы так шутканули? Думаю, что едва ли Ну это примерно как застрелить человека (предполагать застрелить), который умер полчаса назад своей смертью. Вроде бы как убийства нет (ибо нельзя убить труп), а умысел на убийство есть. Если говорить по существу, суд ничего не изменил, и преюдиции здесь нет |
|
|
|
The simple explanation is that bad events are more important for our survival, while the good ones not so much. If we don't learn our lessons (read, quickly forget about troubling experiences), we risk getting into the same situation again and again. Put differently, the natural selection has efficiently got rid of those enjoying excessive amounts of optimism. So, in a sense, we are all innate pessimists
Now the mucky business of actual survival is largely solved we need to start evolving the other way otherwise pessimism will kill us with hopelessness and division Well, I wouldn't assume that If we use a trading analogy here, in the past we could only take long positions and then prepare ourselves for the crash. In today's world, we can short almost anything, and thus we should also prepare ourselves for the crash in reverse. In other words, being permaoptimist nowadays is as a losing strategy as it has become for being a permapessimist Long story short, we should be realists, but definitely not along the commonsensical view of it as some middle ground in between, i.e. neither here nor there. Realistically, we should be optimists when it serves us right and pessimists when it serves us better. And that means in-depth understanding of and insight into whatever we are engaged or involved in |
|
|
|
So true! I always believe that there' s always good in every bad situation, and that positive things were already mentioned. Though it made me sad to realize that aside from the quick transmission of Virus all over the world, domestic violence also arises. Most people are suffering from anxiety and depression thinking what would happened next and how long will it takes for us to just stay at home. But, somehow I know that all this world's craziness will be over soon. We will get back into place with God's perfect timing.
Unfortunately once we managed to get passed the current craziness, people will find something new. I believe it's in human nature to always look for the bad things in the world. As everyone now, bad experiences are stored in the brain for much longer than happy experiences. I don't think we are all pessimists but with the constant flow of bad news in the media. It's very hard to always focus on the good in the world That's a tendency which evolved naturally The simple explanation is that bad events are more important for our survival, while the good ones not so much. If we don't learn our lessons (read, quickly forget about troubling experiences), we risk getting into the same situation again and again. Put differently, the natural selection has efficiently got rid of those enjoying excessive amounts of optimism. So, in a sense, we are all innate pessimists |
|
|
|
Один только Брейвик чего стоит, и, полагаю, там таких еще много (на всякий случай напишу, что не разделяю его взгляды). Стрелять он научился в местной армии -- значит, армия там есть и стрелять в ней учат хорошо. Ну и напомню, что при Гитлере из всей Европы реально партизанили только сербы и норвеги (ну еще греки немного, но там с немцами больше бриты воевали)
Посмотрел график по умышленным убийствам Норвегии и США, и оказалось что на сто тысяч населения их показатели практически равны. Довольно странно на самом то деле. Но мой пример был о том, что даже в адекватных странах такое сплошь и рядом И в адекватных странах есть неадекватные люди Думаю, кстати, и с фондой не так всё просто. Там, скорее всего, тоже грабят, просто, видимо, сильно не афишируют это. Ну или есть специфические инструменты отъёма Нет там никаких специфических инструментов отъёма Посадят на тот же утюг перед терминалом – сам выведешь все свои активы со всех рынков куда скажут. Разница только в механизме получения информации. Если исключить вариант "сам проболтался", то непосредственно с биржи могут слить информацию по конкретному трейдеру или всю базу трейдеров целиком по аналогии с Бинансом. Ну и не исключаем звенья цепочки, куда такая информация официально предоставляется, например, в налоговые органы. Налоговая инспекция – это вообще самый удобный способ заглянуть в кошелек человека. За исключением крипты, разумеется. Хотя есть и такие, кто и крипту светит перед налоговой |
|
|
|
Now that some sports leagues are bound to resume and others are already resumed, do you think it will play a big role in their performance if somehow a team is against a team with recovered Covid-19 players on it? The mindset is still there that even these former Covid-19 players are now cleared and 100%, the worry is still there.
For me, yes. It can play as a factor in my future betting That's outright stupid. Most of us are regularly suffering from a cold, often a few times a year. And this disease is basically the same type of infection as Covid-19. So how do you feel when you engage in social interaction with people who recovered from this illness or another similar virus infection, that is, influenza, or common flu? And what about yourself? The sleep of reason produces monsters |
|
|
|
А крипта серая вообще везде. Я помню читал новость, что в Норвегии крипто инвестор выпрыгнул с окна, пока неизвестные выбивали входную дверь его дома. И это блин даже не США или Англия, а мирная Норвегия! Я бы не сказал, что Норвегия такая уж мирная страна Один только Брейвик чего стоит, и, полагаю, там таких брейвиков еще много (на всякий случай напишу, что не разделяю его взгляды). Стрелять он научился в местной армии -- значит, армия там есть и стрелять в ней учат хорошо. Ну и напомню, что при Гитлере из всей Европы реально партизанили только сербы и норвеги (ну еще греки немного, но там с немцами больше бриты воевали) |
|
|
|
trading can not be separated from the probability...
each trader makes a decision from deep analysis and then produces a probability, and every decision to sell, buy, or hodl will greatly affect the assets of the trader. many people think trading is not much different from gambling but they don't understand that gambling is a guess that requires luck to win That's probably not what OP means As I got it, he seems to refer to the random nature of trading as it reveals itself in price action and our reaction in the form of trading choices and decisions. So it is not so much about the probability for something to go wrong (as in "everything about life is based on probability because no one actually knows what tomorrow holds") but rather about this random nature of concrete price movements. It is not that they are random on their own, but they are effectively random for us and our decision-making machinery |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
