... in the long run almost any gambler is going to lose money, unless of course he is one of the lucky ones who can win the jackpot?
That's no-brainer, but surprisingly a lot of people here think that somehow it's possible to come up with a "winning strategy" for games with a mathematical edge on the side of the casino. The only way to be profitable in such games is pure luck. Simple as. To have a true "winning strategy" means to shift the edge to your side, be it by counting cards in BJ, or taking advantage of high-cumulation jackpots. In my entire conscious life I have only met two people who could make money from sports betting and they were constantly under some kind of pressure from the outside. Earning money in gambling is much harder than the average job and it takes more than a dozen liters to perfect your strategy.
Gambling (of any sort) as a main source of income is probably the worst and most stressful lifestyle one could choose. Even if somehow you manage to get consistent profits, there's always the sense of uncertainty creeping up, as well as other risks i.e. of being banned/limited by gambling sites. |
|
|
|
AI is making humans too lazy. On the other side, saving time and assisting with any study. Particularly if you want to know something historical like Bitcoin can provide you with some information. But there's always the worry that the information might not be accurate to the letter. because AI is created by humans, as are data inputs. AI can reply with knowledge that has been recorded. No guarantee of accurate information.
AI agrees with you.  But truth to be told, considering how young the technology is, it won't surprise me at all if, in short-to-medium-term future, it will completely replace old, traditional sources of information in the likes of wikipedia etc or tools like google translate. Soon, AI will pose a threat to humanity.
Already does. And it's funny how almost all experts and analysts agree with that, but nothing is being done to prevent this. |
|
|
|
Hmmm... looks weird. Is there an official (or unofficial) explanation for this? After all, >4 billion bets should definitely smooth out all the statistical anomalies and give the expected figure. I think there are problems with statistics, often casinos hold promotions with bonuses and a reduced house edge (at least I read about such a promotion in a thread dedicated to investing in a casino bankroll) and apparently this gives such a distortion.
This particular site has an option to invest, so I don't imagine they would reduce HE as a promotion toll, as they'd need to pre-agree such move with all the investors first, which is not feasible. But maybe the "profit" figure is indeed stated after deducting some other expenses (i.e. referral commission) and that's why it's lower than it should be. But that would probably be accounted for on DiceSites. I'd ask in their ANN thread, but it's no longer monitored by admins. Other similar sire, Bustadice also is a bit off in the EV/Profit ratio, which stands at 82% after over 3 billions bets. I think it's kind of expected for a low-edge games to have big swings i profitability. Max winnings settings also plays big part here, if you set it too high, if someone happens to win big, it could take a very long time to bring the profit close to the EV. |
|
|
|
...
Yes, I notice a seller that is 24 hours online I don't know if they are using bot or have an employee to do so. and yes usually they just transferred the money without anything to say become a p2p seller is not just waiting for the order but also staring at the chart and notice price movement too right
I figure there's got to be a way of automating the process. You have to offer competitive exchange rates otherwise buyers will go elsewhere, the average order is probably not super big, and, judging by the total number of transactions for each merchant, the total volume is not very high either. So I don't expect many would be willing to commit much time to monitor orders whole day for a few $ per hour profit at best. |
|
|
|
Yet another email from BlockFi, confirms the deadline for filing Proof of Claim is set to 31 March 2023. They also confirm that there's no need to file such if you agree with the amount BlockFi stated in the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities. Within the coming days, Kroll will supposedly send info on how can we access and view our account balances. Last week, we took another important step in our chapter 11 proceedings. At the January 30th hearing, the Court approved our motion setting forth the procedures for the claims process. To protect our clients’ personal information, BlockFi received interim Court approval to redact clients’ names and other personal information from the Schedule of Assets and Liabilities. In the coming days, clients will receive information from our claims agent, Kroll, which will include information on how to view account balances, details regarding the client’s individual claim(s), deadlines for the proof of claim process, and instructions on how to file a proof of claim. Communications from Kroll will be sent via mail and/or by email to the address associated with your BlockFi account. BlockFi provided its claims agent, Kroll, with clients’ addresses and emails as of the Petition Date, November 28, 2022. If your address or email has since changed, or if you would like to confirm that your account details are accurate, please contact Kroll directly to update your information. Clients may contact Kroll at (888) 773-0375 (Toll Free) or (646) 440-4371 (International), or email blockfiinfo@ra.kroll.com. The general bar date, which is the deadline to submit proof of claims and applies to all clients, has been set for 5:00 P.M. (prevailing Eastern Time) on March 31, 2023. Clients will not need to submit a claim if they agree with the amounts that BlockFi filed for them in the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities.
We understand that you may have questions during this process. Additional information regarding our chapter 11 proceedings, including the proof of claim process, can be found by visiting the website for BlockFi’s claims agent Kroll at https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/blockfi. We will continue to communicate with our clients throughout this process as we work to maximize value for all clients and stakeholders. BlockFi |
|
|
|
83% chance of losing that's a lot of unfavourable chance compared to the 17% chance of probability. Like no sane person would want to put in a good amount of cash for this as the chances of winning is far way too slim despite the what you have to profit in if you're lucky to win, but then,how do you know you would be lucky.
I think on a scale of 1-100 I'll put 10% of my money for such gamble for it's too risky to be tempted place a huge bet on it.
Well, that's the point of this topic, to figure out a way to determine the sensible stake for such bet. The only non-emotional approach is probably just to use kelly criterion which suggests the optimal would be 9.5% of your bankroll. So your 10% call seems spot on  |
|
|
|
Yes, it could be, but in reality, if using an AI for that you would likely to end up on a scam site with very favorable odds, but no intention to pay you out ever.
Easy fix, we could just filter out untrusted sites, or instruct it to only use whitelisted ones. Another problem with positive EV games is that you need to make many millions of bets to really take advantage of that.
Depends on what kind of bets are we talking about I guess. But yeah, generally speaking you'd need a large number of bets for your average profit/loss to be in line with expected value. Which doesn't mean you can't be profitable in just a few bets. Side note: sometimes millions bets may not be enough. Looking i.e. at the BitVest's stats even after 4.7 billions bets, their profit is only at 47.6% of EV (assuming those stats are correct). |
|
|
|
Alot of people dont realise this but investing in bitcoin or ethereum will never make you rich anymore. It might 2x or 3x but this is not like buying bitcoin at $200 like in 2015 and having it go 345x times your investment. Don't belive all those articles which are saying Bitcoin is gauranteed to go to $1,000,000.
Many believed back in late 2021 that bitcoin will at least go to $100,000. So nobody sold at $69000 and look what happened. When the general population thinks something will happen usually its the complete opposite.
I wouldn't recommend it, but technically speaking you could still get rich by trading bitcoin with leverage (margin trading). Or just by active trading, accumulating at the bottoms, and selling the tops - you don't have to time the market perfectly and it may take years (if not decades) to get 'there' - but wherever there's a market, volume, and some price actions - there's also an opportunity to make money. But yeah, the only way we could see another x300 is either in an apocalyptic scenario when fiat systems collapse and Bitcoin jumps in to replace them, or when it first drops to a few-hundreds range and shoots back up. |
|
|
|
I tried many time to use this bot but whenever I tried to open they gave me message "Slots are Full" then someone send me Whatsapp Chat GPT bot but it's was very slow. Today I am able to use it without any trouble.
What was the whatsapp version called? Was it God in the box? It was working fine for me but they limited it to only 10 messages per month for the free trial, so not much joy there. One the best technology I ever used in my life.
It's pretty impressive indeed, but don't get carried away into thinking it's some sort of all-knowing computer that is always right. It has a lot of limitations and that's not going to change anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
To play a devil's advocate, Charlie Munger is 99 years old investor who spent his entire career chasing stocks with good "intrinsic" value. You can't really expect him to pivot on his approach at this stage in life.
He has a lot of interesting things to say, which doesn't mean he cannot be wrong.
And I don't get the "100% edge for the house" remark. Who would even be the house here? Satoshi? Early investors? 2nd wave of investors? Devs?
|
|
|
|
When you say safer, what do you mean? What does it mean that the private key is encrypted using your biometrics? Or encrypt the password so that decryption is done using biometrics or just a tool to unlock the wallet using your biometric data? or create wallet seed using your biometrics?
There are a lot of wallets that you can unlock or decrypt using a fingerprint or eye, but the question is how can this enhance protection?
Biometrics could work well but only as a second layer of security (i.e. as a 2FA), but generating wallets from fingerprints or eye scans is probably a horrible idea. They could be easily replicated, or you could lose access to it i.e. if you burn or cut your finger, leaving scars that change your prints etc. |
|
|
|
|
All he'll get will be a slap on the wrist.
Considering how connected he was and all the political donations that he made, he'll probably get ~4-5 years in a comfy prison, with luxuries not available for any common inmate, and he'll be out in 1-2 years, enjoying the stash that got "hacked" after the shit hit the fan.
Just look at other crypto figures who got sentenced: Charlie Shrem or Mark Karpeles (who coincidently also happened to be God's Chosen people, which can make you go "hmmm"), they got out in no time and the time they did seemed almost like a summer camp (judging i.e. by Shrem's posts from prison, describing his life in there).
|
|
|
|
...
They have ran a long time running campaign on this forum and then stopped due to some issues of the owner arent paying its participants.Dont know if its been settled
already ...
Thanks, I did not know that. That's a big, red flag for me. I do understand that any business operator can experience some liquidity issues once in a while which can cause delays but I can't relate to people owing money to others and just staying quiet and not responding for prolonged periods of time. I understand that all the participants (and staff) got paid eventually, but LL still has some negative feedback which probably won't go away, as the reason for that feedback was the way he conducted his obligations, rather than just a fact of not making payments.  Maybe that's the reason LL is not active on bitcointalk anymore... |
|
|
|
I find it pretty hard to make sense of what's written in this article. After reading it, I still don't know whether you can or cannot hold or trade crypto in Bangladesh, and whether statements from their central bank are only recommendations or are they interpretations of existing laws and are legally binding. The central bank's announcement came as confusion built after it sent a letter to the Criminal Investigation Department of the police that trading of cryptocurrencies cannot be considered apparently as a crime although virtual coins are illegal under the laws of the country. This literally says that you can't hold any cryptos but it's not a criminal offense if you trade them  To be fair, it's probably not the author of the article who's to blame, but just the Bangladeshi regulatory mess. |
|
|
|
Podobno przechodzili audyt bitcoinowych środków:
...
To nie był pełny audyt, co sama firma Mazars oświadczyła. Co śmieszniejsze, kilka dni po tym Mazars wycofali się całkiem ze świadczenia usług w branży krypto: https://time.com/6241755/binance-mazars-halts-crypto-work/I tu możemy mieć mały paradoks, gdzie Binance (czy inne giełdy) nawet chcąc zrobić pełny audyt (który chyba muszą mieć robiony), mogą mieć problemy ze znalezieniem firmy z czołówki która by sie tego podjęła. Zgaduje że dla dla audytorów z tzw Big 4, krypto to wciąż zbyt śliski temat i zbyt duże ryzyko reputacyjne gdyby coś poszło nie tak. Z tym, że bitcoin to tylko mała część całości i jak zauważył PawGo na takie audyty należy patrzeć z przymrużeniem oka. W filmie "Big Short" jest taka zapadająca w pamięć scena o tym jak osoba z firmy audytorskiej tłumaczy że musi wystawić pozytywną ocenę bo w innym przypadku klient pójdzie do konkurencji - dobrą ocenę i tak dostanie, tylko za usługę zarobi ktoś inny.
...
W Big Short chodziło o agencje ratingowe a nie o audytorów, o ile mnie pamięć nie myli. |
|
|
|
Would there be bets for the Oscars this year, cant exactly remember if there was previous but pretty sure we did bet on it in previous years. I can remember being convinced on the Anthony Hopkins film but I forget if I bet the actor or the film or both. Surely its popular enough to qualify on the major categories and get the volume of bets back and forth for proper odds.
I don't expect there's a high demand for that. The popularity of the Oscars (and the Hollywood garbage in general) dropped drastically compared to past years. Most people were only aware of the last year's one because of Will Jones slapping Chris Rock. |
|
|
|
I asked because people might worry to let their bitcoins at the mixer for too long like 3 to 4 days. I know having better anonymity is better but at the same time, it increases risk because common fear is people don't know what will happen with that service.
Your fear does not increase the actual risk. The risk is the same whether the mixing takes 10mins or 3 days. Any chance to consider giving users to get payout after like 1 to 2 hours or 10 minutes but to a different receiving address?
Well, they do have Time Delay slider, which you can just set to 0 minutes if you wish to. I mean the mixer can user mixed coins from like 3 to 7 days previously for payouts for that user. Then their bitcoin sent to the mixer will be mixed and used for payouts for future users 3-7 days later.
Either I don't understand your question, or you don't understand the benefit of time delay. It doesn't matter how long coinomize holds funds before sending them to a new customer's address. What matters is the time between you sending to coinomize and coinomize sending to your new address(es). i.e. if you send 1.2345btc to mixer and 10 mins later a new transaction of 1.2345btc goes into your wallet, then even if there's no "hard" connection between those 2 amounts and the coins have different origins - it's not hard (for anyone analysing all bitcoin transactions) to make a logical conclusion that those 2 transactions may be linked and are not coincidental. |
|
|
|
Is 0.1BTC a lot and enough for long-term holding? I calculate my extra income that I use for DCA and I feel like this is the range of BTC I will end up owning on the long run, anything more will put me in a very tight position or maybe I need to upgrade my side job to earn more for investing into Bitcoin. What do you feel about this? 0.1 BTC good enough or not.
If the best you can save up, in the long run, is an equivalent of ~$2,300, then your best bet would be to acquire some marketable skills and boost your earnings. That 0.1btc is unlikely to be a "make it" stack - meaning you won't be able to retire on that and will still need to have some other source of income. So hold some bitcoins but don't put all your hopes in it. Focus on increasing skills and earnings. On a side note, it only takes BTC0.262 to be in the top 1% of holders of the world population ( BTC21 divided by 1% of the total current world population) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
