Basically what makes people become more burdened is because they are unable to meet their family's needs, so pessimistic thoughts will arise about doing anything. So before getting involved in many things such as investment, we should look at the position of the financial structure first and then look for patterns to get involved in investment. When our daily needs are met properly, when we invest, we don't have a burden, so we can focus more and not place risks in it.
That's the thing. It's easy to set up and maintain healthy financial habits if you have a nice surplus of your regular income over your expenses. But all the advice regarding emergency fund and investing is pointless when one does not earn enough to meet their needs. That's why probably the most valuable advice, especially for younger people, is to "invest in yourself", i.e. get a set of marketable skills which will boost your income and make it way easier to manage your money or maybe even retire at relatively young age. Being on a low income your entire life can be a real nightmare. |
|
|
|
Whether the stoppage in the first fight was caused by the doctor or because Walker put a joke in the wrong place, what is clear is that Walker has learned a lot from that first encounter. He should be able to know and study Ankalaev's fighting style to have a chance of winning. I see the first fight being Ankalaev's and if it continues it's possible that Walker will be beaten with a finish. I think Walker or at least his team knows that. The second fight became unpredictable because they already knew each other's weaknesses even though the first fight ended in a no contest.
That illegal knee was the best that happen to Walker in that fight. He was getting beat up by Ankalaev in those first few minutes and looked like he was about to get KOed or submitted. He did OK with all the feints and calf kicks, and that sneaky flying knee after faking damage from a body shot was quite funny - but all that wasn't good enough for Ankalaev and he must show up with a better plan. But there's not much you can do when the other guy is equally good, if not better, in striking and better on the ground. Walker has to rely on luck. Bookies seem to agree. |
|
|
|
I think Fury could have gone into his fight with Ngannou unprepared, maybe he underestimated him. I think Joshua will win this fight comfortably. He has no choice but to stay 100% focused in every pre fight training camp and be ready for every fight. If he loses many more his career is over.
According to Fury himself, the poor performance was not to underestimating Francis, but more due to the fact they had no material (footage of any Ngannou's boxing fights) to use to analyse Francis' style. Plus, I think he admitted that he was simply better than anyone expected, which is true. Joshua is definitely in way more comfortable position in this regard. He knows what to expect and will not underestimate him. Then again, Francis and his team could surprise everyone again and present a completely different style than in the Fury fight. I too favour Joshua to win, but it won't necessarily be a walk in the park. Technically, no. You just have to be a top 15 ranked opponent to challenge for a belt and Ngannou is currently ranked 10th by the WBC so theoretically he could challenge for the title, which is crazy considering he's above Hrgovic, Joyce and Dubois.
How on earth is he ranked that high (or at all). He did do very well, but it was still a loss. Do they award ranking points for style etc? |
|
|
|
But what about Poirier? What would be the benefits he could receive? Hooker, Turner or RDA looks more popular, much easier opponents.
All 3 mentioned are OK-ish fighters but no material for champions. Setting any of them up against Dustin would be pretty risky. If Dustin were to lose, his superstar status would be tarnished but none of those 3 could take his place as they're simply not good enough. I've done my homework on Saint-Denis and the guy is the real deal + he's bringing in a lot of views from all MMA fans from France. Dustin is taking a big risk, but UFC can't keep sheltering their stars forever, they have to let some fresh blood in. There is no way that Saint Denis is a favorite of the match. He has a good grappling but he is not that good to be a favorite. It's a low-risk money fight for Dustin Poirier, he also probably wants to get a title shot. Easy money and title shot, that's all.
Disagree. I could be misjudging him a bit by watching only highlights of his last fights, but BSD looks pretty sharp, is an all-round fighter, and is young and aggressive. The odds make sense to me. |
|
|
|
czyli co sprzedać?  wiem -> ryzyko po mojej stronie:D czy trzymać. Kurcze czy to tak trudno zostać milionerem Nie musisz reagować na każde wydarzenie rynkowe. Jeżeli nie masz planu jak to rozegrać konkretnie to lepiej trzymać spokojnie aż cena osiągnie zadawalający pułap. Najgorsze jest podejmowanie decyzji w popłochu, pod wpływem strachu, czy innych emocji. Teoria Janusza też zakłada że po korekcie będą dalsze wzrosty, więc nawet gdy jego przewidywania okażą się prawdziwe, to też nie będzie tragedii. Po prostu na pompę poczekamy nieco dłużej. Osobiście uważam że popyt na owe ETFy może zneutralizować wyprzedaż spekulantów "sprzedających fakty", więc wolę nic nie robić. |
|
|
|
sec zatwierdził wczoraj (10 stycznia) wszystkie etf-y BTCitcoina!!! Statement on the Approval of Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Productszatwierdzenie przez sec spotowych etf-ów BTCitcoina oznacza początek nowego rozdziału dla największej i najważniejszej kryptowaluty. oto najważniejsze punkty w skrócie: - handel ma rozpocząć się już w czwartek, 11 stycznia 2024 roku. nie zostało to jednak jeszcze oficjalnie potwierdzone.
- inwestorzy z ue nie będą mogli kupować funduszy etf (na razie) ze względu na wymogi regulacyjne.
- reakcja rynku: po ogłoszeniu autoryzacji rynek zareagował stosunkowo ostrożnie. jak dotąd zarówno przewidywana 'god candle', jak i masowa wyprzedaż nie zmaterializowały się. najbliższe dni i godziny z pewnością będą ekscytujące.
- jednak wyprzedaż, jeśli nadejdzie, prawdopodobnie będzie krótkotrwała. plotki głoszą, że ogromne ilości kapitału już czekają, aż etf-y spot BTCitcoina staną się zbywalne.
jesteśmy częścią bogatej elity, która stoi na czele Blackrock, Fidelity i innych 'big swinging dicks' na wall street  No wreszcie! Juz myslalem ze SEC znajdzie jakas wymowke aby dalej zwlekac z decyzja. Skubaniutki Gensler zwlekal do samego konca. No i teraz ciekawe co bedzie dzialo sie z cena w najblizszych dniach. Wyglada na to ze Tytanowy Janusz moze miec racje, cena zaczyna spadac, obecnie o ok 3.5% w ostatnich 24 godzin. Mam nadzieje ze nie zejdzie w dol zbyt drastycznie i utrzymamy sie powyzej $40k. |
|
|
|
We could all notice that archieved ATHs after a particular Halving surpasses their previous ATH and normally, the long overview chart for the whole BTC price movement is an uptrend..
But we can also notice that each time, the growth % in ATH since the previous one drops significantly. Which is kind of obvious but still worth noting, as there are still people out there hoping for x100 or more in the net cycle just because it happened in the past. The 2017 ATH was a whooping 1,710% higher than the 2013 top, but 2021 one was "only" 346% higher than 2017 ATH. That's x5 drop. A x5 drop to the previous 346% means a 69% increase, so around $116k. |
|
|
|
Dont think that Ngannou would ever return to UFC. UFC rarely pay a million to a fighter (but fighters get more than a million if we calculate payment+ppv sales+victory bonus+sponsors). Here, from the start he got 10 times more he was earning in UFC. Now, as he has a place in board in PFL, media, fame, he dont really need to fight in mma to earn the same amount he earned in UFC.
Sure, but his boxing career could be short-lived if Joshua beats him easily. One of the reason for Fury's poor performance was no available material to analyse Ngannou's style and weaknesses. Joshua's team now has got at least something to work on. But if Francis somehow manages to get that win, he's almost guaranteed to stay in boxing, and would likely get a fight with a winner of Fury Vs Usyk. Dana has been pretty childish towards Francis saying things like he was scared to fight Jon Jones which is BS.
Did he really said that lol? It's funny because that's exactly what he was saying the other way around when Ngannou defeated Stipe and they wanted to set Jon against Francis but couldn't (for whatever reason), Dana was suggesting that Jon is afraid to fight Francis. |
|
|
|
Agree with everything you have posted. I also dont know why Poirier has signed this fight contract.
Looking at the rankings, there were not too many other options left. He could've been matched-up with Dariush, but it might have been too soon for Beneil as he just fought in December. Other option would be Gamrot, but they are team mates so won't be keen on fighting each other as one of them would have to go elsewhere. That leaves Hooker, Turner or Dos Anjos, all ranked higher than Saint-Denis, but unlike them, Saint-Denis is on uptrend with 5 win streak, all 1st or 2nd round finishes, so it's definitely a tougher opponent. So looks like a bold move from UFC: if Saint-Denis wins, Poirier's ratings will go down a lot, but they'll have a new, exciting star. If Dustin wins, he solidifies his position in the top and they can carry on capitalising on his hype. |
|
|
|
obviously this match is only for money not for an achievement. both are equally old. maywahter is 46 years old while pacman paquio is 45 years old.
That's actually not that old, there are boxers of similar age out there still competing in official fights. Mike Tyson was 54 when he did his came back to fight Roy Jones Jr, and they pull off a pretty decent show. Mike still had a pretty slick movement despite being a heavyweight. We know Mayweather was quire active with all his exhibition fights etc, so if Many Pacquiao is also in a god shape and hasn't spent last years drinking beer on a couch, then there's a big chance that fight could be at fairly decent level. |
|
|
|
I don't think that Ngannou will come back to UFC, he had beef with Dana White and not sure if other organizations is willing to get him because if there is, he wouldn't box against Fury. And he get his biggest paycheck in boxing, so doesn't make sense for him if he can fight like 2-3 more and then fill his bank with millions.
Beefs mean nothing, if there's money to be made by both sides, they'll find an agreement pretty soon. As of now, Ngannou is obviously better off sticking to boxing, he can earn a lot more and it's arguably easier then mma (I could be wrong here). But if he disappoints against Joshua, which is a possibility, then he might have to either retire or go back to MMA for a couple of last fights. If he at least survives all rounds and lands at least a few good shots, then he'll likely get a chance to fight another boxing match. Re-match against Fury would make a lot of sense, and I think Fury spoke positively about that. Does anybody know if it's going to be an official boxing fight or another exhibition fight? |
|
|
|
Lots of interesting fights for this year whether exhibition or official matches.
I don't think there's actually much going on in the official boxing right now. Other than Fury Vs Usyk, there don't seem to be many high calibre fights. Or maybe I'm just misinformed and being unfair. It's just it doesn't look like there are enough exciting fighters that could be interesting to the audience from the outside of a die-hard boxing fans circle. That's probably one of the reasons Pacquiao Vs Mayweather could work out pretty well and bring back more excitement to the sport. I just learnt that Anthony Joshua will be fighting Francis Ngannou this year, but hard to say if this should be classed as "official boxing" or more of an exhibition. |
|
|
|
today's match in the efl cup midlesbourgh vs chelsea.
and until now chelsea is still behind 1-0. even the championship division answer chelsea hassles. clearly shows the quality of chelsea is less able to compete in the premiere league. even though his player spending is crazy maybe because the price is overate and the coach is less able to build a team and buy players that fit his game scheme.
It's one of the games when the advantage on the field doesn't convert into the final score. The full-time result was 1-0 to Middlesborough despite Chelsea being the dominating side. They still have 2nd leg to play on 23rd at home and I'd still expect them to go through. They have no real chances of finishing in the top 5 of the Premier League, so I don't think they'd be giving up on the EFL Cup that easy. Their fans want to see some trophy. |
|
|
|
Is this not contradictory? I am not rich and I gamble and lose more. The same story by many rich people. People said you can not win the house.
Being rich doesn't magically increase your chances in a particular game, so I don't buy the theory that rich people are (on average) making money on gambling. At very best, they could be winning more often or losing less. There could be several reasons to explain that. First of all, being rich would indicate that you're likely to have a higher intelligence and analytical skills, meaning you'd be placing bets more carefully on games that offer a higher chance of winning. Another thing - rich people are less desperate and don't need x100 or more to make decent money. When you aim at $100k and you only have $100 to play, you need to make x1,000, almost impossible odds, but when you have $1 mil to play with, you only need x1.1 return. Makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Gambling is always fun if you have the money to lose and if you disregard the money while playing. If you hold the money as number one I dont see how it can be fun if we are realistic and introduce the reality you cannot always win then of course you are losing money, its still fun if you arent reliant on that money. I never play serious money due to that only winnings and money that is spare then its always a fun game imo With a cold-headed, realistic and logical approach and having money as a priority, the vast majority of games should be avoided. The only ones that could make sense are either skill games, such as poker, or games without fixed mathematical edge (where a judgment is required) i.e. sports betting. But it's not a secret that most gamblers do not have such approach and there are plenty of other factors at play, including hopes of becoming a millionaire overnight, with a good example being lotto games. Even know the vast majority of people would be losing a vast majority of the time, they still find it enjoyable because it buys them a hope of turning their lives around with no effort. That feeling alone is worth a lot to many. |
|
|
|
Some cool new fights were announced recently. Dustin Poirier vs Benoît Saint Denis on UFC 299. And Arman Tsarukyan vs Charles Oliveira on UFC 300. While first fight looks a bit unusual to see, top3 vs top12 (even though I love to see fresh blood in a fight among top of the top), Tsarukyan vs Oliveira looks very promising. Both are after beating Dariush. BJJ master Oliveiravs vs one of Makhachevs hardest opponents. Winner going to have a title fight after, 99,99% sure with that.
Somehow I missed this post earlier. Yup, I completely don't get the Poirier Vs Saint-Denis match-up, looks like a shot in the back for Dustin. He's got nothing to win here and a lot to lose. Saint-Denis is currently ranked No. 12 contender so pretty big gap. To be fair, I don't know much about him, maybe the UFC considers him an easy win for Dustin. I don't know. Glad to see that Gamrot is on the main card as well. He was hoping to fight Oliveira but will be facing Dos Anjos instead, who is ranked one place above Saint-Denis. As for the UFC 300, the main card is not as great as I expected, but Tsarukyan Vs Oliveira should be a good one. I think Charles will utilise his height and reach advantage and will outstrike Arman. |
|
|
|
We can't really tell, but for sure the PPV numbers are still going to be huge, there are still a lot of interest coming from boxing fans, and so there is a demand. And we all know that if there is a demand, meaning fans are willing to buy the ticket either PPV or live gates.
Of course both of them are way past their prime. But their names still magnifies up to this day, arguments as who is the greatest amongst the two and that kind of discussions in not going to end. So we are still very curious as who is going to win when they face each other again even if it is just for exhibition fight.
Kind of depends on how you define "huge". Their first fight brought around $400 millions in revenue (according to wikipedia. If this fight gets $50 millions, it will probably be called a success (that's the revenue they got from Mayweather vs. Paul, which was heavily hyped up). Pacquiao will bring millions of Filipino viewers, but most of them won't be happy in paying for PPV, so won't be bringing in any huge money. As for the chances, I'd definitely bet on Mayweather, even though I'd prefer Many to win. Simply Floyd has been pretty active after his "retirement", and fought quite a few exhibition fights. |
|
|
|
I was reading some comments on line today and a story caught my attention, and I want to know how possible this is.
A guy claimed he won $5000 on a poker machine and that's where his addiction began, and when it get to the point that he lost his rent money to gambling he decide to take matters in his one way.
He proceeded by going to gaming commission and had his name banned by himself, ( Someone please tell me how this is possible?) never seen such in my country before. he claimed he still go back to casinos at times and he knew he can't ever win big again, because his name was flagged in the system, and if he win big they won't pay him.
He said he was limited to winning $200, that anymore than this he would have to sign his name and be subject to prosecution for trespassing. He claimed his move took his joy out from gambling real fast, and now he haven't been near a casino in over 10 years.
What do you think? This is an insanely move on oneself to stop addiction, something done right? Would you do the same if such is possible in your country?
Wut? This story completely doesn't add up. Links or it never happened  I don't know much about the Gaming Commission, or if such thing even exists on a federal level (assuming we're talking about the US), but usually gaming commissions in other countries would have zero to do with restricting (or banning) any individual players from gambling. They simply exist for the purpose of regulatory bodies overseeing the gambling industry in terms of compliance and paying all the required fees and taxes. They might force gambling businesses to provide an opt-out option for players who can't quit on their own, but that's about it. And after getting "banned" he could still play but was capped only on winnings? There was no limit on how much he could wager/lose? How does this make any sense? |
|
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings about fights like this one.
On one hand, we all know they are only doing this for the money, they are both retired for quite some time now, they could've re-run it for the second time before retirement, but chose not to. Oftentimes when fighters decide to return from retirement is because of some financial problems and they have no choice, which is kind of sad.
But, on the other hand, it's still more exciting than most of the current boxing fights and I'd be happy to watch it, provided both of them are at least in decent shape and it's not a pure money-grab.
It's good for boxing, and if both of them are fit enough, with no serious health issues, and if both are willing - then why not?
I don't think that fight will break any PPV records as some here are suggesting. They are too far past their prime for that.
|
|
|
|
Take casino games for example especially jackpot casino games there is no way you can tell me that all of them are structured in such a way that they randomly always make money for the house if you ask me gambling is a fraud that has been used to trick people into believing that their choices matter it does not everyone that gambles is just there to make money for the casino unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about human nature 💔💔💔
You can't be serious. There is no way you can tell me that you didn't know that every casino game has a mathematical advantage over player, know as a house edge. So it's not like games "always" make money for the house, hardly anyone would be playing them if that was the case, but a player will tend to lose if he keeps playing longer term. Of course, there are shady casinos out there, and some games could be rigged, but to say that every casino, or every game, is a fraud is massive exaggeration. Most of established casinos are probably OK, they don't need to resort to fraud to make big profits. And a lot can be done about human nature. We're not animals and are capable of overwriting our basic instincts, including stopping gambling if it's not working for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
