Shouldn't this depend on the agreement? I mean in most cases brokers are the ones that are paying. Let me explain to you how the casino that I worked with was establishing their wins and losses. They had few different games, all from different game providers, which mean they had like 6 if I remember right game providers that gave them about 300 games.

These games were automatically tied like an affiliate, which meant that if you gambled where I worked at that time, the money you lost went to the game provider, and then due to that affiliate income, the casino made some of it back, usually about 3% to 10% depending on the game, and when you lost they lost nothing. So at the end of every month, the casino got paid from the game provider.

The probability is that if you could just deposit whatever you are fine losing, and not deposit again, that would be simple and enough. Not many people do that, that is the only thing that you can do and would end up being the most important thing. Unfortunately this doesn't really seem like the most important thing at the time, but should be very important to notice, because not many people still do it.

If you could just limit your deposits, the risk management comes with that all alone, because you have a certain amount you are allowing yourself to lose, and the worst possible case is you will lose that, which means your risk is managed. I urge everyone to give it a go, try that for at least a few months and you will love it.

Considering the amount of people he scammed and the amount of money he has stolen, I would say that was basically just "make sure he doesn't get out" punishment. You can give a person 100 years in jail and they would still not be able to get out, but if there is some sort of pardon for that crime, or if some sort of good behavior stuff, he could get out when he is older.

I have seen plenty of people who were "punished with life sentence" where they theoretically should stay at prison for all their life, but got out after 20-25-30 years because that is when parole starts. This judgement was made probably because even if he gets out of one, he stays in for the others, and there is no possible way that he could ever be out.

Bayern lacking goalkeepers is a trouble without a doubt, but they were the ones who didn't want to get anyone, so it's their own mistake. They could have gotten a new young goalkeeper that could be their player for the next 10 years, but they decided not to do that and instead decided to wait for Neuer because "he is their captain" or something like that. He is old, let him be, he is not coming back like a star neither, he is not going to be good for their level anymore.

Just go out there and find someone else, and for the time being use whatever you have because you literally have no other option at this moment. I get that it may not be all that great, but that should not be a big deal and could be considered fine.

Let's see how this new iphone 15 will do for them. I still think that they are a bit overestimated and shouldn't be this big. They make new laptops with new chips, it was m1, now m2, I am sure it will soon be m3, and so forth along with making new phones that were iphone 13 and then iphone 14 and now iphone 15, I bet next one will be iphone 16.

However, they have used this method for nearly 20 years and grew this big, I do not see why it would no longer be profitable, I bet that they are going to do fine. I just don't know if people will smarten up and maybe look for some other products, not looking like they would, but could still happen if they give it enough time. This is why it's quite important to make sure they will do fine.

Academy is not where you go to make money, it's a place where you go to get education and master something. That means if you want to make money, you can skip college, start at 18, find something that would make you money, and by the time you are 22-24 , you are going to be a master of it anyway, and by the time you are 30, while others are getting their first promotions, you will have your own shop and make all the money. Doesn't mean all can do that, because people are not that smart at 18, but it's possible.

A friend of mine did it as a mechanic, wanted to just be a mechanic, and earns twice as much as I do. So, do not consider education equals money, that's not how it works and it was never the purpose of education.

It doesn't really make sense to limit the price reduction, they are finding ways. Instead of spending 100k on a house and getting 20k back, you spend 80k and it would be the same thing, but because it is not allowed to drop the prices they are doing something like this. It still doesn't make sense though, because it is not the way it should be.

Let the market be whatever it is until people buy the houses, if the construction company has to make a loss, they will have to make a loss. The overestimation on how much people would pay for houses was the real trouble, China kept on building, not realizing that all the people who can buy a house, already bought it, and they do not need more new places to be built.

These are all good indicators but you also need to know the amount you need to use them with, not the names. There isn't an automatic calculation based on just names, like you know Bollinger bands but should you buy it when it's under 20, or 30 or 10? That matters and depending on who you ask, the answer may change.

Or better yet, not all will show the same thing at all times, which means that you are not going to end up with something that could change on the short term, and that means you need to pick one of them and assume that is the one that shows the right one. So it's not that easy, knowing the names is the simplest start, takes a minute, but then the rest takes months even years to master being great at it.

It is risky to invest things that you do not know. So by that logic, if you personally know and like these then you should invest into them, but if I do not know them very well then I should not invest into them. It would not make sense for me to invest into something just because OP said it, and it would not make sense if OP invests into something that I suggested, we should not make that type of decisions at all.

I hope that it has to be done in a different way and not really end up something that would be profitable. I understand that we are going to be doing something that should not be really profiting anymore and not really do anything that would give us any return at all neither, it is not that easy at all.

Chelsea should be taking a look at what is going wrong as well as United too. I get that those two teams are having a bad time but they should realize that acting quickly and doing wrong things will not be the one that will get you better. They both have good managers, firing the manager right away because of bad results will not solve anything at all.

They should let the team be for a while and just try to find out what is wrong and what causes this and try to create an atmosphere of more fun and morale and comradery somehow to make sure that the players end up playing better. Right now, on paper everything looks good for them and yet they end up being so low on the table and that's not acceptable and rushing into a solution that will be even worse is not a good idea.

I am not sure if this calculation is correct, there could be some more issues about it and we may need to take a look at it, but I think if we are nearing 4 billion dollars by then, there would be even bigger players involved by that time. I mean that is a huge market and should be considered something profitable enough for larger companies to get in.

We need to realize that all those "large" crypto companies right now are still small, there could be companies that worth tens of billions of dollars even today without crypto mining, that goes into crypto mining as well. We have seen some large companies start to buy bitcoin, but not yet mine bitcoin, there isn't a single company worth over a billion dollars that does this yet, and if this happens I am sure there will be a few at least.

I pity anyone who thinks that Shiba is a good project to put your money into. It's obvious that it's not a good one and we are seeing it change so much, it's really not going to be a good one at all. People should avoid putting their money into something as risky as this and should instead focus on doing something better, find a coin that is more trustworthy and could be holding its own during the bear market as long as the bull market.

Look at Shiba at the peak and look at it at the bottom and you will see the scary image, if you think that's fine and you are willing to hold it, then I am sorry but the result will not be great for you. I rather just hold it at bitcoin which isn't even an altcoin and feel better about it.

The problem is that when dollar lost its value, others didn't gain it, they lost their value as well. You look at dollar today, and it is much worse than what it was just 10 years ago, and a lot worse than 20 years ago, but is it still the strongest currency? It is. That alone is good enough reason to keep supporting dollar over other fiat currencies.

However, if we are talking about crypto, then using dollars as investment makes no sense, doesn't matter if it is stocks or gold or whatever, crypto is by far best asset of them all. This means that the only better investment than anything dollar related, would be just bitcoin. This is my thought, maybe you could find something that is better, but I haven't found one so far.

In most of the cases a private bank that can do whatever they want. They do not have to accept anything like this, they could do whatever they want and this is within their rights. I may love bitcoin more than I love any other currency but that doesn't mean that we are not going to see the banks being forced to accept it, if they prefer not to accept it then that is their decision.

This could be even worse for them than anyone else, because it means that they are going to miss out on some customers and I believe that is a bad thing for them. I get that it may not be all that great but that is even worse for them than customers. We should let the banks decide what they want to do with it and not pressure them into anything they do not want to do.

I still use google to this day, and I am aware that there are other alternatives that people uses and maybe one day I will be starting to use one of those but so far at this moment I still use google. They made something that is good enough that I wouldn't need to use anything else so far, I may need it in the future if something goes wrong but for the time being it hasn't provided me with a reason to change it.

I used google chrome as a browser and I stopped using that, so I am not dismissing the possibility of not using google itself one day, but so far it has been my friend. Plus it is still the most used one in the world, so it is really normal and common for someone to keep using it even to this day.

Scalping will definitely cause a lot of trouble if you are not good at it, it is not that simple and there are way too many people doing it for something that is called scalping. I mean it is the crumbs of the crumbs and they are trying to make that profit and if too many people do it, think of how you could share crumbs between all that many people, you can't so some will have to fail.

Either you get very good at it with the great tools and quick moves or you should stop it and instead do spot trading instead of scalping, that would be simpler, you could still do intraday trading, or trades that take just a few days but not more than 5 days, but at least that would be bigger pieces and you could make some profit doing those as well.

That seems like something that doesn't really exist, but that also doesn't matter because you could just exchange it right away. Plus, like I always say, if there is something that you do not know or understand about futures that means you should not be in the futures, that is always a bad idea because it is so risky.

The risk could be a bit higher than spot trading and that would be fine, but we are talking about unnecessary amount of risk that should not even exist, like literally go from betting some money to zero from that trade, ZERO, not 10% down not 50% down, ZERO  return if you are wrong. That's a bad move and I believe that everyone should be staying away from that if they still have questions about it.

I would say this does work for some people like me. Not everyone has to be a trader and I still trade a small amount just for fun and to learn how to be better and try to learn more about trading even after so many years, but majority of my money is on long term investment and I do not think that I could continue to trade for a profit. It would be a bad idea to do something like that and it should be quite difficult to handle something like that.

I believe that we are going to end up with a result that should be something that would be a lot more risky if we are not careful and that is why we are going to end up with a good result if we are careful and should be something that would make a lot more profit if we go long term.

Make a community for crypto? Are you not aware where you are right now? I mean if we could have done it, we would have done it already but we can't and that is why we don't. The reason why we are not doing it is not the fact that nobody thought about it before, its because nobody managed to do it before. To do what you think we could do, we would need a lot of people all putting their money and not selling for a while, and we can't have that all coordinated.

But, we also have bull periods where it is exactly what you say that happens, we all end up buying and we all end up holding until the crash, which to be fair gamestop had as well because it eventually crashed to a point where its not nearly as high as it used to be.

Managers having a system that they are stuck with will always end up being worse and worse over time and needs to figure out better systems that improves on their old one. It doesn't have to be a major one, look at Pep, what he made Barcelona played in 2009 period when they did amazingly isn't "too far" from current City, but obviously he realized he doesn't have a Messi there, and then focused on the sides differently and played from within, not from outside.

This allowed them to pass the ball as usual from his style, but more directly and not more quick, that changed things like crazy for him. Look at Mourinho on the other hand, he still plays his teams like he did 15 years ago, that worked once, but won't work now.