The only concerns right now are the usual injury concerns that can happen at any point in a season, but also Liverpool will be without Salah, Mane, and a few others when Afrcian Cup Of Nations kicks off in a couple of weeks. Meaning they'll likely miss the Chelsea game, and a few more. Depending on the current isolation rules with Covid, and the new variant they could potentially miss more than originally anticipated.

Apart from them little niggling issues, I'm quite confident. Also, helps that Salah is in one of the best positions he has been in his career, and it doesn't look like its going to slow down. Hopefully, he'll avoid injuries for the rest of the season, and we might seen some new records broken as a result.

Well, El Salvador is only a drop in the ocean. They don't really have a massive influence on other governments in the world. Its not exactly FUD, governments will want to implement plans to prevent fraud, money laundering, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing like I tried to explain above. To me, as long as its not an invasion to privacy then I'm all for introducing ways which could potentially prevent further crime from happening.

I think a lot of Bitcoin users see government intervention as a bad thing, but I think it could actually work to our benefit in legitimizing it in the public's eye. Plus, if we can sort out some of the grey areas in cryptocurrency when it comes to crime, I think that'll only help the confidence in people investing in Bitcoin.

This highly depends on the sort of rules they're looking to implement. Though, increased regulations isn't always a bad thing. Depending on how it's implemented. As long as it doesn't impact privacy, security or restrict the freedom too much then I don't see a major problem with it.

I wonder how important goal difference will be this season. Currently, the main three teams are separated by a point, while Liverpool lead the goal difference by a decent margin. I know its early, but I think goal difference could play a huge part in top four at the very least.

Looking at Chelsea they're looking more, and more likely of dropping points. I'm quite confident in Liverpool taking the title this season, and I quite like our chances in the Champions League too.

The signs have been there all season for Everton. It's odd because they've injected so much money into that squad, and they look worse off that they did a season or two ago. It pains me to say this, but they've got some decent players, not top quality players like Liverpool, but better players than they're currently playing. I don't think it's a management issue since they've had several managers in a short period of time, and their performance has remained the same.

Changing Jake Matthews. To short odds for me to place a bet on, and I quite like Well's chance here after reviewing some tapes, and also considering the fact that Jake is coming off of a loss, and Well's has a nice little win streak going on.

Yeah, I'm the type of bettor that just puts money on to make the fights a little more entertaining. I usually do this for all sports. I usually have a big accumulator running with mixed sports, and just tick off the ones I got correct. There have been times where I've been so close to earning big money, but usually its the first couple of matches/fights that let me down, which takes the excitement out of it, as if it was the last few I would be on the edge of my seat anticipating it.

At the end of the day its a fight, and this is especially true in MMA; anything can happen. So, fighters losing the odd fight isn't exactly unexpected, in fact its expected for the majority of fighters. You could count on one hand the amount of fighters that are undefeated, while taking on the top guys. Khabib obviously being the most recent, but he's very much an anomaly in the sport.

Even Conor who at one point looked unstoppable, you could say that's due to the way he fights, and Khabibs style protects him a lot more than a pure striker like Conor, and while that might be partially true, if you take a look at the other wrestlers in the sport they aren't going on massive unbeaten streaks.

Therefore, I don't actually believe in the hype being derailed from a single loss. If Makhachev were to fight either Oliveria or Poirier which I personally do believe its a little too soon right now, if he was to lose that doesn't automatically mean the hype behind him should be gone. Poirer, and Oliveria are literally the two main men in the division right now.

I find as fans we can have a knee jerk reaction whenever a fighter loses a fight. In fact, this probably isn't entirely the fans fault, due to the UFC as an organisation pushing the agenda that every fight will finish a fighter if they lose, and project the winner onto bigger, and better things. Boxing also has this mentality because hype sells tickets.

Though it was proven recently that older fighters that were deemed finished many years ago, can improve, and go on to win belts. Makhachev losing against the current top 2 in the sport isn't going to realistically derail his career. Though, for his benefit its probably best to not jump in the cage with them too soon, because in the eyes of the fans it would take away a lot of the hype, however when he starts winning again that would return right away.

I can also see it having detrimental effects in the short term. I imagine it wouldn't stay at 100k for long, and would have a sharp correction. Therefore, unless Bitcoin gradually gets to that figure, it could cause panic. I would much prefer seeing Bitcoin reach new all time highs gradually, and then correct only a couple of thousand below, and then stablise at around that price for a long period, rather than taking a massive jump up.

I don't think massive jump ups are a benefit for short term adoption.

I don't think you have to be involved in Bitcoin at the time of the last cycles to be able to read a chart, and make an educated guess on what might happen in the future. Though, that's all it ever is; a guess based on historical happenings. Therefore, isn't all that reliable.

It's highly unlikely that Bitcoin continues to follow the same path over, and over. As you say things change, and as evidence in the past Bitcoin reacts to what's going on around it. In fact, it can be partly manipulated by news stories, at least far more than fiat currencies. So, I suspect that the driving force behind the price will be the current stance to Bitcoin, and the news surrounding it rather than repeating historical cycles.

I've always thought that a asset which is likely to appreciate in value is always better than earning interest on a depreciating currency i.e I would much rather have my money stored in Bitcoin which I believe will only increase in the future, and will escape the drawbacks of keeping your money in fiat. For example, escaping the natural inflation which is associated with holding fiat currencies for a long time.

Not completely accurate since banks get bailed out all the time, though you're right that's usually through government intervention, which would presumably be funded via tax. So, you might be partly right, though there are definitely banks which have gone under without being saved, and we'll likely see this in the future too. In fact, it's one of the reasons why Bitcoin was created, because of the failings of the banking system which resulted in multi millions/billions in bailouts.

.

I don't think this is a bad thing, they'll likely try monitoring the crime associated with Bitcoin, rather than cracking down on Bitcoin itself. We all know that there's a lack of legislation with Bitcoin due to its nature, and I think monitoring services for fraud, exit scams, and all the other various scams that exist is a good thing. It might actually benefit Bitcoin in the long run, if we're able to start preventing as many scams from happening, since it will legitimize Bitcoin in the public's eye as well as the news sources which would be incredibly important for adoption.

Cracking down on mining, I'm not sure what they're implying by that. I'm assuming it will be looking at who is mining, and who isn't declaring tax. Again, isn't a terrible idea, and should benefit Bitcoin rather than hurt it. Where ever we can legitimize Bitcoin, without compromising users privacy I think is a benefit.

I can see why your going for Jeremiah Wells after watching some of his tapes. I initially fancied Jake Matthews, but hes recently coming off a loss, while Jeremiah Wells has put a 3 win streak in. I might have to change my initial prediction to Wells. Plus, he has decent odds at 2.45 probably my fancy of the night.

Shame really, because I think him learning English would throw his career into a new dimension. At the moment, I think a lot of people will give him credit for his ability, but won't necessarily back him against other English speaking fighters because they can't quite connect with him. I think it would be a decent career move, and would secure him better paying sponsorships if he were to learn a little more English. 

Mike Tyson has definitely seemed to mellow as time goes on, but I don't think he's the greatest example of being a gentleman. Hes definitely done questionable things inside, and outside the ring. I mean, the obvious example is the biting incident, which was publicly witnessed by thousands of people, although I believe there's been other controversies outside the ring too.

Not sure what your trying to say. Yeah, anything in sport can happen, however it's incredibly unlikely that Logan wins. The only way he's winning in my eyes is through volume though judging by his previous fights that's not his strongest area.

I hate to say it, but I do think boxing is more about the entertainment rather than the actual competition, and while I would normally wave away such allegations of match fixing or certain terms being put in the contract, I actually think boxing has been questionable at best in several fights. I've seen clear dives, where the punch didn't even touch the downed opponent. The only other possible explanation would be fear.

Its white collar boxing he probably won't be the last person to jump into boxing who has a huge following, without actually training in boxing for long.

I heard it on the commentary that there was a second incident in another game, which was postponed for around fifteen minutes. Anyone know which one it was, and was it another cardiac arrest? If so, that would be the third publicly known of the season, with the other one being in a Newcastle game a couple of weeks ago.

Seems these things are getting more limelight recently, I know things like this happen somewhat frequently at games, but maybe it just wasn't as publicly obvious in past seasons.

On another note, I'm disappointed that Liverpool conceded, I honestly thought we wouldn't concede today, and score in both halves. At least, I was partially correct. Chelsea, and Manchester City also getting a result after initially struggling is annoying though, really thought this was our opportunity to pull ahead going into the Christmas period.

Merchants will adopt it when it's within their interest to adopt it. They don't need customers initially using cryptocurrencies, they need to know that Bitcoin is accessible enough, that if they start selling products for Bitcoin, it can be easily enough acquired, and used by its customers. I suspect if Bitcoin continues to appreciate in price, then the amount of merchants wanting to accept Bitcoin will adopt it, but not only adopt it, but offer discounts if you purchase with cryptocurrencies, which then creates that intrigue from their customers.

The customers will then purchase Bitcoin, and purchase products from the merchants at a reduced rate, therefore getting their product for less than they would with fiat. Then, the merchants don't entirely lose out by accepting Bitcoin if the price of Bitcoin continues to appreciate in price, which is something I think a lot of us believe it will do.

That's just one example of a way to break this "paradox" as you say. Plus, I believe this is already being done in some merchants. They offer a 5-10% discount, and then continue to hold it until the price goes up. Rinse, and repeat. Obviously, there's a risk factor with this, and not all merchants will be willing to accept that risk, but that depends if they're interested in Bitcoin outside of their business, it might be enough to spur the change.

Are we favouring Makhachev over Poirier, and Oliveria? I think that's a very close fight between all of them. I think the up, and coming fight between Poirier, and Oliveria is going to be a close one. I think the odds being so heavily in favour of Poirer is rather generous. Even though, I do think Poirier will edge it, I was expecting the odds to be something like 1.90 each.

Though, I would say that Makhachev is the underdog for both of those fights.

I guess it depends on the amount of damage each fighter takes, but if Oliveria loses I expect a rematch to be made rather than Makhachev getting the title shot. So, I don't think Makhachev will be getting either one of them in 2022.

I'm kind of sick of it, though I'll probably admit that its been beneficial to boxing as a whole. I've felt for years now, boxing has been on the decline, and these Youtubers certainly put the spotlight back onto boxing. I used to watch quite a bit of boxing, but these days I only really tune into my favourite fighters, and most of them are in the heavyweight division. UFC played a part in my interest waning, but I've definitely focused on boxing a lot more recently due to this....circus? I don't know if it's fair to say that, the Jake Paul vs Tyrone Woodley fight was actually alright. The Jake Paul fights before that were ridiculous, but I guess the Mayweather vs Logan fight was OK.

My biggest gripe with boxing is the politics involved in matching up fighters. Joshua, and Fury should have already fought, and it's annoying as a fan to be strung along, and then the big fights end up happening when they are no longer in their prime, making it a bit of a farce, due to the fact they wanted to milk the hype behind them as much as possible.

We don't celebrate thanksgiving over here, however whenever there's an event where the family gets together e.g Christmas, Birthdays etc, Bitcoin is always mentioned in some degree, whether that's a full blown conversation or little remarks here, and there. This doesn't extend to other altcoins or NFTs, mainly because when cryptocurrencies come up, its the family asking me the questions, and I don't really entertain the idea of NFTs or other altcoins currently.

Although, I usually quite like discussing things about Bitcoin, I've tended to only answer the questions, and not really engage any further than that these days. It just seems a lot of people I've talked Bitcoin to, seems to forget about it, and then ask the same questions over, and over. Including the favourite "Bitcoin is a bubble" remark.

This gets asked often, but Bitcoin is a currency, and therefore whatever you can do with fiat, you can do with Bitcoin. However, Bitcoin does have some additions which offering more earning opportunities like bounties. To some extent you could also say signature campaigns, but there are other forums which pay for advertisement through signature, but with fiat so not exactly accurate. Although, I'm not really aware of anything like bounties in the fiat industry.

Most people will either offer a service or purchase it directly as an investment. There's no way of magically acquiring it. It's very much like how you would acquire fiat. 

Hopefully, they'll be teaching the importance of managing your own money, and not blindly trusting another third party, i.e a bank. Its all well, and good teaching them about Bitcoin, but I'm not 100% sure that's completely relevant. At the moment, the vast majority of them will be using fiat, and of course in the future Bitcoin might have a more central role in the general public lives, but Bitcoin can be introduced into education when that is a fact, rather than speculation.

Although, I'm not trying to take a negative stance here, cryptocurrency whether it's Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency will definitely be a part of everyone's life in the future, and if anything they should be teaching students about how to avoid the common pitfalls when it comes to safety.

I'm going with an accumulator which combines the next two events. Mainly being the favourites this time around. Early picks of the bunch are:

Sean O'Malley (Though to be honest wouldn't be surprised he loses this one)
Dustin Poirier via finish
Gillian Robertson
Brendan Allen
Buys

You aren't going to get much return from these, but it might be worth putting Gillian Roberston via submission, and Brendan Allen via decision if you want to pump those numbers up a little. I'd say the riskiest one here is Poirer, since I think Oliveria definitely has a chance here, and the odds on Poirier winning are a little inflated to be honest.

I think I'll be going for Dariush in that match up, not sure what he odds will be, but I suspect with the hype behind Makhachev, he might get the nod as the favourite. Honestly, probably a good idea to bet on the underdog, regardless who it is as I expect a close wrestling match, which likely goes the distance. So, someone by decision sounds the most lucrative bet.

Some good fights in February of next year. Hopefully on the 12th of December we have a good end of the year event, and start it off with a bang with the Izzy vs Whittaker fight, and Islam vs Benny in Feb.

I'm just concentrating on getting as many wooden spoons as possible, trying to set up some kind of record here. Nah, I forgot the temporary email I used, so I no longer have access. I might just see if Hilariousandco will kick my old account, and I'll start at the start of December, and just see how well I can do on a new account.

Obviously, won't be willing anything, but could be a bit of fun sitting down, and just predicting all the scores in one go.