SINGLE BETTING IS WITH LESSER RISK THAN ACCUMULATED GAMES

[POPOLUV]

The mindset of be coming rich overnight will not allow ourselves see that there are a better opportunity to win if not everyday but every week if we eventually single our games than accumulating so many games in one stake, and i noticed that the poor Masses are the one staking so many games just to win millions in a ticket and while the rich men will just be interested in a single game that he can put money and he will eaten as much he can single, while to is fews ones that has making through so much accumulating of games, so there are so many risky in accumulating many games than a single game, we should reduce the ambition of winning big money from gambling but constantly winning with singles.

[bitbollo]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234109.0
You can see dozens of bets that I have placed in the last years.
It has been somewhat easy to bet and play SINGLE EVENTS and rarely (less than 5%) trying for few muliple bets.
Jackpots, multipliers, bonus ... all of these are designed to let people have the taste of the dream for making money and nothing more than a dream...

[mcdouglasx]

That's exactly right, although most people place combination bets for what you said, for money, since many bet for it, while those who bet for fun aren't interested in betting on a single match either, since money isn't an important factor for them. But those who bet looking for money sometimes go overboard with the combinations, making their bet incredibly improbable, but I doubt that even so the system will allow them to win "millions", since this type of bet has a limit depending on the amount you bet.

[Charles-Tim]

Accumulated games are not risky unless you use high amount of money for it. I can decide to use $1 for accumulated games instead of using $5 for a single game. If I lose the accumulated bet, $1 is nothing to me.

Single bets also have their own advantage which is what you posted but accumulated bets have their own advantages and one of them is using lower amount of money to bet.

[Finestream]

Accumulated games are not risky unless you use high amount of money for it. I can decide to use $1 for accumulated games instead of using $5 for a single game. If I lose the accumulated bet, $1 is nothing to me.

That’s right, it’s not really risky if you’re only betting money you’re okay throwing away. Parlays already have a much lower chance of winning, so being conservative with them just makes sense. For me, I could even do $1 per parlay, but I’m a bit ambitious. I usually cap it at $2 per parlay per day. I like going for around x1000 odds, so if it ever hits, that’s $2000, and honestly I’d already be very satisfied with that.

[Stepstowealth]

i noticed that the poor Masses are the one staking so many games just to win millions in a ticket and while the rich men will just be interested in a single game that he can put money and he will eaten as much he can single

You will find more poor persons staking on a lot of games because of the amount they are betting with. A small amount, but their ambitions are huge so they stake on a lot of games. Rich people bet with better amounts and have no need for playing with a lot of money. For poor people who have big ambitions, there is greed there, but it is more of desire I am thinking, but for rich people who already have and are trying to still place multiple bets with the big money they use in gambling, that looks like more of greed and less of desire.

Poor people are making a lot of picks because they want to get rich from gambling by winning big which has happened to some gamblers, but the rich are making a lot of picks because they want more which is almost like greed completely.

[CryptoYar]

You are right in distinguishing between gambler who hopes to be lucky and investor with smart system. Most common trap people fall into is idea of stacking much of games on single ticket to win millions and this is risky since mathematics of it all is that more games you add to your ticket lower your chances of winning.

Although these big tickets are seen by many as means of getting out of poverty, they tend to lose money since chances are very small. Conversely, rich or intelligent players use single bets as it is simpler to predict single outcome and therefore player can win smaller sums each week as opposed to losing daily.

You can make gambling disciplined risk management system that brings more money in long term by reducing desire to get rich quick and focusing on researched single games.

[BABY SHOES]

Do not think that you want to get rich in gambling, this is just a hallucination that there is even continuing to chase losses and eventually you run out of money.

Yeah I know low stakes have low risk but little return... unless you take the same risk for example the odds above 2.50 are still high, the potential for losing is also large.

While this combination or parlay bet is actually just a thrill by chasing high accumulation odds, it is clear that the risk is big but don't have too many matches in the parlay bet for me just 2-3 rather than 10 more then it is difficult to win.

[rdluffy]

Accumulated games are not risky unless you use high amount of money for it. I can decide to use $1 for accumulated games instead of using $5 for a single game. If I lose the accumulated bet, $1 is nothing to me.

Single bets also have their own advantage which is what you posted but accumulated bets have their own advantages and one of them is using lower amount of money to bet.

Sometimes I make some “crazy” bets like that

For example, I'll put eight games in a multiple bet, but I'll bet a low amount, like just $1
And it's just for fun, without expecting much

Sometimes it can work out, hehehe

It's nice to do with bonus too

[Cryptomultiplier]

A gamblers betting strategy has nothing to do with if they are rich or poor in my own opinion, because I believe it is how one understands and has learnt how to gamble, that they do so.
Single bets with huge bets could definitely offer better rewards, but I doubt multiple bets all come up to potential millions when a gambler chooses more than one games but with little odds.

Odd difference is what makes some multiple bets selection more believe and realistic that others as compared to single bets and even with single bets, one has to be sure when picking the odds so that their huge bet would either amount to a substantial winning potential rather than just a few cents in the bets they placed.
It's all logic and availability of funds one can afford to lose that matters more.

[giammangiato]

For obvious reasons, a single bet is simpler to play, just as the winnings are also lower.
In life, those who don't laugh don't laugh. I believe that individual bets should be made, but risking multiple bets clearly results in more satisfaction in terms of financial winnings than in terms of adrenaline while waiting to play the last game of a multiple bet.
In all of 2025, I haven't made any big wins, but I'm not losing either. I can say I've only gambled for small profits that have allowed me to gamble again without using any more money.

[BitMaxz]

It seems that you are comparing the single bet vs betting on multiple games to try your luck, and you also compared both poor and rich.
Take note, there are some poor people who bet one time or in a single bet, and there are also rich people who bet in multiple games to try their luck. So don't compare them on how they gamble.

My father is always betting on the lottery; for him it is a habit to bet, and sometimes he wins huge with less risk, but he is able to win compared to people who try their luck on multiple games, but even though they had many chances, they still end up losing much compared to those people who bet on the lottery as a habit.

[Porfirii]

Anyway, it depends on what you're looking for when you bet. In my case, I love dreaming and that's why I don't care the risk of multibets, even when I know that it is almost impossible to win. Or very improbable bets on single games that won't change your life, but make the experience more thrilling while not spending too much, and yet opt for a decent prize.

[Charles-Tim]

Anyway, it depends on what you're looking for when you bet. In my case, I love dreaming and that's why I don't care the risk of multibets, even when I know that it is almost impossible to win. Or very improbable bets on single games that won't change your life, but make the experience more thrilling while not spending too much, and yet opt for a decent prize.

Almost impossible to win? There can be two matches accumulated bets and there can be  three matches in accumulated bets. I have won 2 and 3 matches in accumulated bets several times before. The higher the matches, the less likely to win the accumulated bet. So it depends on what you bet on and how long the number of matches are.

[OgNasty]

Assuming you're talking about parlay bets.  I disagree quite a bit actually.  Parlays allow the bettor to structure the bet so that easy wins come early and if they begin to lose one of their bets they can cash out and still make a profit.  With individual bets, it is hard to come out ahead once things start going bad.

[yhiaali3]

From a risk management perspective, spreading your bets across multiple games is safer than putting all your money on one.

Wealthy individuals can afford a large loss so they risk a single, huge bet because they believe a big win will offset the potential loss.
Poor people or ordinary people, pursue the dream of becoming "millionaires" by piling small bets across several games because they cannot risk all their money on one game.

[Agbamoni]

Single bets are for bigger stakes, unless the odd is huge. Unlike parlays, the total selected odds define how big our potential payout will be, also with the amount staked on.

When it comes to dealing with mitigating risk, I also think single bets are less risky. You only need one outcome for you to either win or lose.

[danherbias07]

Ohh, I agree with that. The only problem is the budget. If you have a low budget, it will take a long time before you even feel the profits of betting on single games, only with a high chance of winning. The rich are using that method because they do have the money. If they bet 100k USD at @1.3 odds, they will get 30k more. While the poor one will get only $0.3 in a $1 bet.
That is the reason why a gambler with a low budget will probably just choose to make a long parlay and have a chance for that jackpot. The high multiplier combo that might change his life. It's a shot to the moon, but it can definitely be profitable if done right.

[Victorybit1]

The chances of winning single betting is quite high compared to accumulated games but single bet has its disadvantages and one of them is the fact that you need to stake high because the odds are mostly of low values. I don't bet on single games  because I don't stake high amounts of money. The higher the amount of money that you stake with the higher the risks involved so I rather go for accumulated games

[Versatile_choice]

Single bet is not with lesser risk rather there's a high chance of winning if you're going with that method. To me I would say that single bet is even more risky than multiple bet, because in single bet you need to stake high to enable you achieve something bigger and this can probably make you go with the whole of your bankroll and if you're not lucky to win from your first attempt then you will still have to fund your bankroll. While multiple bet allows you to achieve that certain amount you wish to achieve with a smaller stake, and this would make your bankroll to last for a longer period.