That’s right, which is why many casinos used to offer free drinks to customers – until it was banned in some countries – because they know that a customer who has had a few too many drinks tends to gamble more and lose more as well. That’s just one of the additional psychological factors that casinos exploit, alongside the house edge.


That’s right, the trend in casino bankrolls is usually the opposite of that for gamblers. You’ve described it well for casinos; for gamblers, the graph would trend inexorably downwards, but with spikes corresponding to big wins or winning streaks. The fact is, the more a gambler bets, the more the casino wins and the more the gambler loses.

I just don’t see the point in that. Playing it safe is a load of rubbish because it means you’ll get a small return too, and you’ll still lose money in the long run because of the house edge. I’d rather bet on high-payout odds, but only with money I can actually afford to lose.


That’s another load of rubbish, because you’re both ignoring the fact that someone who can afford to lose $100,000 has a much higher net worth than someone who loses $100. In fact, losing that $100,000 might represent a smaller percentage of his net worth than losing $100, because the latter’s net worth may be $0 or even negative due to debts.

I like your analysis because it avoids the simplistic view that what Saylor is doing is just cool, without delving any deeper, and it also avoids being overly pessimistic. I think, as you say, success will depend largely on how the price of Bitcoin behaves. I’d just like to point this out.


But the situation has changed: when Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) weathered the previous bear market, it did not have a product that required it to raise cash to cover monthly costs of over 100 million and rising. And just because it came through the previous bear market unscathed is no guarantee that it will fare just as well in this one.

Quería comentar con vosotros que me ha dado la sensación de que las últimas campañas han reducido pagos. No tanto el pago por post pero la mayoría pagan por 20 posts máximo, o sea que aunque lleguen a 4$ por post, el pago máximo semanal serían 80$. En mi caso cogí una de 20 posts porque prefiero asegurarme de que hago el mínimo semanal y la diferencia que pueda ganar no me importa.

Pero si veo de las últimas que están más arriba en la sección servicios está Vega Bet con 80$ de pago máximo semanal. Bet25 con pago máximo 60$. Sageswap 60$, CCE cash 60$. Hasta hace no mucho era más normal que para Hero/Legendary llegaran a lo 100$ de pago semanal, y en algún caso incluso más.

No, and when I see stories like these, it becomes even clearer to me. What you’re describing is a classic case of chasing your losses, and in this instance, whether you’ve run out of your casino balance and have to make a deposit, or whether you’d set yourself a limit on how much you’re willing to lose and have reached it, yet you keep betting more even though you still have money left in your account. It’s not about making one last deposit; it’s that you’re gambling recklessly.

I’d bet that all the people who buy into Saylor’s message – especially when it comes to these dividends – have never bought dividend-paying shares in their lives, nor have they analysed companies to see if the dividend is sustainable. They simply see the Bitcoin he’s buying and think it’s bullish without stopping to consider the cost.

I’m not sure whether it will fail or be a success, but to swallow what Saylor says like that is, at the very least, naive and shows a lack of critical thinking.


On the contrary, are you very much certain that Saylor is going to succeed? He’s creating such a need for raising money to pay dividends that if he has to suspend them for just one month, the whole company will go to the dogs.

What I am seeing more and more, though, are people who are critical of Saylor – though not so much on this forum, where most people just see that he’s buying Bitcoin and immediately start saying how bullish it is without looking at anything else, as if we were in December 2024. Believing everything Saylor says without a critical eye is so 2024. Virtually none of what he said at the end of 2024 has materialized.

Afectará en cuanto al suministro pero el precio del crudo es global como comentaba yo en mi mensaje anterior. En esta crisis se ha hablado de la posibilidad de desabastecimiento, incluso en Europa. Si ello llegara a suceder, es obvio que afectaría primero a Japón que a EE.UU, que además es productor, mientras Japón no.

None. All that rubbish you’re talking about isn’t an issue if you’re actually betting with money you can afford to lose – with spare cash that won’t affect you psychologically if you lose it. The thing is, most people don’t do it that way. If you ask them, they’ll say yes, that they can afford to lose that money, but if they do lose it, it affects them and they try to chase their losses; and if they win, they get euphoric. What I do is bet well below what I could, but look for big multipliers, so that if I lose it doesn’t affect me in the slightest—in fact, that’s the result I expect—and if I win, it’s a nice bit of extra cash that I withdraw and spend on something else.

Oh really? And how do you explain the fact that the world’s biggest buyer of Bitcoin is breaking even after six years?

Michael Saylor has been buying for six years now, and the four-year cycle hasn’t played out – at least not on the upside. Let’s see if his strategy finally works, because it seems that the more he buys, the worse the price of Bitcoin behaves.