That's right, the OP fails to realise that, in business, giving something ‘for free’ is a marketing strategy that usually boosts revenue.  


Correct as well,tThey’ve thought this through very carefully. Few people bet on a site exclusively on 0% HE games. Traffic increases, and most players, as well as playing the 0% HE games, also play the other games – which are the ones that generate the casino’s current profit and more than make up for the rest.


 

You’re out of touch, mate. The problem with volatility in recent years is that it’s fallen on the upside whilst remaining stable on the downside. That’s the main issue I see. If something you buy can drop very quickly—thereby causing you losses—but doesn’t rise just as quickly to generate profits, it’s not going to attract people’s interest.

Although that’s a situation that could change again in the future, and I hope it does – that volatility returns to rising levels.

Another problem I see is the extremely high price, which makes people think it’s very expensive. That’s why many companies carry out a stock split when the price rises significantly. With Bitcoin, there’s no need for a stock split; instead of talking about Bitcoin, we could talk about satoshis, and people would see it as much cheaper, but the name ‘Bitcoin’ is so well established that I don’t see that happening.

Well, yes, and I also think that people are increasingly realising just how manipulated the inflation figures are. Especially food prices. Whether in the supermarket or out and about, prices have risen by 50% in just a few years. Add to that the cost of houses, cars and most other things. But as the CPI is a basket of goods chosen by bureaucrats, inflation comes out at 2 or 3 per cent when it’s actually 10 per cent or higher. What usually counteracts the rise in prices are technology prices, which tend to fall, but you don’t buy a computer or a mobile phone every week, whereas you do buy food.

That’s right – people who think they can beat a bookmaker with a data model or AI don’t realise that bookmakers use AI and data models themselves? And probably much better ones, as they have far more money to invest.

The idea that it used to be easier to find a niche where you could gain an edge is something I’ve seen time and again. Over time, bookmakers have become increasingly adept at adjusting the odds. Add to that the fact that they ban or restrict winners, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make consistent profits from sports betting.

It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out.


I also think it's clearly gambling but from what I can see in the article, that’s the line of argument: trading, however similar it may be to gambling, is not regarded as such, and they equate prediction markets with trading:


I suppose the problem lies with the regulation itself; it should have been regulated as gambling from the outset. But as it was a new phenomenon, it seems the politicians responsible decided to regulate it as trading (and it remains to be seen whether there was lobbying pressure behind this).

The point here is that this doesn’t happen to you if you’re actually playing with money you can afford to lose. If you ask most people, they’ll say they bet with money they don’t need and can afford to lose, but if you find yourself in a cycle of chasing losses, that’s proof that you’re actually betting too much money. If you lost 8 pence in a session, would it bother you so much that you’d start chasing losses? There you go.

As a merit source I also find the behaviour weird as hell.


That’s right, it’s not so much the number of merits as the fact itself. You can give someone up to 50 merits for a single old post if you want to help them rank up, but sending those merits – even if there are far fewer of them – when users need them because they’ve applied for a signature campaign just doesn’t sit right. What’s more, some of them are clearly of low value. Normally, you’d be able to pick better ones from their entire posting history.

I’m not convinced by SmartGold01’s explanations either.

Casinos, and the gambling industry in general, have thoroughly analysed the potential psychological reactions of their customers.


It’s possible, but most people don’t even consider it, which is why casinos make so much money.

In any case, everything you’ve mentioned suggests that you’re breaking the number one rule of responsible gambling: you’re gambling with money that you can’t afford to lose. If, when you win—even a relatively small amount—you become overconfident, and when you lose it affects you too much, it means you’re betting too much relative to what your budget should be. And if, as you describe, you end up in an emotionally uncontrolled state, that’s even more proof of this. And the fact that you’ve started this thread suggests that, deep down, you know it.

So you don't follow bankroll management, really. If you say you are teetotal but then immediately say that you sometimes drink you are not a teetotal.

To be honest, I find this obsession with bankroll management pretty silly unless you’re trying to make a living from sports betting or something. Seriously, who uses bankroll management when playing slots? It’s nonsense. Just deposit an amount you’re comfortable with, play until you get lucky and can cash out – or lose it all – and don’t worry about it anymore.

En lo de que en España están locos puedo estar bastante de acuerdo pero lo que dices después no es correcto. Si tú trabajas en el extranjero tributas en el extranjero, no en España, no hay doble imposición. Eso que dices pasa en USA, por ejemplo, donde los impuestos se pagan por ciudadanía, no por residencia. Además, esto no te lo digo por teoría, por información que yo sepa, que también, sino por experiencia propia.

Hay excepciones a esto pero que no son doble tributación. Por ejemplo, alguien de España que se vaya a vivir a UK y trabaje allí cotizará por rentas del trabajo en UK y no estará obligado a tributar en España. Pero si por ejemplo tiene una casa en España que alquila, las rentas de ese alquiler sí que las tendrá que declarar en la renta española, aunque esto obviamente no es doble imposición.