Polymarket | Il più grande mercato predittivo al mondo™

ToastGato

1min market wen ?

Reflecting-Gravity

The best strategy in the 5-minute game is to make very fast trades—micro gains. But it causes me a lot of stress and frustration. I’m entering less and less. What surprises me the most is seeing people drop €3000 in the last 20 seconds. It’s insane. Lately, I’ve been playing the 15-minute one. I love it. You have time to use different strategies depending on the dynamics and movement of the last trades, it’s more “playable,” and you have a bit more time to correct things if you applied a wrong strategy. I’ve named the different strategies I’ve tried in my own way: 1-Going almost all-in in the last 15 seconds: NEVER. You can go broke with a single loss. 2-Betting both sides when it’s 50–50: you minimize losses because you win on the other side 3-Betting both sides at the extremes: I only use it when there’s a lot of bouncing 4-DCA (Dollar-Cost Averaging): a classic that works if you do it properly 5-Inverse betting: MY FAVORITE. Buy when the price drops and sell when it rises 6-Scalping micro-movements: only in the 5-minute game 7-Following the trend: NEVER (SORRY my english isnt good. Iam Basque)

calipso-protocol1

I suspect it will be up or down.

ToastGato

1min market wen ?

Reflecting-Gravity

The best strategy in the 5-minute game is to make very fast trades—micro gains. But it causes me a lot of stress and frustration. I’m entering less and less. What surprises me the most is seeing people drop €3000 in the last 20 seconds. It’s insane. Lately, I’ve been playing the 15-minute one. I love it. You have time to use different strategies depending on the dynamics and movement of the last trades, it’s more “playable,” and you have a bit more time to correct things if you applied a wrong strategy. I’ve named the different strategies I’ve tried in my own way: 1-Going almost all-in in the last 15 seconds: NEVER. You can go broke with a single loss. 2-Betting both sides when it’s 50–50: you minimize losses because you win on the other side 3-Betting both sides at the extremes: I only use it when there’s a lot of bouncing 4-DCA (Dollar-Cost Averaging): a classic that works if you do it properly 5-Inverse betting: MY FAVORITE. Buy when the price drops and sell when it rises 6-Scalping micro-movements: only in the 5-minute game 7-Following the trend: NEVER (SORRY my english isnt good. Iam Basque)

calipso-protocol1

I suspect it will be up or down.

ToastGato

1min market wen ?

Reflecting-Gravity

The best strategy in the 5-minute game is to make very fast trades—micro gains. But it causes me a lot of stress and frustration. I’m entering less and less. What surprises me the most is seeing people drop €3000 in the last 20 seconds. It’s insane. Lately, I’ve been playing the 15-minute one. I love it. You have time to use different strategies depending on the dynamics and movement of the last trades, it’s more “playable,” and you have a bit more time to correct things if you applied a wrong strategy. I’ve named the different strategies I’ve tried in my own way: 1-Going almost all-in in the last 15 seconds: NEVER. You can go broke with a single loss. 2-Betting both sides when it’s 50–50: you minimize losses because you win on the other side 3-Betting both sides at the extremes: I only use it when there’s a lot of bouncing 4-DCA (Dollar-Cost Averaging): a classic that works if you do it properly 5-Inverse betting: MY FAVORITE. Buy when the price drops and sell when it rises 6-Scalping micro-movements: only in the 5-minute game 7-Following the trend: NEVER (SORRY my english isnt good. Iam Basque)

calipso-protocol1

I suspect it will be up or down.

casda858

Cristiano Ronaldo's last World Cup as Portugal champions; hoping Portugal will win.

cfvfsd99

yes

junipero

Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ola! 🩵

Ronaldo2win

Go all in on Portugal and thank me later.

junipero

Portugal is definitely quite undervalued here actually. Real strong team + Martinez magic. 🧐

nikitakud77

you think portugal will win this world cup? Spain is actually pretty strong with Lamine Yamal

casda858

Cristiano Ronaldo's last World Cup as Portugal champions; hoping Portugal will win.

cfvfsd99

yes

junipero

Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ola! 🩵

Ronaldo2win

Go all in on Portugal and thank me later.

junipero

Portugal is definitely quite undervalued here actually. Real strong team + Martinez magic. 🧐

nikitakud77

you think portugal will win this world cup? Spain is actually pretty strong with Lamine Yamal

casda858

Cristiano Ronaldo's last World Cup as Portugal champions; hoping Portugal will win.

cfvfsd99

yes

junipero

Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole, Ola! 🩵

Ronaldo2win

Go all in on Portugal and thank me later.

junipero

Portugal is definitely quite undervalued here actually. Real strong team + Martinez magic. 🧐

nikitakud77

you think portugal will win this world cup? Spain is actually pretty strong with Lamine Yamal

PUERTOVALLERTA452

Yes tards its time to sell! Thank you for your attention to this matter

OnChainCassandra

The rule defines "continued enrichment" as US acceptance of enrichment "for any future amount of time" - and the operative word is continued, which by plain meaning requires an unbroken right running from the present into the future. A "pause-then-resume" structure (e.g., "no enrichment for 5 years, then you may") is the opposite: a cessation followed by a new, conditional permission. That's resumed enrichment, not continued. Tellingly, the rule's own examples of qualifying limitations - caps on enrichment level, monitoring requirements - are all concurrent constraints on an ongoing right, not total suspensions. A multi-year halt isn't a limitation on continued enrichment; it's the negation of it. Stop now, enrich later is not continued enrichment.

Eyebrows

Sounds like you don't know the difference between the words "continued" and "continuous". GL with UMA

Steve-Haines

Who is buying Yes on Enrichment of Uranium? Why?

mousefire96

Aenews2 💀

OdinRaven

Guessing some ppl think that a deal agreeing not to enrich for a number of years - such as the one being floated currently, 20 years to 5 years - could count

PUERTOVALLERTA452

Yes tards its time to sell! Thank you for your attention to this matter

OnChainCassandra

The rule defines "continued enrichment" as US acceptance of enrichment "for any future amount of time" - and the operative word is continued, which by plain meaning requires an unbroken right running from the present into the future. A "pause-then-resume" structure (e.g., "no enrichment for 5 years, then you may") is the opposite: a cessation followed by a new, conditional permission. That's resumed enrichment, not continued. Tellingly, the rule's own examples of qualifying limitations - caps on enrichment level, monitoring requirements - are all concurrent constraints on an ongoing right, not total suspensions. A multi-year halt isn't a limitation on continued enrichment; it's the negation of it. Stop now, enrich later is not continued enrichment.

Eyebrows

Sounds like you don't know the difference between the words "continued" and "continuous". GL with UMA

Steve-Haines

Who is buying Yes on Enrichment of Uranium? Why?

mousefire96

Aenews2 💀

OdinRaven

Guessing some ppl think that a deal agreeing not to enrich for a number of years - such as the one being floated currently, 20 years to 5 years - could count

PUERTOVALLERTA452

Yes tards its time to sell! Thank you for your attention to this matter

OnChainCassandra

The rule defines "continued enrichment" as US acceptance of enrichment "for any future amount of time" - and the operative word is continued, which by plain meaning requires an unbroken right running from the present into the future. A "pause-then-resume" structure (e.g., "no enrichment for 5 years, then you may") is the opposite: a cessation followed by a new, conditional permission. That's resumed enrichment, not continued. Tellingly, the rule's own examples of qualifying limitations - caps on enrichment level, monitoring requirements - are all concurrent constraints on an ongoing right, not total suspensions. A multi-year halt isn't a limitation on continued enrichment; it's the negation of it. Stop now, enrich later is not continued enrichment.

Eyebrows

Sounds like you don't know the difference between the words "continued" and "continuous". GL with UMA

Steve-Haines

Who is buying Yes on Enrichment of Uranium? Why?

mousefire96

Aenews2 💀

OdinRaven

Guessing some ppl think that a deal agreeing not to enrich for a number of years - such as the one being floated currently, 20 years to 5 years - could count