88 คาสิโน
22Bet ประกาศข้อเสนอคืนเงินสำหรับการแข่งขันเทควันโดชิงแชมป์โลกแบบไม่หยุดยั้ง
By admin | | 0 Comments |

22Bet ได้เปิดตัวข้อเสนอการคืนเงินสำหรับ 20H IIHF World Championship โปรโมชั่นนี้ช่วยให้ผู้เล่นได้รับเงินสด 8% เป็นประวัติการณ์สูงถึงເອີ 1,000 เมื่อปีที่แล้ว 22Bet ได้ยกระดับโปรโมชั่นหนังสือกีฬาโดยเสนอขายรถยนต์หลายคัน ตอนนี้ บริษัท ตั้งเป้าที่จะเขย่าตลาดอีกครั้งโดยเสนอเดิมพันที่ดีขึ้นสำหรับฟุตบอลโลก IIHF Hockey World Cup ปี 2021 ที่ริกาประเทศลัตเวีย นี่คือสิ่งที่คุณคาดหวังได้จากโปรโมชั่น: เงินคืน: 8% ของยอดเดิมพันทั้งหมดວາງการคืนเงินขั้นต่ำ ຳ: จำนวนเงินคืนสูงสุด 10 ยูโร: ເອີ 1,000 สิทธิ์: การเดิมพันในข้อเสนอของ IIHF World Championship Game Chance 1 เดือน: ฟรีเครดิตวันที่: เมืองเจ้าภาพและสนามกีฬาชิงแชมป์โลก IIHF ปี 2021 จัดขึ้นที่เมืองริกาประเทศลัตเวีย การแข่งขันจะเล่นที่สนามกีฬาสองแห่งคือศูนย์กีฬาโอลิมปิกและสนามกีฬาริกา สถานที่แรกจุผู้ชมได้ 6,200 คนในขณะที่สถานที่ที่สองจุได้ 10,300 คน ในตอนแรกมินสค์เบลารุสได้รับเลือกให้เป็นเจ้าภาพร่วม แต่ประเทศในยุโรปตะวันออกถูกละเมิดเนื่องจากสถานการณ์ด้านความปลอดภัยและความปลอดภัยในประเทศ ทีมและทีมชิงแชมป์โลก IIHF จะมีตัวแทนจาก 15 ประเทศและคณะกรรมการโอลิมปิก 1 ทีม (เป็นตัวแทนนักกีฬาจากรัสเซียซึ่งทีมชาติถูกห้ามไม่ให้แข่งขันเนื่องจากถูกคุมขัง) คณะกรรมการแบ่งออกเป็นสองกลุ่มดังต่อไปนี้: กลุ่ม A, กลุ่ม B, คณะกรรมการโอลิมปิก, รัสเซีย, แคนาดา, สวีเดน, ฟินแลนด์, สาธารณรัฐเช็ก, สหรัฐอเมริกา, สวิตเซอร์แลนด์, เยอรมนี, สโลวาเกีย, ลัตเวีย, เดนมาร์ก, นอร์เวย์, เบลารุส, บริเตนใหญ่, ผู้ยิ่งใหญ่คาซัคสถาน 2021 IIHF World Championship Odds ตามส่วนใหญ่ ทั้งสองทีมสามารถได้รับการสนับสนุนสำหรับอัตราต่อรองระหว่าง 3.25 ถึง 5.50 คุณเป็นแฟนของการเดิมพันที่คิดไม่ถึงหรือไม่? จากนั้นกลับไปที่บริเตนใหญ่ในตลาดผู้ชนะทั้งหมดและรับสูงถึง 1,500: 1 เดิมพัน 100 ยูโรในโอกาสแปลก ๆ เหล่านี้และคุณจะกลับบ้านพร้อมຄວາມ 150,000 เจ๋งถ้าทีม GB ได้ถ้วย IIHF ข้อห้ามสำหรับ COVID-19 ชิงแชมป์โลก IIHF ปี 2021 เนื่องจากการแพร่ระบาด IIHF ต้องใช้มาตรการด้านความปลอดภัยเพิ่มเติมเพื่อปกป้องสุขภาพของผู้เล่นโค้ชและเจ้าหน้าที่: เกมทั้งหมดจะเล่นในเมืองเดียวกัน (ริกาลัตเวีย) ทั้ง 16 ทีมจะอยู่ในโรงแรมเดียว ห้ามมิให้แฟนเพลงเข้าร่วมงาน วิธีการเดิมพันในเกมชิงแชมป์โลก IIHF ปี 2021 ผู้ใช้ 22Bet จะสามารถวางเดิมพันและเดิมพันในเกมชิงแชมป์โลก IIHF ปี 2021 ทั้งหมดได้ แต่ละเกมมาพร้อมกับลายเซ็นของเราซึ่งเป็นตัวเลือกชั้นนำของอุตสาหกรรมในตลาดการพนันกีฬา ผู้เล่นบน 22Bet จะสามารถรับโบนัสเงินฝาก 100% ในครั้งแรกที่โพสต์ โบนัสเหล่านี้สามารถใช้เพื่อสะสมเดิมพันในเกม IIHF Championship ทั้งหมด
คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ไลน์ คาสิโน คาสิโน sagame350 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริงฟรีเครดิต
USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rankings: สัปดาห์ที่ 11
By admin | | 0 Comments |

หลุยส์วิลล์กี. - ถ้าคุณเคยได้ยินหยุดเรา: Neshoba Central มาถึงสถานะสุดท้ายของคลาส 5A แล้ว ตำแหน่งแชมป์รัฐมิสซิสซิปปีเจ็ดสมัยและทีมอันดับ 1 ของสหรัฐอเมริกาจะเผชิญหน้ากับ East Central ในวันนี้ในการเปิดการแข่งขันชิงแชมป์สามอันดับแรกที่ Southern Mississippi University Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 ในวันนี้ เกมที่สองจะจัดขึ้นในวันศุกร์และเกมที่สามกำหนดไว้สำหรับวันเสาร์หากจำเป็น (30-0) The Rockets ชนะ 37 เกม ในขณะเดียวกัน№ 2 Lake Creek (36-0), Hewitt-Trussville อันดับสาม (43-2-1), อันดับ 4 Lakewood Ranch (27-2) และ Park Vista อันดับที่ 5 (27-0) ทุกคนยังคงอยู่ต่อ อาชีพที่เกี่ยวข้องลุยทัวร์นาเมนต์ของรัฐและเล่นให้มากขึ้นในอีกไม่กี่วันข้างหน้า ซานอันโตนิโอวอร์เรน (25-2) รู้สึกไม่พอใจในสองเกมสุดท้ายของซีรีส์เพลย์ออฟกับลอสเฟรสนอสทำให้แต่ละทีมจากแปดทีมต่อไปนี้เลื่อนขึ้นหนึ่งรุ่งโดยลดลงจากอันดับหกเป็น 23 ที่อื่น Masuk of Connecticut (14-0) และ Winnakunnett จาก New Hampshire (4-0) เป็นอันดับใหม่ในการจัดอันดับของสัปดาห์นี้ US TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 ใช้การจัดอันดับของรัฐที่กำหนดโดยโค้ชสมาชิก NFCA ทีมจะถูกเลือกตามคุณภาพคุณภาพของรายการและความแข็งแกร่งของกำหนดการ ในปี 2564 โรงเรียนที่ไม่มีการแข่งขันจะไม่สามารถเข้าร่วมการสำรวจได้ USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Survey - 13 พ.ค. 2021 อันดับ | ทีม | บันทึก 2021 | เรตติ้งก่อนหน้า 1. Neshoba Central (Miss.): 30-0 - PR: 1 2. Lake Creek (Texas): 36-0 - PR: 2 3. Hewitt-Trussville (Ala.): 43-2-1 - PR : 3 4. Lakewood Ranch (Fl.): 27-2 - PR: 4 5. Park Vista (Fla.): 27-0 - PR: 5 6. Leander (Texas): 32-0 - PR: 7 7. เคลียร์สปริงส์ (เท็กซัส): 26-0 - PR: 8 8. Barbe (La.): 31-2 - PR: 9 9. Norko (California): 17-1 - PR: 10 10. St. Amant (La) .): 25-3 - PR: 11 11. Marist (Ill.): 21-0 - PR: 12 12. New Palestine (Ind.): 23-0 - PR: 13 13. Keystone (Ohio): 26- 1 - PR: 14 14. Burns (SC): 25-1 - PR: 16 15. Rocky Mountain (Idaho): 21-1 - PR: 18 16. Lakota West (Ohio): 25-1 - PR: 19 17 Roncalli (Ind.): 19-2 - PR: 15 18. South Warren (Ki.): 20-1 - PR: 17 19. Bob Jones (Ala.): 33-4 - PR: 20 20. Barber Hill ( Texas): 33-2 - PR: 21 21. Crown Point (Ind.): 21-2 - PR: 22 22. Masuk (Conn.): 14-0 - PR: NR 23. San Antonio Warren (Texas): 25-2 - ประชาสัมพันธ์: 6 24. วินนากุลเนตร (NH): 4-0 - ประชาสัมพันธ์: NR 25. เทรนตัน (ชั้น): 18-1 - ประชาสัมพันธ์: 25 ซ้าย: อัลวิน (เท็กซัส) สเปนปาร์ก (Ala.) NFCA เพื่อทราบข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rating: 10th Week USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rating: 9th Week USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rating: 8th Week USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 อันดับซอฟท์บอล: สัปดาห์ที่ 7
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน คาสิโน 168 คาสิโน168 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888
5 กิจกรรมสนุก ๆ รับซัมเมอร์นี้
By admin | | 0 Comments |

ในที่สุดฤดูร้อนก็มาถึงแล้ว! อย่างไรก็ตามความตื่นเต้นของฤดูกาลที่รอคอยมากที่สุดได้หายไปเล็กน้อยท่ามกลางการแพร่ระบาด เป็นเรื่องปกติมากที่จะเบื่อและคิดถึงยุคโรคระบาดเพราะเราถูกขังอยู่ในบ้านอย่างปลอดภัย นั่นคือวันที่เราทำแผนฤดูร้อนเต็มรูปแบบ ทุกอย่างเป็นไปได้ตั้งแต่วันหยุดพักผ่อนไปจนถึงการสังสรรค์กับเพื่อน ๆ แต่ชีวิตเปลี่ยนไปสำหรับทุกคนและเราไม่สามารถทำอะไรกับมันได้ เพื่อให้เกิดประโยชน์สูงสุดเราได้จัดทำโซลูชันเสมือนจริงสองสามอย่างเพื่อ "รักษาความปลอดภัยและสุขภาพที่ดี" ไว้ที่บ้าน อ่านต่อเพื่อค้นหาวิธีแก้ปัญหาเหล่านี้ การเปิดตัว OTT ล่าสุดของ Binge-watch เรารู้ว่านี่เป็น "สิ่งสนุก ๆ " ที่คุณสามารถหาได้จากเว็บไซต์ออนไลน์ใด ๆ ปีที่แล้วเราเห็น OTT ออกมามากมายและมันก็คุ้มค่า มีซีรีส์และภาพยนตร์หลายเรื่องที่คาดว่าจะดึงดูดคุณได้ยาวนานที่สุดในปีนี้เช่นกัน นอกจากนี้ยังเป็นวิธีที่ดีที่สุดในการฆ่าเวลาในระหว่างการกักกัน บางทีการผูกพันกับคนที่รักอาจเป็นข้อแก้ตัวที่ดี เตรียมของว่างที่คุณชื่นชอบและเพลิดเพลินไปกับความสนุกสนานละครและความบันเทิงที่จริงจัง! การเล่นเกมออนไลน์การเล่นเกมเป็นหนึ่งในกิจกรรมยามว่างที่ได้รับความนิยมมากที่สุด ผู้ที่ไม่ใช่นักเล่นเกมจำนวนมากหันมาใช้โลกแห่งความเป็นจริงเช่นเดียวกับเกมออนไลน์เพื่อเอาชนะความเบื่อหน่ายจากการล็อก มีเกมมากมายที่คุณสามารถเล่นออนไลน์ได้ คุณสามารถเริ่มต้นด้วยเกมโปรดที่คุณชื่นชอบในโลกแห่งความเป็นจริง ตัวอย่างเช่นเหล้ารัมของอินเดียเป็นที่นิยมอย่างมากและมีผู้เล่นหลายล้านคนที่ชื่นชอบเกมนี้ ผู้ให้บริการรัมมี่ออนไลน์ยอดนิยมเช่น Junglee Rummy เป็นเจ้าภาพจัดการแข่งขันที่น่าตื่นเต้นทุกสัปดาห์และทุกเดือน ผู้เล่นสามารถแสดงทักษะของตนเองและรับรางวัลที่น่าทึ่งรวมถึงรูปีและรางวัลเงินสดเทียบเท่ากับรูปี การเล่นเกมออนไลน์อย่างรัมมี่นั้นสนุกและน่าตื่นเต้นแม้ว่าจะปิดอยู่ก็ตาม Board Game Night ใครเกลียดเกมกระดาน? ฉันไม่รู้! ในอดีตฤดูร้อนเป็นเกมกระดานทั้งหมด ตั้งแต่ลูโดไปจนถึงคาร์รอมคุณต้องเติบโตมาพร้อมกับการเล่นเกมที่ยอดเยี่ยมกับเพื่อนและครอบครัวของคุณ การรื้อฟื้นความทรงจำเก่า ๆ ในปี 2021 เป็นอย่างไรบ้าง? ทำความสะอาดสิ่งสกปรกบนกระดานคาร์อมหรือกระดานหมากรุกและเชิญเพื่อนของคุณมาร่วมสนุกกับเกมกระดานยามค่ำคืน บางทีคุณอาจวางแผนการแข่งขันทั้งหมดและเล่นด้วยเงินเดิมพันเพื่อเพิ่มความสนุกเป็นสองเท่า คุณยังสามารถให้ของว่างแก่เพื่อนของคุณเพื่อเล่นเกมหลาย ๆ เกมและจัดปาร์ตี้เล็ก ๆ เนื่องจากการแพร่ระบาดของแฮงเอาท์กลุ่มเสมือนทำให้หลายคนทำงานอยู่ที่บ้านอย่างถาวรและดูเหมือนจะขาดการติดต่อกับโลกภายนอก โชคดีที่มีหลายวิธีในการติดต่อกันโดยไม่ได้พบกับคนที่คุณรัก ด้วยเทคโนโลยีทำให้เราสามารถติดต่อกับญาติและเพื่อนทางไกลได้ ดังนั้นหากคุณพลาดโทรหรือแฮงเอาท์วิดีโอหรือส่งข้อความ แฮงเอาท์กลุ่มเสมือนได้รับความนิยมอย่างมากในช่วงปีที่ผ่านมา ผู้คนติดตั้งแอปอย่าง Google Duo หรือ Zoom และเชื่อมต่อกับผู้คนทั่วโลก !! เรียนรู้ทักษะใหม่ ๆ การเรียนรู้ทักษะใหม่ ๆ จะไม่มีวันล้าสมัย มีเวลาว่างมากมายที่คุณสามารถใช้มันได้หากคุณเรียนรู้ทักษะใหม่ ๆ หากคุณเป็นมืออาชีพในการทำงานคุณสามารถเรียนหลักสูตรออนไลน์เพื่อยกระดับทักษะของคุณได้ หากคุณเป็นนักเรียนคุณสามารถเลือกเรียนภาษาใหม่หรือการเขียนโปรแกรมคอมพิวเตอร์ได้ หากคุณมีกีตาร์อยู่ในร้านคุณสามารถเข้าร่วมหลักสูตรการเรียนรู้กีตาร์ออนไลน์และใช้งานได้ ไม่ว่าคุณจะเรียนรู้ทักษะใดคุณก็จะได้รับประโยชน์จากทักษะนั้นไม่ทางใดก็ทางหนึ่งเสมอ เราหวังว่าวิธีการเหล่านี้จะช่วยคุณและเข้าร่วมการเดินทางของเราเพื่ออยู่ร่วมกันในสัปดาห์ที่อบอุ่นของปี เล่นรัมมี่ออนไลน์และรับรางวัลสุดพิเศษเพื่อทำให้ฤดูร้อนเป็นที่จดจำ ลงทะเบียนสำหรับแพลตฟอร์มที่มีการใช้งานมากที่สุด Junglee Rummy และรับโบนัสต้อนรับ $ 5250 ในบัญชีของคุณ เกมสนุก!
คาสิโน โบนัส 100% คาสิโน โบนัส100% เฮงๆ 666 คาสิโน หวยออนไลน์ แทงบอล
Nevada Casinos Coronavirus Restrictions Eased
By admin | | 0 Comments |

 February 15, 2021 If at first you don’t succeed, try again in a few months! That seems to be where we are with Nevada casinos coronavirus precautions, as the Governor has started to ease some of the casino restrictions in place for a second time. As of today, the occupancy maximum for casinos in the state will grow from 25% to 35%. This will also apply to restaurants and bars. However, not all “Sin City” attractions are being treated equally. Adult entertainment venues, such as nightclubs and brothels, will remain not be allowed to open until May 1st at the earliest as they are considered high-risk businesses. Governor Sisolak has been in a delicate situation for a while now, balancing the state’s tourist driven economy with public safety. “As we ease restrictions, we must follow the science and studies, which states clearly and repeatedly that closures to certain settings are more impactful in reducing disease transmission,” he said. The state has documented over 285,000 cases of COVID-19 with more than 4,600 deaths. You can read more about the current Nevada casinos coronavirus situation at Yogo Net.     Related Tagged Coronavirus, COVID, Nevada casinos, Nevada casinos coronavirus, Sisolak
คาสิโน โบนัส 100% คาสิโน โบนัส100% เฮงๆ 666 คาสิโน หวยออนไลน์ แทงบอล
Addamo, Adams, and Bonomo Among Big Sunday Winners
By admin | | 0 Comments |

February 16 2021 Matthew Pitt Online poker tournaments are massive on Sundays and this fact along brings out the game’s best players. Michael Addamo, Timothy Adams, and Justin Bonomo are just three of those stellar names who managed to take down a Sunday major this weekend. Addamo Takes Down GGPoker Sunday 500 High Rollers $5,250 Michael Addamo enjoyed a super Sunday courtesy of triumphing in the Sunday 500 High Rollers $5,250, a tournament that attracted 113 of the world’s best players to the GGPoker virtual felt. Addamo’s first bullet didn’t go to plan and he crashed out in 76th place. He re-entered and put used his new stack to full effect. The likes of Kristen Bicknell, Matthias Eibinger, Elio Fox, Benjamin Rolle, and Anatoly Filatov busted inside the money places but before the star-studded final table. Austria’s “Filip1” was the final table’s first casualty. Their ninth-place exit awarding a $14,833 prize. Alex Foxen and David Yan then busted. Yan would go on to take down Sunday High Rollers Bounty King $3,150 for $49,300 later in the evening. The exits of Michael Zhang, Aleksei Barkov, Pascal Hartmann, and David Peters left Addamo heads-up against Wiktor Malinowski. Addamo rarely loses when he’s heads-up and that was the case again here. Addamo collected $131,187 for his victory while Malinowski banked $99,898 for his runner-up finish. Defeating Malinowski will go some way to making up for losing a massive $842,000 cash game pot last year. Sunday 500 High Rollers $5,250 Final Table Results PlacePlayerCountryPrize 1Michael AddamoCanada$131,187 2Wiktor MalinowskiMacau$99,898 3David PetersCanada$76,072 4Pascal HartmannAustria$57,928 5Aleksei BarkovRussia$44,112 6Michael ZhangBrazil$33,591 7David YanNew Zealand$25,579 8Alex FoxenCanada$19,478 9Flilip1Austria$14,833 ¥80 Million Gtd Asian Poker League (APL) Hits GGPoker Adams Takes Down High Rollers Blade Prime $2,625 Timothy Adams’ latest victory came in the High Rollers Blade Prime $2,625, an event that saw 80 players buy in. All but two of the players who navigated their way to the final table walked away with five-figures hauls. Fedor Holz and Andrii Novak being that duo. “LeoJose” fell in seventh and was joined on the rail first by Artur Martirosian, then by Urmo Velvelt, Rainer Kempe, and China’s Kevin Pu. This left Adams, on his one and only bullet, heads-up against Arsneii Malinov. Malinov fell at the final hurdle and scooped $36,565, which left Adams to add the $46,885 top prize to his GGPoker account. High Rollers Blade Prime $2,625 Final Table Results PlacePlayerCountryPrize 1Timothy AdamsCanada$46,885 2Arsenii MalinovRussia$36,565 3Kevin PuChina$28,516 4Rainer KempeGermany$22,239 5Urmo VelveltEstonia$17,344 6Artur MartirosianRussia$13,526 7LeoJoseBrazil$10,549 8Andrii NovakUkraine$8,227 9Fedor HolzAustria$6,416 Other GGPoker Highlights Shankar Pillai – first-place in the High Roller MILLION$ for $207,692Gabriel Schroeder – first-place in the GGMasters High Rollers $1,050 for $140,355MonkeyD93 – first-place in the Global MILLION$ for $112,712swedishdream – first-place in the Bounty Hunters HR Main Event $525 for $95,817*Sami Kelopuro – first-place in the High Rollers Sunday Blade Opener $5,250 for $57,374L1mpFold – first-place in the GGMasters $150 for $54,631David Yan – first-place in the Sunday High Rollers Bounty King $3,150 for $49,300*Joseph Cheong – first-place in the Sunday Bounty King $315 for $44,349*Ami Barer – first-place in the High Rollers Blade Mulligan $2,625 for $43,288Michael Zhang – first-place in the High Rollers Blade Opener $2,625 for $39,752Andras Nemeth – first-place in the High Rollers Blade Bounty King PLO $3,150 for $35,513*spera91 – first-place in the High Rollers Marathon $840 for $33,695Joao Caetano – first-place in the Sunday High Rollers Fifty Stack $500 for $31,657Boris Kolev – first-place in the Sunday Forty Stack $400 for $30,214Bruno Botteon – first-place in the Sunday high Rollers Bounty Special $840 for $29,113*Dante Fernandes – first-place in the Bounty Hunters Sunday Special $210 for $25,808*Babyccino – first-place in the Sunday Main Event $200 for $24,254Anton Wigg – first-place in the Sunday High Rollers Fast $525 for $13,780 *includes bounty payments Justin Bonomo Binks the partypoker High Roller Big Game Justin Bonomo Justin Bonomo, fresh from his recent Super MILLION$ victory, continued his impressive run of form by taking down the High Roller Big Game at partypoker. Bonomo came out on top of a 127-strong field in the $2,600 buy-in event to get his hands on $79,128. The final table was brimming with the world’s top poker talent, as you’d expect from such a prestigious tournament. Tomi Brouk busted in ninth and won $8,739, the tournament’s last four-figure prize. Ognyan Dimov, Roberto Romanello, and Pedro Garagnani were the next players to fall by the wayside. Niklas Astedt and Team partypoker’s Kristen Bicknell followed suit. Ukraine’s Pavlo Kolinkovskiy’s elimination in third-place, worth $34,935, left Bonomo and Ali Imsirovic heads-up for the title. Bonomo got the job done and secured the $79,128 top prize, leaving Imsirovic to bank $79,128. High Roller Big Game Final Table Results PlacePlayerCountryPrize 1Justin BonomoCanada$79,128 2Ali ImsirovicMexico$50,916 3Pavlo KolinkovskiyUkraine$34,935 4Kristen BicknellCanada$24,702 5Niklas AstedtSweden$18,330 6Pedro GaragnaniBrazil$14,667 7Roberto RomanelloUnited Kingdom$12,398 8Ognyan DimovBulgaria$10,539 9Tomi BroukFinland$8,739 Jamie O’Connor Takes Down Big Game Jamie O’Connor turned $530 into $41,417 by winning The Big Game. O’Connor was a guest on Leigh Wiltshire and Des Duffy’s APAT Show while he was grinding this event but chatting didn’t put him off the grind. O’Connor defeated Rui Da Silva heads-up to lock up the top prize and resign Da Silva to a $28,678 consolation prize. Two other players saw their bankrolls swell by five-figures. Fourth-place finisher Joel Nystedt scooped $13,158 with Joao Gaspar reeling in a $19,868 prize for his demise in third-place. The Big Game Final Table Results PlacePlayerCountryPrize 1Jamie O’ConnorUnited Kingdom$79,128 2Rui Da SilvaCroatia$28,678 3Joao GasparMalta$19,868 4Joel NystedtAustria$13,158 5Dwayne SluisNetherlands$9,177 6Fahredin MustafovBulgaria$7,273 7Justin OuimetteCanada$5,843 8Joakim AnderssonSweden$4,737 9Jamie NixonUnited Kingdom$3,844 Other Highlights From partypoker LivviG – first-place in the $320 The 300 for $19,962*BeastFromDaEast – first-place in the $109 Weekender for $17,563*Andreas Puntigam – first-place in the $55 Mini Big Game for $17,155freestylee – first-place in the $111 One Shot for $13,848*youngblood – first-place in the $215 Warrior for $13,450*EZfold55 – first-place in the $55 Gladiator for $12,138* *includes bounty payments partypoker MILLIONS Online Schedule Features MEGA High Roller and $5m GTD Main Event Peter Traply Nets Sunday Super Sonic Top Prize Peter Traply Peter “Belabasci” Traply triumphed in the PokerStars $215 Sunday Supersonic and banked a cool $20,378. That only tells part of the story, however, because the Sunday Supersonic is a hyper-turbo structured tournament meaning Traply’s victory only took one-hour 13-minutes for an hourly rate of $16,750, which is nice work if you can get it! Runner-up “mindreader007” and third-place finisher “acesdesigner” were the two other finalists whose $215 swelled to a five-figure score. Second-place weighed in at $14,591 with the third-place finisher collecting $10,448. $215 Sunday Supersonic Final Table Results PlacePlayerCountryPrize 1Peter “Belabasci” TraplyHungary$20,378 2mindreader007United Kingdom$14,591 3acesdesignerBrazil$10,448 4LilharmisFinland$7,481 5Michiel “utreg” BrummelhuisNetherlands$5,356 6Felipe “ultraviol3nt” OlivieriArgentina$3,835 Dutch Star Wins High Roller Sunday Supersonic “Daenarys T” from the Netherlands took down the $1,050 edition of the Sunday Supersonic and did so in a mere one hour and five-minutes. This meant their $24,032 prize was worth $22,251 per hour! There were some awesome players at the six-handed final table, including runner-up Bruno “botteonpoker” Botteon and third-place finisher Benjamin “bencb789” Rolle. The day, however, belonged to former Sunday Million champion Daenarys T. PlacePlayerCountryPrize 1Daenarys TNetherlands$24,032 2Bruno “botteonpoker” BotteonBrazil$18,451 3Benjamin “bencb789” RolleAustria$14,166 4Viktor “papan9_p$” UstimovRussia$10,876 5blackaces93Poland$8,350 6Andy “wiisssppppaa” TaylorUnited Kingdom$6,410 Other Highlights From PokerStars 13shaun – first-place in the $1,050 Sunday High Roller for $60,576Aleksei “AS Leshiy” Smirnov – first-place in the $215 Bounty Builder for $31,476*RaiseUpBlind – first-place in he $1,050 Sunday Cooldown for $29,468*yuhei33 – first-place in the $109 Bounty Builder for $29,419*Felipe “lipe piv” Boianovsky – first-place in the $215 Bounty Builder for $29,289*babecallme – first-place in the $109 Sunday Cooldown for $27,227*Black88 – first-place in the $215 Sunday Warm-Up for $17,941Artur “marathur1” Martirosian – first-place in the $1,050 Sunday Warm-Up for $17,814planty07/08 – first-place in the $109 Sunday Kickoff for $15,407Chris “ImDaNuts” Oliver – first-place in the Hotter $215 for $13,872*Dominik “Bounatirou” Nitsche – first-place in the $215 Fat Sunday for $11,782Christian “WATnlos” Rudolph – first-place in the $530 Sunday Marathon for $11,116 *includes bounty payments Get Ready for 107 MicroMillions Events Across Only Four Days! maestro1908 Grabs the $100,000 Sunday Mega Deep Title at 888poker The $100,000 Sunday Mega Deep had been hitting its guarantee lately but it reverted to type on February 14 when 892 players bought in to leave 888poker nursing a $10,800 overlay. “maestro1908” netted the $16,350 top prize after defeating the United Kingdom’s “needabridge” heads-up, leaving the Brit to bank $11,900. The $30,000 Sunday Challenge PKO performed much better with the 335 entrants ensuring the $30,000 guarantee was beaten by $3,500. “troms18” was the last player standing, a result that saw $6,327 head to their account. Swedish star “VnilaVader” was the tournament’s runner-up; they scooped $3,464 with bounties included. 888poker Giving Away $100,000 in 24/7 Freeroll Festival All This Month The Stars Group is a majority shareholder in Oddschecker Global Media, the parent company of PokerNews.
wmคาสิโน คาสิโน1688 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ จีคลับ คาสิโน ออนไลน์ pantip คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 777
Staying in Control when Playing Poker Online
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Much like when you place a sports bet, gamble in a casino or even try your luck at playing bingo, when you choose to play poker online you do, of course, need to stay in control and have a sensible playing strategy in place. You stand just as much chance of losing when playing poker as when you set about gambling in any shape or form, but the most poker players know there is an element of skill about that game and each of the many different poker game variants, and that is what they are looking to exploit when playing. This article is going to be reminding you of the days of losing control when playing poker online and will additionally ensure that you are away of the many additional tools and options you can take as an online real money poker player to allow you to stay in control when playing too. The first thing I always do advise anyone that wishes to venture into the online poker environment, however, is to first and foremost ensure the sites they choose to play at, if living in the United Kingdom, are those that hold a full UK Gambling Commission issued gambling license. That way above all else you will know the games are fair, your funds are secure at those sites, too, and you will have a range of responsible gambling tools and option settings at your disposal when playing at such sites, too. As for just how you can remove the risk of you being tempted to gamble at those Non GamStop poker sites in the future, well one quite and easy way you can stop yourself from ever being in a position to sign up to those other sites, is by simply downloading a blocker tool onto your computer and mobile devices. Taking Steps to Give Up Gambling You may have come to the conclusion that you do have a gambling problem and when you do then you will always need to know just what help and support is available to you, and there is plenty of support out there if you are prepared to reach out and ask for it. As for what ways you can set about getting help and support with any gambling problems you do have, spend as much time as you need and require checking out websites such at both the Gamblers Anonymous and GamCare websites. They both offer a lot of practical advice and will certainly point you in the right direction of where to get help with any gambling problems. Keep in mind though that once you do admit to yourself that you have a gambling problem you are going to have to start closing down online and mobile gambling site accounts that you have, and that could take you quite some time of course if you have lots of such accounts open. However, you can head on over to the GamStop website right now and what you can do when you arrive at their website is sign up to their United Kingdom gambling industry wide self-exclusion register. On you have signed up onto that register all United Kingdom-based gambling site operators are then going to close your accounts with them down and to ensure you do not try to gamble at those sites again in the future each of them will block you from being able to do so. Stay Away from Non-UK Licensed Poker Sites One final thing that you need bringing to your attention, if you are now determined to give up playing poker and gambling online, is that there are quite a number of casinos, poker and other gambling sites that are not located or licensed in the United Kingdom. That does, of course, mean that even if you do sign up to the GamStop self-exclusion register you are still always going to be more than welcome to sign up to and then gamble at those other sites and will never be blocked form doing so even if you are on that register. A gambling site blocker as they are known has one simple yet highly effective purpose and that is to block you from being able to access any website that is related to gambling, and therefore by not being able to access those sites you will never have the chance of giving in to temptation and gambling at any of them.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ที่ดีที่สุด 123 yesคาสิโน คาสิโน ที่ดีที่สุด คาสิโนufabet คาสิโน ufabet
When Relationships Fall Victim to Problem Gambling
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Many celebrate love, romance, and relationships during February and on Valentine’s Day. While no relationship is perfect, some endure significant hardship due to the presence of addiction, and gambling addiction is no exception. Did you know that relationship problems have been the top reported reason for seeking help by contacts to the 888-ADMIT-IT HelpLine for more than a decade? Contrary to social stigmas, individuals who struggle with problem gambling are not able to simply stop. Gambling addiction rewires the brain much in the same way as substance abuse, yet the symptoms are unseen, leaving loved ones unaware until the gambler hits “rock bottom.” Feelings like shame, guilt, and stress also flood these individuals and leave them hiding the consequences of problem gambling, exacerbating relationship difficulties and preventing them from seeking needed supports. Family members and other loved ones often do not know the extent of the gambler’s behaviors or debt. Over the past year, 76% of 888-ADMIT-IT HelpLine contacts reported the presence of family conflict, and 52% indicated family neglect as a result of problem gambling, with some also experiencing domestic violence and abuse [1]. It is imperative to understand that for every case of problem gambling, an average of 8-10 additional people are affected — often those closest to the gambler.  Research published in the Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health found that the negative effects of their partner’s gambling problems centered on four key areas — financial loss, emotional distress, impairment of mental and physical health, and erosion of their relationship [2]. Complicating matters further, the COVID-19 pandemic is causing heightened levels of emotional distress and mental health impacts across the population, leaving those suffering from this hidden addiction even more vulnerable. HelpLine data shows that a large percentage of problem gamblers are experiencing significant anxiety (68%) and depression (67%), with more than one in five admitting to suicidal thoughts (22%) and an appreciable number (13%) reporting neurological disorders. These mental health issues understandably extend to family members and loved ones.  The good news is that help and hope can be found through the 24/7, Confidential, and Multilingual 888-ADMIT-IT HelpLine for anyone in need, including loved ones. The HelpLine can also be reached by texting 321-978-0555, starting a live chat at gamblinghelp.org, emailing fccg@gamblinghelp.org, and messaging the FCCG on social media. Get connected to the resources that make a difference, including referrals to certified treatment providers! March is Problem Gambling Awareness Month March is Problem Gambling Awareness Month (PGAM), a grassroots effort to raise awareness about gambling disorder, classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a behavioral addiction, that impacts millions of Floridians who struggle directly with gambling related difficulties or are adversely affected by a loved one’s gambling problem. This year, our campaign theme is Shine the Light on Problem Gambling: Changing the Game. During this past year, the world has been forced to grapple with crippling impacts caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Many Florida residents, like many Americans, are struggling given the unforeseen consequences resulting from the pandemic. For disordered gamblers and their families, the effects of the virus can exacerbate already serious financial, psychological, legal, and other problems caused by gambling. Click here to learn more about PGAM and join the movement in raising awareness about the issue of problem gambling and the help and hope available through the 24/7, Confidential, and Multilingual Problem Gambling HelpLine! [1]  24-Hour Problem Gambling HelpLine Annual Report., 2020 ed., The Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling, Inc., 2020, 24-Hour Problem Gambling HelpLine Annual Report. [2] Abbott, M., DA. Abbott, S., Boyatzis, R., V. Braun, V., EM. Chan, A., Charmaz, K., . . . Volberg, R. (1970, January 01). Impacts of gambling problems on partners: Partners’ interpretations. Retrieved February 11, 2021, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2195-3007-3-11
เกมส์ยิ่งปลา คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต ฟรีเครดิตทดลองเล่น คาสิโน เกมส์ คาสิโน ออนไลน์ บ่อนออนไลน์ คาสิโน ออนไลน์ได้เงินจริง
Star signing Suliasi Vunivalu stood down by Reds for off-field incident
By admin | | 0 Comments |

A Set small text size A Set the default text size A Set large text size High-profile Queensland Reds recruit Suliasi Vunivalu has been dropped from what would have been his Super Rugby AU debut for allegedly pushing a security guard in a Brisbane pub. The champion NRL winger had arrived at Ballymore fresh off a premiership with the Melbourne Storm as Rugby Australia’s big-ticket item. But on Tuesday the winger copped a club-imposed $10,000 fine alongside suspension from Friday’s season opener at Suncorp Stadium against the NSW Waratahs. The matter is before the court and will be reviewed by RA and Queensland Rugby Union once it is resolved. It is understood the security guard was not injured during the incident, which was considered minor and occurred earlier this month. Vunivalu was implicated in an NRL integrity unity investigation in 2019 when he was allegedly a victim of a coward punch at a Bali nightspot that sparked a brawl that included former Storm teammate Nelson Asofa-Solomona. The 26-year-old had already spent time in camp with the Wallabies and is considered an immense talent likely to feature in national coach Dave Rennie’s plans ahead of the 2023 World Cup. It’s an early setback for a Reds outfit hunting their first silverware since 2011, having lost the Super Rugby AU decider to the Brumbies last year. © AAP
คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ไลน์ คาสิโน คาสิโน sagame350 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริงฟรีเครดิต
Serena Williams shows off her unreal defense on this point
By admin | | 0 Comments |

ReplyshareReportSave*display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle.t9oUK2WY0d28lhLAh3N5qmargin-top:-23px._2KqgQ5WzoQRJqjjoznu22odisplay:inline-block;-ms-flex-negative:0;flex-shrink:0;position:relative._2D7eYuDY6cYGtybECmsxvE-ms-flex:1 1 auto;flex:1 1 auto;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis._2D7eYuDY6cYGtybECmsxvE:hovertext-decoration:underline._19bCWnxeTjqzBElWZfIlJbfont-size:16px;font-weight:500;line-height:20px;display:inline-block._2TC7AdkcuxFIFKRO_VWis8margin-left:10px;margin-top:30px._2TC7AdkcuxFIFKRO_VWis8._35WVFxUni5zeFkPk7O4iiBmargin-top:35px._7kAMkb9SAVF8xJ3L53gcWdisplay:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;margin-bottom:8px._7kAMkb9SAVF8xJ3L53gcW*-ms-flex:auto;flex:auto._1LAmcxBaaqShJsi8RNT-Vppadding:0 2px 0 4px;vertical-align:middle._3_HlHJ56dAfStT19Jgl1bF,.nEdqRRzLEN43xauwtgTmjpadding-right:4px._3_HlHJ56dAfStT19Jgl1bFpadding-left:16px._2QZ7T4uAFMs_N83BZcN-Emfont-family:Noto Sans,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:400;line-height:18px;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-flow:row nowrap;flex-flow:row nowrap._19sQCxYe2NApNbYNX5P5-Lcursor:default;height:16px;margin-right:8px;width:16px.isInIcons2020 .icon._19sQCxYe2NApNbYNX5P5-Lmargin:-2px 8px 0 0._3XFx6CfPlg-4Usgxm0gK8Rfont-size:16px;font-weight:500;line-height:20px._34InTQ51PAhJivuc_InKjJcolor:var(--newCommunityTheme-actionIcon)._29_mu5qI8E1fq6Uq5koje8font-size:12px;font-weight:500;line-height:16px;display:inline-block;word-break:break-word._2BY2-wxSbNFYqAy98jWyTCmargin-top:10px._3sGbDVmLJd_8OV8Kfl7dVvfont-family:Noto Sans,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:400;line-height:21px;margin-top:8px;word-wrap:break-word._1qiHDKK74j6hUNxM0p9ZIpmargin-top:12px.isNotInButtons2020 ._1eMniuqQCoYf3kOpyx83Jjdisplay:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;width:100%;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;margin-bottom:8px.isNotInButtons2020 ._326PJFFRv8chYfOlaEYmGtdisplay:-ms-flexbox;display:flex.isNotInButtons2020 .Jy6FIGP1NvWbVjQZN7FHA,.isNotInButtons2020 ._326PJFFRv8chYfOlaEYmGtwidth:100%;font-size:14px;font-weight:700;letter-spacing:.5px;line-height:32px;text-transform:uppercase;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:0 16px.isNotInButtons2020 .Jy6FIGP1NvWbVjQZN7FHAdisplay:block;margin-top:11px.isNotInButtons2020 ._1cDoUuVvel5B1n5wa3K507display:block;padding:0 16px;width:100%;font-size:14px;font-weight:700;letter-spacing:.5px;line-height:32px;text-transform:uppercase;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;margin-top:11px;text-transform:unset.isInButtons2020 .Jy6FIGP1NvWbVjQZN7FHA,.isInButtons2020 ._326PJFFRv8chYfOlaEYmGt,.isInButtons2020 ._1eMniuqQCoYf3kOpyx83Jj,.isInButtons2020 ._1cDoUuVvel5B1n5wa3K507-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;margin-top:12px;width:100%.isInButtons2020 ._1eMniuqQCoYf3kOpyx83Jjmargin-bottom:8px._2_w8DCFR-DCxgxlP1SGNq5margin-right:4px;vertical-align:middle._1aS-wQ7rpbcxKT0d5kjrbhborder-radius:4px;display:inline-block;padding:4px._2cn386lOe1A_DTmBUA-qSMborder-top:1px solid var(--newCommunityTheme-widgetColors-lineColor);margin-top:10px._2Zdkj7cQEO3zSGHGK2XnZvdisplay:inline-block.wzFxUZxKK8HkWiEhs0tyEfont-size:12px;font-weight:700;line-height:16px;color:var(--newCommunityTheme-button);cursor:pointer;text-align:left;margin-top:2px._3R24jLERJTaoRbM_vYd9v0._3R24jLERJTaoRbM_vYd9v0._3R24jLERJTaoRbM_vYd9v0display:none._38lwnrIpIyqxDfAF1iwhcVbackground-color:var(--newRedditTheme-line);border:none;height:1px;margin:16px 0.yobE-ux_T1smVDcFMMKFvfont-size:16px;font-weight:500;line-height:20px._2DVpJZAGplELzFy4mB0epQmargin-top:8px._2DVpJZAGplELzFy4mB0epQ .x1f6lYW8eQcUFu0VIPZzbcolor:inherit._2DVpJZAGplELzFy4mB0epQ svg.LTiNLdCS1ZPRx9wBlY2rDcolor:inherit;fill:inherit;padding-right:8px._2DVpJZAGplELzFy4mB0epQ ._18e78ihYD3tNypPhtYISq3font-family:Noto Sans,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:400;line-height:18px;color:inherit .LalRrQILNjt65y-p-QlWHfill:var(--newRedditTheme-actionIcon);height:18px;width:18px.LalRrQILNjt65y-p-QlWH rectstroke:var(--newRedditTheme-metaText)._3J2-xIxxxP9ISzeLWCOUVcheight:18px.FyLpt0kIWG1bTDWZ8HIL1margin-top:4px._2ntJEAiwKXBGvxrJiqxx_2,._1SqBC7PQ5dMOdF0MhPIkA8height:24px;vertical-align:middle;width:24px._1SqBC7PQ5dMOdF0MhPIkA8-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center ._2a172ppKObqWfRHr8eWBKV-ms-flex-negative:0;flex-shrink:0;margin-right:8px._39-woRduNuowN7G4JTW4I8border-top:1px solid var(--newCommunityTheme-widgetColors-lineColor);margin-top:12px;padding-top:12px._3AOoBdXa2QKVKqIEmG7Vkbfont-size:12px;font-weight:400;line-height:16px;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;background-color:var(--newCommunityTheme-body);border-radius:4px;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;margin-top:12px.vzEDg-tM8ZDpEfJnbaJuUcolor:var(--newCommunityTheme-button);fill:var(--newCommunityTheme-button);height:14px;width:14px.r51dfG6q3N-4exmkjHQg_font-size:10px;font-weight:700;letter-spacing:.5px;line-height:12px;text-transform:uppercase;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between._2ygXHcy_x6RG74BMk0UKkNmargin-left:8px._2BnLYNBALzjH6p_ollJ-RFdisplay:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;margin-left:auto._1-25VxiIsZFVU88qFh-T8ppadding:0._3BmRwhm18nr4GmDhkoSgtbcolor:var(--newCommunityTheme-bodyText);-ms-flex:0 0 auto;flex:0 0 auto;line-height:16px ._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJborder-top:1px solid var(--newRedditTheme-line);margin-top:16px;padding-top:16px._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._2NbKFI9n3wPM76pgfAPEsNmargin:0;padding:0._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._2NbKFI9n3wPM76pgfAPEsN ._2btz68cXFBI3RWcfSNwbmJfont-family:Noto Sans,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:400;line-height:21px;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin:8px 0._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._2NbKFI9n3wPM76pgfAPEsN ._2btz68cXFBI3RWcfSNwbmJ.QgBK4ECuqpeR2umRjYcP2opacity:.4._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._2NbKFI9n3wPM76pgfAPEsN ._2btz68cXFBI3RWcfSNwbmJ labelfont-size:12px;font-weight:500;line-height:16px;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._2NbKFI9n3wPM76pgfAPEsN ._2btz68cXFBI3RWcfSNwbmJ label svgfill:currentColor;height:20px;margin-right:4px;width:20px._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._4OtOUaGIjjp2cNJMUxme_-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;padding:0;width:100%._3Qx5bBCG_O8wVZee9J-KyJ ._4OtOUaGIjjp2cNJMUxme_ svgdisplay:inline-block;height:12px;width:12px.isInButtons2020 ._4OtOUaGIjjp2cNJMUxme_padding:0 12px.isInButtons2020 ._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8Ffont-family:Noto Sans,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:700;letter-spacing:unset;line-height:16px;text-transform:unset._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F--textColor:var(--newCommunityTheme-widgetColors-sidebarWidgetTextColor);--textColorHover:var(--newCommunityTheme-widgetColors-sidebarWidgetTextColorShaded80);font-size:10px;font-weight:700;letter-spacing:.5px;line-height:12px;text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--textColor);fill:var(--textColor);opacity:1._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F._2UlgIO1LIFVpT30ItAtPfb--textColor:var(--newRedditTheme-widgetColors-sidebarWidgetTextColor);--textColorHover:var(--newRedditTheme-widgetColors-sidebarWidgetTextColorShaded80)._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F:active,._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F:hovercolor:var(--textColorHover);fill:var(--textColorHover)._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F:disabled,._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F[data-disabled],._1ra1vBLrjtHjhYDZ_gOy8F[disabled]opacity:.5;cursor:not-allowed.isInIcons2020 ._3a4fkgD25f5G-b0Y8wVIBemargin-right:8px .c_dVyWK3BXRxSN3ULLJ_tborder-radius:4px 4px 0 0;height:34px;left:0;position:absolute;right:0;top:0._1OQL3FCA9BfgI57ghHHgV3-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-pack:start;justify-content:flex-start;margin-top:32px._1OQL3FCA9BfgI57ghHHgV3 ._33jgwegeMTJ-FJaaHMeOjVborder-radius:9001px;height:32px;width:32px._1OQL3FCA9BfgI57ghHHgV3 ._1wQQNkVR4qNpQCzA19X4B6height:16px;margin-left:8px;width:200px._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxxdisplay:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;margin:12px 0._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx ._29TSdL_ZMpyzfQ_bfdcBSc-ms-flex:1;flex:1._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx .JEV9fXVlt_7DgH-zLepBHheight:18px;width:50px._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx ._3YCOmnWpGeRBW_Psd5WMPRheight:12px;margin-top:4px;width:60px._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyNheight:18px;margin-bottom:4px._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN._2E9u5XvlGwlpnzki78vasGwidth:230px._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN.fDElwzn43eJToKzSCkejEwidth:100%._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN._2kNB7LAYYqYdyS85f8pqfiwidth:250px._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN._1XmngqAPKZO_1lDBwcQrR7width:120px._3XbVvl-zJDbcDeEdSgxV4_border-radius:4px;height:32px;margin-top:16px;width:100%._2hgXdc8jVQaXYAXvnqEyEDanimation:_3XkHjK4wMgxtjzC1TvoXrb 1.5s ease infinite;background:linear-gradient(90deg,var(--newCommunityTheme-field),var(--newCommunityTheme-inactive),var(--newCommunityTheme-field));background-size:200%._1KWSZXqSM_BLhBzkPyJFGRbackground-color:var(--newCommunityTheme-widgetColors-sidebarWidgetBackgroundColor);border-radius:4px;padding:12px;position:relative;width:auto /*# sourceMappingURL=https://www.redditstatic.com/desktop2x/chunkCSS/IdCard.80f3288bcfb1334f33fa.css.map*/]]>
ปอยเปต คาสิโน เกมส์ยิ่งปลา คาสิโน ได้เงินจริงไหม เล่น คาสิโน คาสิโน191 คาสิโน 88
Criticisms of Michael Slepian’s Stanford study on poker tells and hand movements (published 2015)
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Some places the study was featured. The following is reposted from a 2015 piece I wrote for Bluff magazine. It was originally located at this URL but has become unavailable due to Bluff going out of business. I saw this study mentioned recently in Maria Konnikova’s book ‘The Biggest Bluff’ and was reminded about this piece and noticed it was offline, so I wanted to share it again. A few notes on this piece: The original title below and was more negative-sounding than I liked; Bluff chose it. Also, if I could rewrite this piece now, I’d probably choose less negative-sounding phrasing in some places.  Regardless of the exact factors that might be at work in the found correlation, I realize it’s scientifically interesting that a significant correlation was found. But I also think it’s possible to draw simplistic and wrong conclusions from the study, and my piece hopefully gives more context about the factors that might be at work. Image on left taken from Michael Slepian’s media page. The Slepian Study on Betting Motions Doesn’t Pass Muster A 2013 study¹ conducted at Stanford University by graduate student Michael Slepian and associates found a correlation between the “smoothness” of a betting motion and the strength of the bettor’s hand. In a nutshell, there was a positive correlation found between betting motions perceived as “smooth” and “confident” and strong hands. The quality of the betting motions was judged by having experiment participants watch short clips of players making bets (taken from the 2009 WSOP Main Event) and estimate the hand strength of those bets. This experiment has gotten a lot of press over the last couple years. I first heard about it on NPR. Since, I’ve seen it referenced in poker blogs and articles and in a few mainstream news articles. I still occasionally hear people talk about it at the table when I play. I’ve had friends and family members reference it and send me links to it. It’s kind of weird how much attention it received, considering the tons of interesting studies that are constantly being done, but I guess it can be chalked up to the mystique and “sexiness” of poker tells. The article had more than casual interest for me. I’m a former professional poker player and the author of two books on poker behavior: Reading Poker Tells and Verbal Poker Tells. I’ve been asked quite a few times about my opinion on this study, and I’ve been meaning to look at the study more closely and write up my thoughts for a while. In this article, I’ll give some criticisms of the study and some suggestions for how this study (and similar studies) could be done better. This isn’t to denigrate the work of the experiment’s designers. I think this is an interesting study, and I hope it will encourage similar studies using poker as a means to study human behavior. But I do think it was flawed in a few ways, and it could be improved in many ways. That’s not to say that I think their conclusion is wrong; in fact, in my own experience, I think their conclusion is correct. I do, however, think it’s a very weak general correlation and will only be practically useful if you have a player-specific behavioral baseline. My main point is that this study is not enough, on its own, to cause us to be confident about the conclusion. I’ll give a few reasons for why I think the study is flawed, but the primary underlying reason is a common one for studies involving poker: the study’s organizers just don’t know enough about how poker works. I’ve read about several experiments involving poker where the organizers were very ignorant about some basic aspects of poker, and this affected the way the tests were set up and the conclusions that were reached (and this probably applies not just to poker-related studies but to many studies that involve an activity that requires a lot of experience to understand well). Poker can seem deceptively simple to people first learning it, and even to people who have played it for decades. Many bad players lose money at poker while believing that they’re good, or even great players. In the same way, experiment designers may falsely believe they understand the factors involved in a poker hand, while being far off the mark. Here are the flaws, as I see them, in this study: 1. The experimenters refer to all WSOP entrants as ‘professional poker players.’ This first mistake wouldn’t directly affect the experiment, but it does point to a basic misunderstanding of poker and the World Series of Poker, which might indirectly affect other aspects of the experiment and its conclusions. Here are a couple examples of this from the study: The World Series of Poker (WSOP), originating in 1970, brings together professional poker players every year (from the study’s supplemental materials) These findings are notable because the players in the stimulus clips were highly expert professionals competing in the high-stakes WSOP tournament. The WSOP Main Event is open to anyone and most entrants are far from being professional poker players. Categorizing someone’s poker skill can be difficult and subjective, but Kevin Mathers, a long-time poker industry worker, estimates that only 20% of WSOP Main Event entrants are professional (or professional-level) players. This also weakens the conclusion that the results are impressive due to the players analyzed being professional-level. While the correlation found in this experiment is still interesting, it is somewhat expected that amateur players would have behavioral inconsistencies. I’d be confident in predicting that a similar study done on only video clips of bets made by professional poker players would not find such a clear correlation. 2. Hand strength is based on comparing players’ hands This is a line from the study that explains their methodology for categorizing a player’s hand as ‘weak’ or ‘strong’: Each player’s objective likelihood of winning during the bet was known (WSOP displays these statistics on-screen; however, we kept this information from participants by obscuring part of the screen). They relied on the on-screen percentage graphics, which are displayed beside a player’s hand graphics in the broadcast. These graphics show the likelihood of a player’s hand winning; it does this by comparing it to the other players’ known hands. This makes it an illogical way to categorize whether a player believes he is betting a weak or strong hand. If this isn’t clear, here’s a quick example to make my point: A player has QQ and makes an all-in bet on a turn board of Q-10-10-8. Most people would say that this player has a strong hand and has every reason to believe he has a strong hand. But, if his opponent had 10-10, the player with Q-Q would have a 2.27% chance of winning with one card to come. According to this methodology, the player with the Q-Q would be judged as having a weak hand; if the test participants categorized that bet as representing a strong hand, they would be wrong. It’s not stated in the study or the supplemental materials if the experimenters accounted for such obvious cases of how using the percentage graphics might skew the results. It’s also not stated how the experimenters would handle river (last-round) bets, when one hand has a 100 percent winning percentage and the losing hand has 0 percent (the only exception would be a tie). It’s admittedly difficult to come up with hard-and-fast rules for categorizing hand strength for the purposes of such an experiment. As someone who has thought more than most about this problem, for the purpose of analyzing and categorizing poker tells, I know it’s a difficult task. But using the known percentages of one hand beating another known hand is clearly a flawed approach. The optimal approach would probably be to come up with a system that pits a poker hand against a logical hand range, considering the situation, or even a random hand range, and uses that percentage-of-winning to rank the player’s hand strength. If this resulted in too much hand-strength ambiguity, the experiment designers could throw out all hands where the hand strength fell within a certain medium-strength range. Such an approach would make it more likely that only strong hand bets and weak hand bets were being used and, equally important for an experiment like this, that the player believed he or she was betting either a strong or weak hand. 3. Situational factors were not used to categorize betting motions When considering poker-related behavior, situations are very important. A small continuation-bet on the flop is different in many ways from an all-in bet on the river. One way they are different: a small bet is unlikely to cause stress in the bettor, even if the bettor has a weak hand. Also, a player making a bet on an early round has a chance for improving his hand; whereas a player betting on the river has no chance to improve his hand. When a player bets on the river, he will almost always know whether he is bluffing or value-betting; this is often not the case on earlier rounds, when hand strength is more ambiguous and undefined. This experiment had no system for selecting the bets they chose for inclusion in the study. The usability of the clips was apparently based only on whether the clip meant certain visual needs of the experiment: i.e., did the footage show the entirety of the betting action and did it show the required amount of the bettor’s body? From the study: Research assistants, blind to experimental hypotheses, extracted each usable video in each installment, and in total extracted 22 videos (a standard number of stimuli for such studies; Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993) for Study 2 in the main text. Study 1 videos required a single player be in the frame from the chest-up, allowing for whole-body, face-only, and arms-only videos to be created by cropping the videos. These videos were therefore more rare, and the research assistants only acquired 20 such videos. The fact that clips were chosen only based on what they showed is not necessarily a problem. If a hand can be accurately categorized as strong or weak, then it doesn’t necessarily matter when during a hand it occurred. If there is a correlation between perceived betting motion quality and hand strength, then it will probably make itself known no matter the context of the bet. Choosing bets only from specific situations would have made the experiment stronger and probably would have led to more definite conclusions. It could also help address the problem of categorizing hand strength. For example, if the experiment designers had only considered bets above a certain size that had occurred on the river (when all cards are out and there are no draws or semi-bluffs to be made), then that would result in polarized hand strengths (i.e., these bets would be very likely to be made with either strong or weak hands). Also, the experiment’s method for picking clips sounds like it could theoretically result in all strong-hand bets being picked, or all weak-hand bets being picked. There is nothing in the experiment description that requires a certain amount of weak hands or strong hands. This is not in itself bad, but could affect the experiment in unforeseen ways. For example, if most of the betting motion clips chosen were taken from players betting strong hands (which would not be surprising, as most significant bets, especially post-flop, are for value), then this could introduce some unforeseen bias into the experiment. One way this might happen: when a video clip shows only the betting motion (and not, for example, the bettor’s entire torso or just the face, as were shown to some study groups), this focus might emphasize the bet in the viewer’s mind and make the bet seem stronger. And if most of the hands-only betting clips were of strong-hand bets (and I have no idea how many were), the study participants watching only the hand-motion betting clips would falsely appear to be making good guesses. My main point here is that thinking about the situational factors of a betting motion, and incorporating that into the experiment in some way, would have resulted in less ambiguity about the results. (It appears that it was difficult to find usable clips from a single WSOP event; in that case, the experimenters could just add footage from another WSOP Main Event to the study.) 4. The number of chips bet was not taken into account The experiment designers did not take into account the chips that were bet. In their words: During betting, each player pushes poker chips into the center of the table. Each chip has a specific color, which indicates a specific value. These values range from $25 to $100,000. This range of chip values has a crucial consequence for the current work. The number of chips does not correlate with the quality of the hand (see Table 1A in the main text). Players could move a stack of 20 chips into the center of the table, and this could be worth $500 or $2,000,000 (the winner of the 2009 WSOP won $8,547,042, thus the latter bet magnitude is a bet that can be made in the WSOP). Because no participants were professional poker players, nor considered themselves poker experts, they were not aware of chip values. They could not, then, use the number of chips as a valid cue to judge poker hand quality. It’s true that your average person would not know what the chip colors at the WSOP Main Event mean. But it seems naïve to think that seeing the chips being bet couldn’t possibly have an effect on the experiment. For one thing, the number of chips being bet could bias a participant to think a bet was stronger or weaker, whether correctly or incorrectly. What if all the strong-hand bets in the study were also bets that involved a lot of chips? (This is not implausible because smaller bets with weak hands are common early in a hand, when bets are small, whereas larger bets later in the hand are more likely to represent strong hands.) And what if some of the study participants were able to deduce (consciously or unconsciously) the strength of the bet from the number of chips? Also, it’s possible that some of the test participants were knowledgeable (consciously or not) about some WSOP chip colors and what their denominations were. Or they were able to deduce (consciously or not), from the arrangement and number of chips, what the chip values were. (For example, large denomination chips are generally required to be kept at the front of a player’s stack.) Again, this could have been addressed by selecting bets taken only from specific situations and only of certain bet sizes. If all bets chosen were above a certain bet size, and this was communicated to the study participants, then this would have lessened the impact of the chips being able to be seen. 5. Quality of “smoothness” was subjective The experiment was based on the perceptions of study participants watching the assembled video clips. It was not based on objective measurements of what constitutes “smoothness” of a betting motion. This was a known issue in the experiment: Thus, both player confidence and smoothness judgments significantly predicted likelihoods of winning, which suggests that movement smoothness might be a valid cue for assessing poker hand quality. It is unknown, however, how participants interpreted “smoothness” or whether the players’ movements that participants rated as smooth were truly smoother than other players’ movements. Other physical factors, such as speed, likely played a role. This is not a major criticism; I think using perception is a fine way to find a correlation, especially for a preliminary study. But I think it does mean that we have no reason to be confident in the idea that smoothness of betting motion is correlated with hand strength. If there is are correlations between betting motion and hand strength (which I believe there are), these could be due to other aspects of arm motion or hand motion, such as: the betting speed, the position of the hands, the height of the hand, or other, more obscure, factors. In summary Again, I don’t mean to denigrate the experiment designers and the work they’ve done. I think this was an interesting experiment, and I think it’s probable the correlation they noticed exists (however weak the correlation may be). Also, as someone who is very interested in poker behavior, I’d love to see similar studies be done. My main goal in writing these criticisms and suggestions was to emphasize that poker is complex, as is poker behavior. There are many behavioral factors in a seemingly simple hand of poker and taking these factors into account can make an experiment stronger and the results more conclusive. Patricia Cardner, PhD, EdD, is a poker player and the author of Positive Poker, a book about the psychological characteristics of professional poker players. She had this to say about poker’s use in scientific studies: “While researchers often have the best of intentions, it is difficult for them to fully understand the nuances of poker. Researchers who reach out to poker players for help can make more informed decisions about the research areas they choose to pursue, increase reliability and validity, and improve the overall quality of their results and conclusions.” ¹: Slepian, M.L., Young, S.G., Rutchick, A.M. & Ambady, N. Quality of Professional Players’ Poker Hands Is Perceived Accurately From Arm Motions. Psychological Science (2013) 24(11) 2335–2338. Related
หวยออนไลน์ เล่นหวยออนไลน์ ไพ่ออนไลน์ เว็บ คาสิโน คาสิโน777
1 2 3 164