liveคาสิโน
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
2021 Australian Open: What to Watch on Tuesday Night
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Rod Laver Arena | 11 p.m. TuesdayAndrey Rublev vs. Daniil MedvedevAndrey Rubley and Daniil Medvedev secured the ATP Cup for Russia earlier this month, with neither player losing a singles match throughout. In their three meetings on the ATP Tour, Medvedev has come out on top each time, including in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open in September.This may be Rublev’s chance to finally overcome his friendly rival. He has looked particularly dominant, not dropping a set throughout the tournament. His match against Casper Ruud ended after only two sets when the Norwegian withdrew with an injury. Going into the quarterfinals, Rublev has led the field in both percentage of first service points won and second service points won, a sign of how hard it has been for opponents to break his serve.Medvedev has also been playing well, aside from a chaotic, disorganized third round match against Filip Krajinovic. He has now won 18 matches in a row, with his last loss coming in October at a tournament in Vienna. Although the fast surface fits Medvedev’s flat baseline shots, Rublev’s open stance is well suited in defense, and we’re sure to see many dynamic, aggressive point.Rod Laver Arena | 3:30 a.m. WednesdayRafael Nadal vs. Stefanos TsitsipasRafael Nadal, the No. 2 seed, has moved smoothly through the first four rounds, no surprise for a player with 20 Grand Slam titles. Although Nadal won his only Australian Open title over a decade ago, he has reached the finals on four other occasions since, and is a clear favorite in his half of the draw to do so again. Nadal’s powerful topspin shots are well-suited to clay courts where he can drag opponents around with tightly angled shots. Nadal’s ability to exploit his opponent’s weaknesses with relentless pressure can break most players on their best days.Stefanos Tsitsipas, the ATP finals winner in 2019, is a study in unpredictability. The fifth seed has a capable all-court game, but lacks the consistency to execute match after match. The 22-year-old has worked to improve this aspect of his game, but needed five sets to push back unseeded Thanasi Kokkinakis in the second round. After receiving a walkover in the round of 16, Tsitsipas will be well rested and hoping for an advantage against one of the most mentally tough players on tour.
สมัคร คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ดาฟาเบท คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝาก ถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ คาสิโน เครดิตฟรี คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต
Jordan Clarkson drops 40 to lead the Utah Jazz past the Philadelphia 76ers
By admin | | 0 Comments |


When it was all over, Donovan Mitchell sprinted at Jordan Clarkson, a pair of water bottles in his hand, and doused the Utah Jazz’s sixth man. That was as close as anyone came to cooling down Clarkson on Monday night at Vivint Arena. The Jazz guard torched the nets, scoring 40 points to help his team beat the Philadelphia 76ers 134-123. The Sixers were the best team in the East as of Monday night, but they couldn’t handle the West’s best, as the Jazz (23-5) reeled off their eighth win in a row. “The biggest thing for me is them believing in me,” Clarkson said. “Letting me be myself and embracing me just plays a role in who I am. That gives me confidence. Those guys always come over to the bench and tell me to keep shooting, even when I’m having an off night, even when I’m hot. They’re telling me to shoot the ball no matter what.”   CAN'T COOL HIM OFF!#TakeNote pic.twitter.com/Y1IQYm6Pzy — utahjazz (@utahjazz) February 16, 2021   Donovan Mitchell had 24 points. Joe Ingles scored 20. And three Jazzmen finished with 11 points. Philly’s Ben Simmons had 42 points, 12 rebounds and nine assists in the loss.     Even with All-Star center Joel Embiid getting a late scratch because of a back issue, the Sixers jumped out to an early lead in Salt Lake City. Philly led 24-10 midway through the opening quarter. Behind 19 points and five assists from Simmons, the Sixers shot 72.7 percent from the field and scored 22 points in the paint in the period. “At the beginning of the game, he had too much space in transition,” Jazz head coach Quin Snyder said. “Tonight he attacked the rim early. He felt the game. We had to get back and show him more of a crowd and make it harder for him to see a drive, to deter him.” The hot hands of Clarkson and Georges Niang kept Utah within arm’s reach. Clarkson went 4-for-5 from deep in the first quarter while Niang went 2-for-2. “When Jordan came in with the performance he had, we’ve seen that obviously before—but that was another level,” Snyder said. “I thought he kept us in the game.” The Jazz kept clawing their way back. And when Bogdanovic converted a wild and-one bucket midway through the second, the Jazz had their first lead, a 57-55 advantage. Despite shooting just 2-for-11 from deep in the second, the Jazz took a 72-66 lead into the locker room at halftime. Clarkson had 19 at the break. The Jazz’s sixth man stayed hot in the second half. His 13 points in the third helped the Jazz build their first double-digit lead and take a 106-94 advantage into the final quarter. “He’s not bashful and we don’t want him to be,” Snyder said of Clarkson. Simmons kept the Sixers close, leading an 10-0 charge in the opening minutes of the fourth. But Clarkson and the Jazz would not be deterred en route to their 19th win in the last 20 games, answering with big play after big play.     Clarkson scored eight more points in the fourth, finishing just two points shy of his career high. Royce O’Neale crashed into the scorer’s table during a defensive stand and then sank two clutch 3-pointers. Rudy Gobert denied Dwight Howard at the rim on one end and then rocked his own rim on the other. “Philly played great,” Snyder said. “It took us making some big plays at the end of the game.” Monday’s Best 8 made threes ties a career high for JC #PerformanceLeader | @UofUHealth pic.twitter.com/fYlVA3EClj — utahjazz (@utahjazz) February 16, 2021 | JC is the first player to score 40 points off the bench in under 30 minutes since it was done in 1991 (h/t @statmuse) #NBAAllStar | @jordanclarksons pic.twitter.com/46XZUfx0ob — utahjazz (@utahjazz) February 16, 2021 Up Next The Jazz will hit the road for a pair of games against the L.A. Clippers. Tipoff is set for Wednesday at 8 p.m. Find Tickets
แทงบอล คาสิโน sa คาสิโน คาสิโน ออนไลน์ มือถือ คาสิโนtrue wallet ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ คาสิโนbet
Know the Top 5 Wicket-takers in ICC Champions Trophy 2017
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Today we bring you the Cricketers who picked the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. The 2017 Champions Trophy was played during June 1-18 in England, with eight teams participating divided in two groups and round robin matches among group teams would give the top 2 on points table, the 4 semifinalists who would then fight to enter the tournament final. India & Pakistan played the tournament final with Pakistan winning their first Champions Trophy title. Indian Batsman Shikhar Dhawan led the batting cards of the tournament edition. Here we detail the bowlers who grabbed the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. 5. Adil Rashid (England) The England Leg-spin bowler Adil Usman Rashid would go on to take 7 wickets from the three matches he played at an average of 20.28 & strike rate of 25.7. With these wickets, Adil Rashid featured in the top 5 list of the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. His best was 4/41 against Australia on June 10 at Edgbaston, Birmingham. Australia had made 277/9 from their overs with Aaron Finch’s 68, Steven Smith’s 56 & Travis Head’s 71 not out. Rashid & Mark Wood both took 4 wickets each. England won the rain curtailed match by 40 runs. Eoin Morgan scored 87 while Ben Stokes scored 102 not out to take the team through. 4. Liam Plunkett (England) The England Fast Bowler Liam Edward Plunkett would pick 8 wickets from the four matches he played in the ICC Champions Trophy 2017 at an average of 24.50 & strike rate of 25.1. With these wickets, Plunkett featured in the top 5 list of the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. His best was 4/55 at Sophia Gardens, Cardiff against New Zealand on June 6. England had batted first and were bowled out for 310 from their overs with Alex Hales’ 56, Joe Root’s 64 & Jos Buttler’s 61 not out. New Zealand, in reply, were bowled out for 223 with Plunkett’s 4, Jake Ball’s 2 & Adil Rashid’s 2. 3. Junaid Khan (Pakistan) The Pakistan Medium pace bowler would pick 8 wickets from the four matches he played in the ICC Champions Trophy 2017 at an average of 19.37 & strike rate of 25.3. With these wickets, Junaid Khan featured in the top 5 list of the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. His best was 3/40 against Sri Lanka on June 12. Batting First, the Sri Lankan team was restricted for 236 with Junaid’s 3 & Hasan Ali’s 3. Pakistan chased down the target & won by 3 wickets; Fakhar Zaman scored 50 while Sarfaraz Ahmed scored 71 not out. 2. Josh Hazlewood (Australia) The Australia Medium Pacer Josh Reginald Hazlewood would pick 9 wickets from the three matches he played in the ICC Champions Trophy 2017 at an average of 15.77 & strike rate of 18.6. With these wickets, Hazlewood featured in the top 5 list of the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. His best was 6/52 against New Zealand on June 2. Batting first, New Zealand were bowled out for 291 despite Kane Williamson’s 100 & Luke Ronchi’s 65. Hazlewood picked 6 while John Hastings took 2. The match couldn’t be completed as rains would play spoilsport. HUGE WICKET!Virat Kohli is dismissed for 89 – Josh Hazlewood is at it again 🙌#AUSvIND pic.twitter.com/LHYqltc09q— ICC (@ICC) November 29, 2020 1. Hasan Ali (Pakistan) The Pakistan medium pacer would go on to take 13 wickets from the five matches he played in 2017 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy at an average of 14.69 & strike rate of 20.5. With these wickets, Hasan Ali led the top 5 list of the most wickets in Champions Trophy 2017. His best was 3/19 against arch rivals India on June 18 at Kennington Oval, London. Pakistan had batted first and scored 338/4 with Fakhar Zaman’s 114, Azhar Ali’s 59 & Mohammad Hafeez’s 57 not out. India, in reply, were bowled out for 158; Hasan Ali & Mohammad Amir took 3 wickets each while Shadab Khan took 2. Only one bowler took 6 wickets haul, while six bowlers took 4-wickets hauls in the tournament. These were the top wicket-takers, the ones who made the top 5 list of the most wickets in ICC Champions Trophy 2017. The eight teams’ tournament ICC Champions Trophy 2017 was won by Pakistan. Hope you liked the content, don’t shy away from asking your questions, commenting about the content.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน คาสิโน 168 คาสิโน168 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888
Serena’s husband rips tennis administrator after win
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Serena Williams' husband Alexis Ohanian has fired another shot at Madrid Open owner Ion Tiriac after Williams booked yet another Australian Open semi-final appearance.Williams was in imperious form in her quarter-final clash against Simona Halep, thoroughly dismantling the No.2 seed en-route to a 6-3 6-3 win at Rod Laver Arena.Watch the Australian Open with live streams of every court at 9Now. Click here to start watching!The 39-year-old has looked extremely sprightly after being forced to pull out of the French Open early last year through injury, chasing down balls defensively with the same ferocity she did earlier in her career. Williams' vintage showing so far in the Australian Open has silenced many of her critics who believed her chances of winning another Grand Slam title were slim, with Tiriac one of the more vocal critics.Williams was in untouchable form against Simona Halep in her Australian Open quarter-final clash (Getty)Following Williams' dominant display against Halep and advanced to her 40th Grand Slam semi-final, Ohanian made sure to stick the boot into Tiriac on social media."Good thing no one listens to that racist sexist (clown) Tiriac," he tweeted.The tweet wasn't the first time Ohanian had taken aim at Tiriac and called him racist and sexist, after also doing so late last year when Tiriac called out Williams' physique."At this age and the weight she is now, she does not move as easily as she did 15 years ago," Tiriac said on Romanian TV."Serena was a sensational player. If she had a little decency, she would retire." Williams' improved lateral movement has stood out so far in her Australian Open campaign, with her agility a far cry from the version of her fans saw in Melbourne Park last year when she was hampered by ankle and Achilles issues.Williams' coach Patrick Mouratoglou admitted this week that her withdrawal from the French Open last year had allowed the 23-time Grand Slam winner to get out of a "vicious circle".Williams' lateral movement has been noticeably improved after she had been hampered by injuries (Getty)"We've been struggling those last years because she had a lot of injuries, so she was not able to practice the way we wanted," he said."It's a bit of a vicious circle because when you can't practice well, you don't get fit. When you're not fit, you get more injured. We had to get out of this vicious circle."In Roland Garros she had an injury that could get really worse, and that would have been extremely bad. That was definitely the right decision to stop, to heal, and to start working hard because she was able after that to do the necessary work in order to get fit."Now we're more in a virtuous circle than a vicious one. You have to start that virtuous circle by being fit, then everything goes better."For a daily dose of the best of the breaking news and exclusive content from Wide World of Sports, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here!
บ่อน คาสิโน สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์ เกมรอยัล คาสิโน คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020 เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต
Pakistan Tour of South Africa: Three CWC Super League ODIs and four T20Is in April
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Follow Us On Pakistan and South Africa have announced the schedule for the limited-overs series in April, comprising three ICC Cricket World Cup Super League ODIs and four T20Is. The tour is scheduled to run from 02 April to 16 April 2021, with Pakistan arriving in South Africa on 26 March before the first game when they will enter a bio-secure environment (BSE) in Gauteng. They will go into a period of quarantine before commencing with inter-squad training. Pakistan’s tour of South Africa was initially scheduled to comprise just three T20Is, but after a request from Cricket South Africa, the series will now comprise four T20Is, with the first two matches being played in Johannesburg, followed by two T20Is in Pretoria. Before the T20Is get underway on 10 April, a three-match ODI series will be played between the sides from 2 April. A part of the Men’s CWC Super League, the first and third ODIs will be played in Pretoria, with Johannesburg hosting the second ODI on 4 April. “We are delighted to finally confirm the dates and full schedule for Pakistan’s white-ball tour to South Africa,” commented CSA Director of Cricket, Graeme Smith. “Pakistan has proved their status over the years as one of the most dangerous limited-overs teams and I’m sure they will give the Proteas a stern test on the Highveld. We will also have the much-anticipated ‘Betway Pink ODI’ take place during the tour and that is something further to look forward to for the players, the fans and all those associated with this iconic day,” he added. “We are grateful to the PCB for agreeing to our request within a short period of time to increase the length of the trip by adding in a fourth T20, which will give us some much-needed additional international content,” he said. PCB Director of International Cricket, Zakir Khan added, “We are delighted to help assist our fellow member countries in their plight to survive. We all have a collective responsibility to look after the game and its welfare together as ICC Members.” “South Africa and Pakistan’s relationship is a long-standing and mutually valued one, and it was an easy decision for us to accommodate their request. We’re all looking forward to a successful tour,” he added. Pakistan Tour of South Africa Schedule 2 April: 1st ODI, Supersport Park, Pretoria  4 April: 2nd ODI, Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg  7 April: 3rd ODI, SuperSport Park, Pretoria  10 April: 1st T20I, Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg  12 April: 2nd T20I, Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg  14 April: 3rd T20I, SuperSport Park, Pretoria  16 April: 4th T20I, SuperSport Park, Pretoria
คาสิโน ออนไลน์888 ทางเข้า คาสิโน คาสิโน 1688 คาสิโน 1988 คาสิโน ทรูวอลเล็ต
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
I’m starving to death
By admin | | 0 Comments |

 and heres the reason why. ive got no food in my hotel room, and its too late at night to buy groceries and i forgot to stop at a convenience store enroute home. this is why i hate the fact theres no 24 hour walmarts no more since the virus. And i dont want to get back out of bed. i bought a little food when i took this hotel room for 3 nights, when i had to check out of my other airbnb. (i had been doing one month at a time and someone had it booked up for moving in mid february so i couldnt renew for another month). i didnt buy quite enough, i wouldve bought more, but the fridge was so small it didnt have a freezer. i dont want to say which hotel im at of course, but i thought this was a far nicer brand because in many cities, this chain would be over $100. but i paid $209 for 3 nights. still thats high paying by the day, because if 3 days is $209, guess how much that makes 30 days when u add a zero. not only did i not buy enough food since i didnt have a freezer to store burritos and frozen meals, the shower will not work properly because i cant adjust the water to make it hotter so its not too cold. i cant imagine anyone not wanting to use hot water for a shower. only thing that does work really well in here is the wifi. and some (but i doubt 52 social but maybe im wrong) will be closed monday, due to very cold icy lousy winter weather which is unheard of here in texas. its rarely below 40 in the winter and certainly no snow this far south. but we are supposed to be 14 degrees monday. Kerrville TX, a couple hundred miles or more further west, is only going to be 7 degrees. no one is used to driving on ice so there will be hundreds of accidents hopefully not as bad in the terrible one in fort worth the other day all over the news which involved 100 vehicles and multiple deaths. i dont think id have an easy time finding an Uber that day to buy food without huge surcharges. local schools are closing. a lot of texas will have ice and snow, theres winter storm warnings for almost the entire state. now about that hand i promised to share on twitter in this blog, i had made so many rebuys and addons due to not getting any hands and starting to get tired since id played at a different casino for 3-4 hours earlier, id totally lost track of how much money i was in for and i dont normally do that, but i wouldnt know til i got home and read the paper listing the amount of cash i had when i left my room. id just got done adding on a few more hundred and had a bit less than $500 in front of me when the following hand occured. a guy makes it $15 that id seen capable of folding the other day when i reraised big preflop. one guy called and i decided to make it $70 with Q4 of clubs in late position, and we are deep stacked, all 3 of us. the only thing i have working for me is my tight image and position, and of course i am very much on tilt and want to quit the game, but sure not when im stuck.one guy called. the original raiser. flop comes 225 or 255. i dont even remember. all i remember is i bet but not the amount i bet. and he called me. Turn comes 3 which improved my hand slightly to a draw, but no flush draw. i remember betting $150 and he thinks and then goes allin. turns out later he has 99. i guess he read my tilted image well.we agree to run it twice, and i hit the A on top for a straight, and a Q on the bottom for two pair and i scooped the pot where i doubled up and cashed out $1036 and left due to the fact i couldnt play worth a shit and knew id got unstuck. turned out when i got home i was up over $300.a little more than i thought i was. Since i was up over $180 at one point before i got stuck, i felt stuck more than i actually was. i thought i was only up about $200 after winning the pot. 
คาสิโน888 คาสิโน88 เกม คาสิโน เกมส์ คาสิโน ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์
Get Ready for 107 MicroMillions Events Across Only Four Days!
By admin | | 0 Comments |

February 11 2021 Matthew Pitt MicroMillions returns to PokerStars from February 11 but does so with a twist. PokerStars has named the festival MicroMillions Marathon and you’re about to discover why the new name is so fitting. MicroMillions Marathon takes place at PokerStars from February 11 through February 14, a period of only four days. Despite the short runtime, the festival boasts of a schedule featuring 107 tournaments and combined guaranteed prize pools weighing in at $3 million! It truly is a marathon series. There’s a new MicroMillions Marathon tournament starting every half hour throughout almost all the series. The first tournament, a $3.30 buy-in 3-Stack Turbo 6-Max with $5,000 guaranteed, shuffles up and deal at 7:04 a.m. ET (12:04 p.m. GMT) on February 11. Another 24 micro-stakes tournaments are schedule that day! It is a similar story on February 12 when another 25 MicroMillions Marathon tournaments run throughout the day. What better way to spend a Friday than by grinding more than two dozen tournaments from the comfort of your own home? The weekend sees the remaining 57 events take place, including a massive $1 million guaranteed MicroMillions Marathon PKO Main Event costing only $22 on February 14. “shkolota148” Turns $50 Into $116K and 50/50 Series Main Event Title Sign Up to PokerStars Today You’ll obviously need a PokerStars account if you want to compete in any of the 107 MicroMillions Marathon events. If you don’t have an account, download PokerStars via PokerNews to get your hands on a lucrative welcome bonus worth up to£400. Create your free PokerStars account, make a deposit using the bonus code "200PERCENT" and PokerStars matches your deposit 200 percent up to £400. In fact, your first three deposits in the first 60-days after creating your account are matched up to a combined £400. You then have four months to release as much of this bonus as you can by playing real money poker, including cash games, tournaments, and even Spin & Go tournaments. Full 107-Event MicroMillions Marathon Schedule DateTime (ET)EventGuarantee Thu 11 Feb07:04001: $3.30 3-Stack, Turbo (6-max)$5,000  08:04002: $1.10 PKO, Hyper-Turbo (4-max)$3,500  09:04003: $5.50 NLHE$12,500  09:34004: $1.10 PLO (8-max)$3,500  10:04005: $3.30 PKO Zoom, Turbo (6-max)$10,000  10:34006 $5.50 Heads-Up, Total PKO, Hyper-Turbo$5,000  11:04007: $3.30 NLHE$12,500  11:34008: $1.10 PKO, Turbo (8-max)$8,000  12:04009: $3.30 Win The Button$12,500  12:34010: $5.50 PLO, Turbo (6-max)$8,000  13:04011: $11 (8-max)$80,000  13:34012 $3.30 PKO$40,000  14:04013: $5.50 NLHE$35,000  14:34014: $1.10+R, Hyper-Turbo (8-max)$40,000  15:04015: $3.30 PLO-H/L, PKO, Turbo (8-max)$10,000  15:34016: $5.50 PKO, Turbo$40,000  16:04017: $1.10 NLHE$8,000  16:34018: $5.50 Limit 8-Game (6-max)$3,500  17:04019: $1.10 NLHE (6-max)$5,000  17:34020: $3.30 Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush (8-max)$12,500  18:04021: $5.50 PKO (8-max)$20,000  18:34022: $3.30 NLHE$15,000  19:04023: $1.10 PKO$7,500  19:34024: $3.30 4-max, Turbo, Shootout$3,500  20:04025: $1.10 Big PKO, Turbo$3,500 Fri 12 Feb07:04026: $1.10 Zoom, Turbo (8-max)$3,000  08:04027: $3.30 PKO, Turbo (6-max)$10,000  09:04028: $1.10 NLHE (6-max)$5,000  09:34029: $5.50 NLHE$10,000  10:04030: $1.10 NLHE$8,000  10:34031: $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$10,000  11:04032: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (8-max)$35,000  11:34033: $1.10 PKO, Hyper-Turbo, Zoom$10,000  12:04034: $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$30,000  12:34035: $5.50 NLO, Turbo (6-max)$12,500  13:04036: $3.30 PKO$20,000  13:34037: $11 PKO (8-max)$100,000  14:04038 $5.50 NLHE$40,000  14:34039: $3.30+R, Hyper-Turbo (8-max)$40,000  15:04040: $5.50 PKO, Turbo, Zoom (8-max)$50,000  15:34041: $1.10 PKO$10,000  16:04042: $3.30 6+ Hold’em (6-max)$7,500  16:34043: $5.50 (8-max)$15,000  17:04044: $1.10 PKO, Turbo, Win the Button$5,000  17:34045: $3.30 PKO, Turbo$20,000  18:04046: $1.10 Omaha H/L, PKO (8-max)$3,500  18:34047 $5.50 PKO, Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush$10,000  19:04048 $1.10 Turbo (6-max)$5,000  19:34049: $3.30 Deep Stacks, Hyper-Turbo$5,000  20:04050: $1.10 Hyper Turbo$3,500 Micro Stakes Poker Strategy: How to Beat the Games Online DateTime (ET)EventGuarantee Sat 13 Feb06:04051: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (7-max)$8,000  07:04052 $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$5,000  08:04053: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  08:34054: $3.30 PKO$10,000  09:04055: $1.10 Hyper-Turbo (6-max)$5,000  09:34056: $5.50 PKO (8-max)$12,500  10:04057: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  10:34058: $3.30 PL Fusion (6-max)$3,500  11:04059: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (7-max)$20,000  11:34060: $1.10 NLHE$7,500  12:04061: $3.30 PLO, PKO (6-max)$5,000  12:34062: $9.80 Big PKO (8-max)$125,000  13:04063: $3.30 NLHE$40,000  13:34064: $1.10+R Splash (8-max)$50,000  14:04065: $5.50 PKO$40,000  14:34066: $3.30 Turbo (7-max)$35,000  15:04067: $1.10 NLHE (8-max)$10,000  15:34068: $5.50 NL Omaha H/L, PKO (6-max)$12,500  16:04069: $3.30 Heads-Up, Total PKO, Turbo, Zoom$10,000  16:34070: $1.10 Win the Button (4-max)$7,500  17:04071: $3.30 NL 6+ Hold’em, PK (6-max)$7,500  17:34072: $5.50 Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush (8-max)$5,000  18:04073: $1.10 Turbo (7-max)$3,500  18:34074: $5.50 PKO$10,000  19:04075: $3.30 NLHE$7,500  19:34076: $5.50 Big PKO, Hyper-Turbo (6-max)$5,000  20:04077: $1.10 Turbo (6-max)$3,500 Sun 14 Feb06:04078: $1.10 Total PKO, Turbo (6-max)$3,500  06:34079: $3.30 Zoom (8-max)$10,000  07:04080: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (8-max)$25,000  07:34081: $3.30 Big PKO$10,000  08:04082: $1.10 PKO, Deep Stacks, Hyper-Turbo (8-max)$5,000  08:34083: $5.50 NLHE$15,000  09:04084: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  09:34085: $3.30 PKO, Turbo$15,000  10:04086: $5.50 Win the Button (8-max)$10,000  10:34087: $1.10 NL Omaha (6-max)$3,500  11:04088: $3.30 NLHE$15,000  11:34089: $5.50 NLHE$25,000  12:04090: $1.10 Turbo (8-max)$15,000  12:34091: $5.50 PKO$60,000  13:04092: $3.30 (6-max)$40,000  13:34093: $22 Main Event, PKO$1,000,000  14:04094 $5.50 PKO (8-max)$75,000  14:34095: $11 NLHE$100,000  15:04096: $3.30 PKO$60,000  15:34097: $5.50 Turbo (8-max)$50,000  16:04098: $1.10 PKO$20,000  16:34099: $3.30 Limit Horse (6-max)$7,500  17:04100: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  17:34101: $5.50 6+ Hold’em (6-max)$15,000  18:04102: $3.30 Total PKO, Turbo (8-max)$20,000  18:34103: $5.50 PL Omaha H/L, PKO (6-max)$12,500  19:04104: $1.10 Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush (8-max)$7,500  19:34105: $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$20,000  20:04106: $5.50 Turbo$30,000  20:30107: $1.10 Turbo (8-max)$10,000 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
2021 Australian Open: What to Watch on Thursday Night
By admin | | 0 Comments |

How to watch: 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern on the Tennis Channel and 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. on ESPN2 in the United States; streaming on the ESPN+ and ESPN3 apps.As each singles draw dwindled to 32 players, some former major champions lost their hopes of snagging one more Grand Slam title. The 17th-seeded Stan Wawrinka lost his second-round match to Marton Fucsovics, and the eighth-seeded Bianca Andreescu fell to Hsieh Su-Wei.Although the field has shrunk, plenty of promising youngsters and past major champions remain.Here are some matches to keep an eye on.Because of the number of matches cycling through courts, the times for individual matchups are best estimates and certain to fluctuate based on when earlier play is completed. All times are Eastern.Rod Laver Arena | 7 p.m. ThursdayAryna Sabalenka vs. Ann LiAryna Sabalenka, the seventh seed, has equaled her best result at the Australian Open by reaching the third round. She has yet to make it to a Grand Slam quarterfinal, despite how consistently well she plays on tour. Sabalenka won three hardcourt singles titles in 2020, and started 2021 by winning the Abu Dhabi Open. Her aggressive style can help her on faster-paced courts, although on her poorer days it can create plenty of unforced errors.Ann Li, the world No. 69, has had a fantastic run of results in the past few weeks. Last week, she won the Grampians Trophy in Melbourne with a walkover in the final. Then, in the first round of the Australian Open, she upset the 31st seed, Zhang Shuai, while dropping only two games. Although her second-round match against Alizé Cornet required a bit more from her, Li played well, pushing through a tough second set tiebreaker in which she faced two set points. One more upset would put her in her first round of 16 at a Grand Slam event.John Cain Arena | 10 p.m. ThursdayNaomi Osaka vs. Ons JabeurNaomi Osaka, the third seed, has won a Grand Slam event in each of the past three years, all on hardcourts. The fast pace of play suits her, as she pins opponents into the back corners of the court with her flat shots. Osaka did not play in the French Open in October, citing concerns related to the pandemic. She is back into a groove at the Australian Open, dropping just eight games across her first two matches.Ons Jabeur, the 27th seed, became the first Arab woman to reach a Grand Slam quarterfinal at last year’s Australian Open, losing to the eventual champion, Sofia Kenin. Jabeur’s adaptability can be very difficult for opponents to handle; she can unravel an array of opponents’ weaknesses. To beat Osaka, Jabeur will need to have a strong start and not allow her opponent to get into a rhythm.John Cain Arena | 3 a.m. FridayDominic Thiem vs. Nick KyrgiosDominic Thiem, the third seed, won the United States Open in September, supplanting Marin Cilic (2014) as the most recent first-time male Grand Slam champion.A four-time Grand Slam finalist, Thiem has slowly been chipping away at the hegemony of the so-called Big Three of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Though Thiem’s U.S. Open victory came on a hard court, that is not considered his best surface. And with the unusually quick conditions in Australia, he may struggle to return to the final, where he lost to Djokovic last year.Nick Kyrgios, an Australian ranked 47th in the world, was often stereotyped as an uncouth punk for his perceived lack of interest in the sport of tennis. As the coronavirus pandemic shut down the ATP Tour, Kyrgios became a loud advocate for health and safety precautions, openly criticizing both his peers and legends like Boris Becker for choosing to socialize or complaining about safety measures. Now Kyrgios is playing in front of home crowds, and the fast-paced courts in Melbourne will aid his aggressive baseline style. However, after barely squeezing past the 29th seed, Ugo Humbert, in five sets, Kyrgios will be challenged to break down Thiem’s exceptional defensive play.Margaret Court Arena | 3 a.m. FridayDenis Shapovalov vs. Felix Auger-AliassimeDenis Shapovalov and Felix Auger-Aliassime, the two youngest members of the Canadian delegation at the Australian Open, are both aggressive, full-court players who rely on their athleticism to get through tough matches.Shapovalov, the 11th seed, reached his first Grand Slam quarterfinal at the U.S. Open before losing in five sets to Pablo Carreño Busta. Although Shapovalov, 21, lost both of his ATP Cup matches — a singles match against the seventh-ranked Alexander Zverev and a doubles match — they were tightly contested. After an impressive five-set win over the fellow up-and-comer Jannik Sinner, Shapovalov looks prepared to reach the second week of play.Auger-Aliassime, 20, has skated through his first two rounds, convincingly dismantling his opponents without dropping a set. The last time he faced Shapovalov on tour, he lost in straight sets in the first round of the 2019 U.S. Open. A year and a half later, this match will be a good test of whether he can usurp his close friend as the top Canadian men’s player.Here are a few more matches to keep an eye on:Serena Williams vs. Anastasia Potapova — 9 p.m.Milos Raonic vs. Marton Fucsovics — 1 a.m.Simona Halep vs. Veronika Kudermetova — 3 a.m.Novak Djokovic vs. Taylor Fritz — 5 a.m.
สมัคร คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ดาฟาเบท คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝาก ถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ คาสิโน เครดิตฟรี คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต
1 2 3 168