rogbet คาสิโน
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
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
Tom Brady: The Ultimate Villain Turned Babyface
By admin | | 0 Comments |

I have a confession to make. I like Tom Brady.10 years ago, I would have punched myself in the face for making a statement like that. Even two years ago, I would never admit my admiration for the seven-time Super Bowl championAs a Giants fan, I’m arguably one of two fanbases (the other being the Eagles) that have no reason to hate Brady for his success on the field. The Giants defeated Brady twice on the biggest stage. Big Blue stopped Brady and the 2007 Patriots from immortality, ruining the undefeated season. You’re welcome, Miami Dolphins.I hated Brady not for his play, but for the uniform he wore. The New England Patriots were the bad guys of the 2000s. The Patriots were the Galactic Empire, Bill Belichick was Darth Vader, and Gillette Stadium was the Death Star. From all the “gate” scandals to cheating implications, New England kept winning. To make matters worse, Patriots’ fans became insufferable. How many times did I have to hear “Our season starts in the AFC Championship” from New England fans? As much as I hated them, the fans were right.I may have disliked Brady, but I always respected TB12. He is the GOAT. That was never up for debate. The stats that support Brady’s GOAT case are unfathomable. Brady’s postseason numbers are “Gretzkyesque” and will take a monumental effort from a generational player to eclipse his stats.All-time playoff wins leaders 1) Tom Brady — 34 2) Tom Brady, only in conference championship games and Super Bowls combined — 17 T-3) Joe Montana, Tom Brady since turning 37 years old — 16— Tom Brady Facts (@TB_Facts) February 8, 2021As I watched Tom Brady hoist the Lombardi trophy for the seventh time, I said to myself, “This effing guy. Again?” The 43-year-old vet bested the 25-year-old phenom who wants to be the GOAT himself one day. It’s still possible Mahomes can become the GOAT, but the gap between Brady or Mahomes feels insurmountable.Then, I watched the parade. Brady was laughing hard and partying harder. I couldn’t help but smile at all the videos of Brady celebrating on his boat.He threw the Lomnbardi trophy to another boat in what could go down as the greatest pass of his career.TB12 skipped the diet today and pounded a few too many drinks. It was the most relatable clip from Brady I’ve ever seen.When Brady gets an assist out of the party, it’s fine, but when I get escorted out of the bar, it’s a problem. Life ain’t fair! https://t.co/bWyV2YtJ0e— Dan Girolamo (@Danny_Giro) February 10, 2021Over the past few years, Brady demonstrated his sense of humor with his social media posts after wins. From the TB Times to “W” videos, Brady knows how to assert himself as a winner. He’s also pretty funny and self-aware, evidenced by his avocado tequila tweet.How can you watch those videos with a straight face? TB12 is turning babyface right before our eyes. For the non-wrestling fans, that means he’s becoming a likable good guy. Most football fans hated Brady in New England because he was the perfect villain. Society loves to root for stars, but it also enjoys watching the villain fall.The more I laugh at Brady’s antics, the more I realize how much New England hindered his personality. Rob Gronkowski said he likes the “freedom of being yourself” in Tampa Bay, which was a clear shot at the disciplinarian system run by Belichick. That doesn’t make New England’s system wrong. The Patriots won six Super Bowls over the course of two decades. However, it’s tough to get a sense of a player’s true personality when Darth Vader is breathing down your neck.It’s Brady’s world and we’re all living in it. Right now, I like what I see from the GOAT.Do you like Tom Brady? Leave your thoughts in the comments below or tweet us, @unafraidshow.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์888 ทางเข้า คาสิโน คาสิโน 1688 คาสิโน 1988 คาสิโน ทรูวอลเล็ต
Partypoker adds new MyGame Whiz to Online Poker Client
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Every poker player wants to improve their game. It is quite common for poker players to use tools such as hand histories to review gameplay and try to make different decisions based on certain scenarios. At partypoker, the online poker platform has released a new tool called MyGame Whiz that allows players to improve their game and make fewer mistakes along the way. The new feature is an extension of the MyGame tool and works as a personal poker trainer. What is MyGame Whiz? New players can benefit from the MyGame Whiz tool for a number of reasons. Because the tool is a trainer, it helps to avoid common mistakes. The tool includes one-on-one communication to personalize the experience for each player. The tool studies each player’s game style, including how a hand is played. The tool has access to hand history and studies the hands of each player, not the opponent. Personal hand history is used to provide tips and suggestions on what you can do to improve your decision-making skills. Targeted messages allow you to make decisions in real time and improve your win/loss record. Each player will receive messages that are created for them specifically based on table actions. Interactive commentary is also provided as players compete to help with game moves. Choose to replay, save, and share hands as you like with this new tool. The more hands you play, the more advice you will receive. This helps to know how to strategize based on a wide range of poker hand situations. Another unique aspect to this tool is that questions can be asked to MyGame Whiz. By asking questions, you receive customized replays to help with any questions or advice needed. Creating a Poker Tutor Basically, partypoker has created a poker tutor for its members. With instant feedback, it’s like working with a real person online. The tool works for each player individually, just as a tutor would in real life. Every player can work to improve their game, no matter how skilled or experienced. The tool is specialized so it caters to your skill level. Partypoker officials pointed out that they wanted to create a tool that would give players something to use at the beginning of their poker journey to improve their game. It is particularly helpful for players who are brand-new to online poker. For new players, the tool includes report cards so you can track your progress. See what you have improved on as well as how you can make changes to improve in certain areas. If you have less time to study the game, the MyGame Whiz does the work for you. Simply review the details and you will be able to analyze your gaming and make smart decisions in the future as you play. Check out the new tool today by logging in to the partypoker client. Review your gaming and see what changes you can complete the improve each decision you make while playing in cash games and tournaments.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ที่ดีที่สุด 123 yesคาสิโน คาสิโน ที่ดีที่สุด คาสิโนufabet คาสิโน ufabet
My Confession: Male, Age 21 (AUSTRALIA)
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Let me give you some valuable background info first: I live at home with my Dad & my girlfriend (she’s between houses). They’re both my best friends. I am currently going through a chronic pain type disorder that appeared in both wrists & forearms since July 2020. In & out of appointments/checks every fortnight. I am unable to do much in my day, it hurts to do normal things in my day - so I am unable to work or study anymore. Painkillers are not helping. Thursday was the day, the day I basically lost my entire life savings. Since then, I’ve been using every single dollar I can get my hands on to recover this loss & I’m sure you know where I’m at now. $8 in debt & unemployed with no income. But how did I get here? I got caught gambling when I was 17/18, lost all my money then too but it was less than $1000 (my Dad was the only one who knew). Since then, I vowed to never gamble again & I didn’t until 2 weeks ago. My Dad & I were watching the cricket & he placed a $100 multi (he rarely gambles) & won $450. We both thought this was great so I put in $50 myself for the next game. I ended up losing $25 & won it back in the darts later on. I then decided to move on & not do any more as my girlfriend of 2 years (the one I’ll marry) did not approve of me gambling again. So I stopped - until my Dad persuaded me to lie & just gamble anyway behind her back. It was innocent losses, $5-$10 here & there for the next 2 weeks. It wasn’t until last week, the day after my girlfriend’s birthday, that everything went downhill. She had to work Wed & Thu which left me to be alone for 2 days. I was very down in the dumps & just felt like I had all this money & didn’t use it (which is the stupidest thing ever, I know). So I started gambling on the races. With high $1000 bets & spent hours & hours, got up $10k then back down to $5k before I bet my whole bank to get back where I started at $15k. I stopped, went in my room & realised what I did, I almost lost my ENTIRE bank. Did I stop there? Nope, you guessed it. Eventually, one thing led to another & now I’m $15k down & $9 in debt. I confessed everything to my girlfriend & Dad on Thursday. Which they were both very supportive. I had $2000 in my bank then & said I’d stop. But I didn’t, Iost $1500 yesterday & $500 today. So yes in $9 debt. Although I do not have an addiction (oddly enough I studied psychology for 2 years before this chronic pain stopped me), I have definitely fallen into the trap of gambling once again & I only risked losing my last $2000 to not win the money back, but rather I looked at it as an outlet to make money so I can provide my girlfriend & I with a future. But this was such a bad mindset to approach everything. $9 in debt. I am stopping here. I vow to, right here, right now. I have not told my girlfriend or Dad about the last $2000, but I think I will hang onto this one for now as I can make that back in selling some of my collectables that have been collecting profit over the years. So thank god for that at least. Additionally, I may receive a pension for my condition so if that’s approved, must lock my money away. I had to get all this out & it has put me in an awful lot of PHYSICAL pain to even write this due to my chronic pain condition. I don’t expect anyone to read this all as this is rather for me. Thank you. C. submitted by /u/codesfrost [comments]
เกมส์ยิ่งปลา คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต ฟรีเครดิตทดลองเล่น คาสิโน เกมส์ คาสิโน ออนไลน์ บ่อนออนไลน์ คาสิโน ออนไลน์ได้เงินจริง
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
European Golden Shoe 2020/21: Messi on the leaderboard but Lewandowski scores again
By admin | | 0 Comments |


Lionel Messi scored two goals of the highest quality in La Liga this weekend to take his tally to 15 for the season.Both of the Argentine's goals were scored from outside the box in superb fashion, as he helped Barcelona on their way to a 5-1 win against Alaves.Messi may now make our leaderboard, but he is still some way off reaching the runaway leader, Robert Lewandowski.The Bayern striker scored again on Monday in the German side's rearranged Bundesliga match versus Arminia Bielefeld which was moved due to their Club World Cup exploits over the weekend.Lewandowski now has 25 goals and 50 points.His nearest rival for the Golden Shoe is fellow Bundesliga striker Andre Silva, who has now scored 18 for the season.Liverpool may have lost against Leicester, but Mohamed Salah still scored a lovely goal to take his tally to 17.Georgios Giakoumakis of Venlo has scored an impressive 22 goals and is the highest player on our list who doesn't feature within one of Europe's top five leagues.A talented group on 16 goals for the campaign includes Cristiano Ronaldo, Kylian Mbappe, Romelu Lukaku, and Luis Suarez.2020/21 EUROPEAN GOLDEN SHOE STANDINGS 2020/21 European Golden ShoeA reminder: The five elite leagues - Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A and Ligue 1 - all carry a weighting of 2, meaning that a player will be awarded two points for every goal they score in these competitions. For the leagues ranked sixth to 30 in Uefa's coefficients rankings goals scored are given a weighting of 1.5, and goals scored in a league outwith the top 30, goals are given a weighting of 1. Ciro Immobile won the 2019/20 European Golden Shoe, scoring 36 goals for Lazio in a tremendous Serie A season. 2020/21 EUROPEAN GOLDEN SHOE (Summer Leagues) 2020 European Golden ShoePlayerTeamGoalsPointsKasper JunkerBomo/Glimt2740.5Amahl PellegrinoKristiansund2537.5Philip ZinckernagelBodo/Glimt1928.5Christoffer NymanNorrköping1827Rauno SappinenFlora Tallinn2626Veton BerishaViking1624Astrit SelmaniVerbergs1522.5Mushaga BakengaOdds BK1522.5Moses OgbuMjallby1421Anders ChristiansenMalmo1319.5Leke JamesMolde1219.5Maksim SkavyshBATE Borisov1919This is the 2020/21 European Golden Shoe race. If you want to see the final standing for the 2019/20 European Golden Shoe, follow this link. .
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน คาสิโน 168 คาสิโน168 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888
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
What is Matka? How to play Satta Matka
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Visit Betway's live casino page. What is Matka? Matka is a simple lottery-style betting game which involves guessing two random numbers between 1-9. Among several types of markets, you can win up to 999x your stake by correctly guessing the right sequence of numbers. Card versions of Matka, which are enjoyed by Indian Casino users, have also been developed over the years. How to play Matka The game starts with the player picking their first set of three numbers between 0 and 9, for example: 1, 4, 7. These three numbers are then added up – 1+4+7= 12. The first digit of that total number is dropped, leaving ‘2’. The final selection then looks like 1, 4, 7*2. The player then picks their second set of numbers in exactly the same way, for example: 2, 6, 8. 2+6+8=16, leaving you with 6 as the selection. The second set of numbers is therefore 2, 6, 8*6. Once your full selection is confirmed – in this case, 1, 4, 7*2 X 2, 6, 8*6 – you choose your bet. There are a number of different bets you can place based on the numbers you have chosen, including a bet that would return 9x your stake on whether your first selection (in this case, 2) is correct. After you have placed your bets, the winning numbers will be drawn randomly and all winning bets will be immediately paid out. History of Matka The game originated when bets used to be placed on the opening and closing numbers of the cotton rates that were sent to the Bombay Cotton Exchange from the New York Cotton Exchange. That practise was outlawed in 1961, but the style of game continued when it was proposed that people could simply punt on randomly-generated numbers instead. Pakistani Ratan Khatri proposed that the numbers be written on pieces of paper and drawn from a ‘matka’, a type of pot. Although the way in which the numbers are drawn has changed over the years, the term ‘matka’ has survived.
คาสิโน โบนัส 100% คาสิโน โบนัส100% เฮงๆ 666 คาสิโน หวยออนไลน์ แทงบอล
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 3 167