tgmคาสิโน
Warriors Teammate Praises Steph Curry and Draymond Green’s Hall of Fame IQ
By admin | | 0 Comments |

After a bumpy start to the 2020-21 NBA season, the Golden State Warriors are getting back in form. They made several changes to their roster in the offseason and it took some time for the players to settle in. But with the All-Star break almost here, the Dubs are looking consistent. The credit for their newfound success goes to none other than their veteran duo of Steph Curry and Draymond Green. Recently, the two stars flaunted their skills against the Cavaliers in a comfortable 129-98 victory. Curry continued his hot scoring streak with 36 points against the Cavs. On the other hand, Green handled the facilitating duties for the team as he finished the game with 16 assists. The two stars have shouldered the burden for the team in the absence of Klay Thompson. But can the Warriors go all the way and win another championship? We will find out in the coming months. Steph Curry and Draymond Green: The two pillars for the Golden State Warriors Golden State Warriors forward Kent Bazemore (26) and forward Juan Toscano-Anderson (95) and guard Stephen Curry (30) and forward Draymond Green (23) during the game between the Dallas Mavericks and the Golden State Warriors at the American Airlines Center. Mandatory Credit: Jerome Miron-USA TODAY SportsFollowing this sensational victory, Juan Toscano-Anderson gave an interesting post-game interview. He said: “I am a beneficiary of these guys, their hall of fame IQ. You know Draymond [Green] had 16 assists today and that’s amazing from our starting center. Last five games, he’s in double digits assists. … Either Steph [Curry] is open or Imma be open. “I’m aware that the defense ain’t gonna leave him so I just find those gaps and get those easy buckets. I know Draymond sees everything. Sometimes he sees it a little too quick before any of us see it, but it’s great to play with a guy like that.” Draymond Green has always been an amazing playmaker for the Dubs. Even during their stretch of dominance in the mid 2010s, he took on the role of a facilitator for their championship teams. This season, he is elevating his game further in that department. READ MORE | Steph Curry and LeBron James Ready to Move On From Intense Rivalry But is this enough for the Warriors to win another championship? Feel free to share your thoughts. Get notified about breaking news and watch highlights on the go; join the Arena on NBA Hoops
บ่อน คาสิโน สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์ เกมรอยัล คาสิโน คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020 เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต
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
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
Serena Williams shows off her unreal defense on this point
By admin | | 0 Comments |

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

Would J.J. Watt head to the Music City? The Houston Texans will begin a new era down at NRG following recent decision making. The Texans and defensive end J.J. Watt elected to part ways after a decade of success.The Texans will save not just $17.5 million in cap space, but they’ll also save a legacy of Watt’s time with the franchise. That could be one of the few players who is given that treatment under the new regime of Nick Caserio, Jack Easterby and Cal McNair.I don't know if this will mean anything in the whole scheme of things when JJ Watt signs with a new team, but the Titans need a pass rusher, and owner Amy Adams gave $1 million to his Hurricane Harvey relief fund. Not to mention Watt's good relationship with Mike Vrabel, too.— John McClain (@McClain_on_NFL) February 15, 2021Watt now will have the option to sign with any team on the market, but could he be petty and stay in the division? If so, the Tennessee Titans would be a team to watch for due to the connection between Watt and head coach Mike Vrabel.I don't know if this will mean anything in the whole scheme of things when JJ Watt signs with a new team, but the Titans need a pass rusher, and owner Amy Adams gave $1 million to his Hurricane Harvey relief fund. Not to mention Watt's good relationship with Mike Vrabel, too.— John McClain (@McClain_on_NFL) February 15, 2021Should the Titans look to invest in Watt?Watt and Vrabel have ties due to their time in Houston. Vrabel worked under Bill O’Brien as the team’s linebacker coach and later defensive coordinator from 2014-17. During that span, Houston never finished below a top 10 in total defense.It’s more than that for the Titans though. Back in 2017, Watt’s foundation helped raise over $41.5 million in Hurricane Harvey relief for the city of Houston. Titans owner, Amy Adams, donated $1 million out of pocket to help the home of the AFC South franchise recover after a year of so much travesty.That, plus Watt’s relationship with the former defensive coordinator seems to connect Tennessee as a potential free agent destination.The Titans defense finished 28th in total yards allowed last season and 30th in total sacks with 19. They also were among the worst teams in terms of stopping offenses on third down, allowing them to convert over 54 percent of the time.Watt’s addition to the front seven would be terrifying for a team looking to rebound. His ability to add pressure in the backfield still allows him to be one of the top pass rushers in the league at 32. However, would he be willing to sign for a lower price?With Houston shipping players off left and right for the past several seasons, it would make sense for revenge games to be on the schedule. However, Watt might be willing to join Tennessee, not due to the rivalry, but rather the camaraderie between him and a coach.In the end, respect is earned. The Titans’ past might have gained their shot back in 2017.
คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ไลน์ คาสิโน คาสิโน sagame350 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริงฟรีเครดิต
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
Al Jazira masterplan to break cycle of boom and bust should be lauded throughout Middle East
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Nothing is guaranteed in football. The cycle of success and – relative – failure is unrelenting, even for the most richly resourced sides. Al Hilal’s rollercoaster 2020/21 has exemplified this in Saudi Arabia, while Manchester City’s current British record 15-match winning run was preceded by a period in which Pep Guardiola received repeat questioning. There are means, however, to mitigate this. Enter Al Jazira. The Pride of Abu Dhabi are yet to sit top this term. Indeed, they’ve only claimed two Arabian Gulf League titles in their entire 46-year existence. But structural changes at the Mohammed bin Zayed Stadium-outfit act as an exemplar to all clubs throughout the Middle East. Identify a strategy for “sustainable sporting success” and unavoidable spells of boom and bust can be tempered. This requires a thoughtful methodology for how a thread can be run through from the academy to the first team, plus an exacting analysis of how foreign recruits are identified. Such a blueprint is vital in European competitions. Barcelona’s exalted La Masia stands at the summit. But its importance should be amplified further in AFC leagues where transfer business is more-heavily restricted. It is an uphill struggle to claim AGL supremacy without a foundation of exceptional Emirati players. Four open-age foreigners and up to six Under-21 resident players split between the first team and U-21s are permitted, with a mix of six in any match-day squad, yet they can only do so much. With this fact in mind, competition for the best domestic players is intense – and expensive. It is more prudent to take a long-term view and produce as many as you can in-house. Recent results have been enormously encouraging for Jazira. The 23 top-flight goals struck by their Emiratis – a collection of purchases and home-grown – in 2020/21 is 10 more than nearest contemporaries Al Wasl. UAE boss Bert van Marwijk’s current 25-man training camp is dominated by a seven-strong Jazira contingent, two more than Al Wahda’s five, with only injury to utility defender Mohammed Al Attas preventing it from being eight. This cohort is so strong that they finished the first half of the campaign in second spot, despite being the only competitors to hire three senior foreigners. A situation remedied late in the winter transfer market by Curacao winger Brandley Kuwas’ loan move from Al Nasr. The agent-led approach utilised by many, but not all, sides is diametrically opposed to that found at the MBZ. Also teams who empower whichever head coach is in charge at the time, meaning squad demands are at the whim of a revolving door of individuals who may possess vastly different needs and tactical frameworks. It is, of course, not the first time such a forward-thinking structure has been attempted in the region. Far from it. Jazira, themselves, endured an unfulfilled stint with former Brescia, West Ham United and Watford technical director Gianluca Nani at the helm between December 2015 and August 2016. Neither are they the only side currently wedded to this. Little more than an hour’s car journey away is Al Ain and their sporting director David Platt, among others. The 2018/19 Saudi Professional League champions Al Nassr have, also, tried to corner the domestic market. Rarely has this outlook been crystalized in such a transparent manner. They believe, and justifiably so judged by recent results, that the master plan sporting director Mads Davidsen was entrusted to formulate since his June hiring by a forward-thinking board of directors will enrich the club competitively and financially. It cements a process initiated in 2015, from which an unbroken series of similarly minded Dutch managers have been encouraged to entrust home-grown players. Foreign buys are tailored to consistent wants. The, eventual, succession from cultured Morocco centre midfielder Mbark Boussoufa to South Africa metronome Thulani Serero is just one example. Prominent youngsters Abdullah Ramadan, Khalifa Al Hammadi and Al Attas were given their debuts before Davidsen’s procurement. Yet the Dane is in place to ensure prospects such as Ahmed Fawzi and Hazza Subait – who boast 20 goals between them in this term’s U-21 AGL – are given the best chance of following them. There are many others underneath this pair, too. Jazira’s last trophy was the 2016/17 AGL, while they are absent from the AFC Champions League since 2018. A course, though, has been set to become – in Davidsen’s words – “a top club in the UAE and a top club in Asia”, without incurring unaffordable costs. Others should think about how they can join them. Know more about Sport360 Application
บ่อน คาสิโน สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์ เกมรอยัล คาสิโน คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020 เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต
‘It’s been a long process’: T-Wolves’ Towns returns from COVID vs. Clippers
By admin | | 0 Comments |

MINNEAPOLIS -- Kawhi Leonard had a season-high 36 points and Lou Williams added 27 points off the bench as the Los Angeles Clippers defeated Minnesota 119-112 on Wednesday night and spoiled the return of Timberwolves star Karl-Anthony Towns. Leonard and Williams hit shots down the stretch, including a pair of late 3-pointers by Leonard, to thwart Minnesota's comeback try. Los Angeles snapped its first two-game losing streak of the season. After trailing by six at halftime, the Clippers outscored Minnesota 33-20 in the third quarter as Los Angeles pulled away. "We kind of turned it up in that second quarter and third quarter," Leonard said. "We needed a better fourth quarter, but I'm happy we got the win." Towns had 18 points and 10 rebounds in his return to action after missing 13 games. Towns announced on Jan. 15 that he tested positive for COVID-19 and remained on the league's health and safety protocol list until Wednesday, when coach Ryan Saunders said Towns was a game-time decision. "I thought he competed," Saunders said. "His wind was good; 18 and 10 coming back from a layoff like he did was a good night for him." Towns detailed his bout with COVID in his postgame comments, noting that underlying conditions made his battle with the virus especially tough. His mother, Jacqueline, died from virus complications last April. "I'm a high-risk case. COVID did not treat me well whatsoever," Towns said. ``A lot of scary nights. My dad called me 24/7.'' Wednesday was Towns' first game in nearly a month. He last played on Jan. 13. "I was just smiling on the court, even when it got to the end, because I was just so proud of myself to get to this point," Towns said. "It's been a long process." Naz Reid led Minnesota with 23 points off the bench, and Malik Beasley added 21. The Timberwolves have lost three in a row and eight of 10. Minnesota led by as many as 13 points in the first half before watching its lead disappear. The Timberwolves' bench built up the first-half lead behind strong efforts from Jaylen Nowell and rookie Jaden McDaniels. Trailing at the half, the Clippers used an 11-3 run to take the lead early in the third quarter. Leonard scored 10 of Los Angeles' 33 points in the third and the Clippers carried an eight-point lead into the fourth quarter. "There's a reason they're the best third-quarter team in the league," Saunders said. "They came out and they played like a team that's a championship contender.'' Patrick Beverley returned for the Clippers following an eight-game absence with a right knee injury. Beverley started Wednesday's game and finished with six points The Clippers welcomed back Beverley's vocal leadership on the court, something they missed while he was out. "It was good seeing Pat back out there," Lue said. "He's our emotional leader. Just seeing how hard he plays every night and competes, we needed that." While Towns was back for the Wolves, guard D'Angelo Russell remained sidelined with left leg soreness. Towns and Russell have played just five games together since Minnesota acquired Russell in a trade on Feb. 6, 2020. Russell remains day-to-day. TIP-INS Clippers: Paul George missed his third straight game with a swollen right toe. George is second on the Clippers in scoring this year, averaging 24.4 points. ... Williams' 27 points were a season high. Timberwolves: McDaniels had four blocks in the first half, a career high. Reid posted his fourth career 20-point game and third of the season. UP NEXT Clippers: Los Angeles concludes its short trip Friday with a game in Chicago. The Clippers will be without Paul George again in Friday's game. Timberwolves: Minnesota heads on the road to take on Charlotte on Friday. It's the first of two meetings the Wolves have with the Hornets.
คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ไลน์ คาสิโน คาสิโน sagame350 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริงฟรีเครดิต
Bayern’s Mueller tests positive for Covid-19: reports
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Bayern Munich’s German forward Thomas Mueller (L) is closed down by Ahly’s midfielder Amr el-Solia during the FIFA Club World Cup semi-final football match between Egypt’s Al-Ahly and Germany’s Bayern Munich at the Ahmed bin Ali Stadium in the Qatari city of Ar-Rayyan on February 8, 2021. (Photo by Karim JAAFAR / AFP) Bayern Munich forward Thomas Mueller is set to miss out on Thursday’s Club World Cup final in Doha after testing positive for the coronavirus on Wednesday, according to German media reports. According to Sky Sports Germany and Bild newspaper, World Cup winner Mueller tested positive after Bayern’s training session on Wednesday. A positive test would rule the veteran striker out of Thursday’s clash with Mexican CONCACAF champions Tigres in the Qatari capital, in which European champions Bayern are aiming for a historic sixth title in 12 months. Neither Bayern nor tournament organisers FIFA have yet confirmed the positive test. Mueller would be the third Bayern player to contract the coronavirus in recent weeks, after positive tests for Javi Martinez and Leon Goretzka meant they were unable to travel with the rest of the squad to Qatar. His absence would be the latest blow to Bayern’s Club World Cup campaign, after Jerome Boateng returned home to Germany on Wednesday for personal reasons amid reports that his former girlfriend had died. Read Next Don't miss out on the latest news and information. Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000. For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.
ปอยเปต คาสิโน เกมส์ยิ่งปลา คาสิโน ได้เงินจริงไหม เล่น คาสิโน คาสิโน191 คาสิโน 88
Aus Open 2021 Live Updates: Nadal leads after first two sets against Mmoh
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Aus Open 2021 Live Updates: Nadal cruises into the third round- The World No. 2 Rafael Nadal has won the second-round contest against Michael Mmoh of USA in Australian Open 2021. The 34-year-old won the match 6-1, 6-4, 6-2 to progress into the third round. He is just two wins away to enter the quarter-final of the Aus Open 2021. The 20 times grand slam champion, Nadal, is eyeing record 21 titles in the grand slams. The Spaniard is currently levelled with Spanish Tennis Maestro Roger Federer (20 Grand Slams), the most number of titles in men’s singles.Nadal will make his 15th appearance in the third round of Australian Open on Saturday.The @RafaelNadal show rolls on 🥳Next stop: His 1️⃣5️⃣th #AusOpen third round.#AO2021 pic.twitter.com/iFDeMTvhR0— #AusOpen (@AustralianOpen) February 11, 2021Australian Open Live Updates: Kenin and Coco Gauff make exit, Tsitsipas wins in 5 setsNadal has only one Australian Open title his name, which he won back in 2009. He lost the Aus Open final last year to Novak Djokovic.Nadal had earlier entered the second round after he defeated Serbia’s Laslo Dere 6-3, 6-4 and 6-1 in the opening round match.Earlier today, defending Champion Sofia Kenin crashed out of the Australian Open 2021.Meanwhile, Karolina Pliskova, Ashley Barty, Belinda Bencic, Berrettini advanced into the third round of the Aus Open.Aus Open 2021 Day 5: Key players, time in India, where to watch, full schedule insideTop players like Novak Djokovic, Naomi Osaka, Serena Williams, Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev, among others, will play in the third round of the Aus Open 2021 on Day 5 of the Grand Slam tournament that is set to begin on Friday (Feb 12).The viewers can enjoy the live coverage of Aus Open on SONY SIX, SONY TEN2, SONY TEN3 and OTT platform SONY LIV in English and Hindi.
บ่อน คาสิโน สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์ เกมรอยัล คาสิโน คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020 เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต
1 2 3 167