ชิป คาสิโน png
EPL: ท็อตแนมชนะ Europe’s Wolves: Photos
By admin | | 0 Comments |

ท็อตแนมปลดเปลื้องความหวังของพวกเขาในการผ่านเข้ารอบสำหรับยูโรป้าลีกด้วยการเอาชนะหมาป่า สเปอร์สซึ่งอยู่ห้าคะแนนจากสี่อันดับแรกเพิ่มขึ้นเป็นหกในประตูที่แตกต่างกับเวสต์แฮมสามคะแนนตามหลังเอฟเวอร์ตันซึ่งเล่นต่อมาในวันอาทิตย์ มันเป็นชัยชนะที่สมควรได้รับสำหรับเจ้าของบ้านที่ตีไม้สามครั้งหลังจากสร้างโอกาสที่ยอดเยี่ยมมากมาย แฮร์รี่เคนซึ่งพยายามตีด้วยมือซ้ายอย่างสมบูรณ์แบบเดินไปยังสเปอร์สอย่างใจเย็นจากการส่งบอลครึ่งลูกที่สวยงามของปิแอร์ - เอมิลไฮแบร์ก หมาป่าขู่และบางครั้งก็ถูกบังคับให้ต้องเสี่ยงโชคในช่วงพักและทั้ง Kane และ Dele Alli ชกกันที่มือขวาเป็นเวลาสองสามวินาที Hodzberg ขึ้นนำเป็นสองเท่าของสเปอร์สอย่างน่าประหลาดใจก่อนอื่นต้องขอบคุณการย้ายของผู้รักษาประตู Wolf Rui Patricio Gareth Bale เพื่อย้ายบอลไปที่มุมล่างขวา Romain Saiss, Adam Traore และ Fabio Silva มีโอกาสที่ดีในการตอบสนองต่อผู้มาเยือน แต่นี่ไม่ใช่ครั้งแรกในฤดูกาลนี้ที่ Wolves ซึ่งจบอันดับที่ 12 ของตารางมีวันที่น่าผิดหวัง เครดิต: BBC Similar to: Download Download ... Related
คาสิโน ออนไลน์888 ทางเข้า คาสิโน คาสิโน 1688 คาสิโน 1988 คาสิโน ทรูวอลเล็ต
Staying in Control when Playing Poker Online
By admin | | 0 Comments |

Much like when you place a sports bet, gamble in a casino or even try your luck at playing bingo, when you choose to play poker online you do, of course, need to stay in control and have a sensible playing strategy in place. You stand just as much chance of losing when playing poker as when you set about gambling in any shape or form, but the most poker players know there is an element of skill about that game and each of the many different poker game variants, and that is what they are looking to exploit when playing. This article is going to be reminding you of the days of losing control when playing poker online and will additionally ensure that you are away of the many additional tools and options you can take as an online real money poker player to allow you to stay in control when playing too. The first thing I always do advise anyone that wishes to venture into the online poker environment, however, is to first and foremost ensure the sites they choose to play at, if living in the United Kingdom, are those that hold a full UK Gambling Commission issued gambling license. That way above all else you will know the games are fair, your funds are secure at those sites, too, and you will have a range of responsible gambling tools and option settings at your disposal when playing at such sites, too. As for just how you can remove the risk of you being tempted to gamble at those Non GamStop poker sites in the future, well one quite and easy way you can stop yourself from ever being in a position to sign up to those other sites, is by simply downloading a blocker tool onto your computer and mobile devices. Taking Steps to Give Up Gambling You may have come to the conclusion that you do have a gambling problem and when you do then you will always need to know just what help and support is available to you, and there is plenty of support out there if you are prepared to reach out and ask for it. As for what ways you can set about getting help and support with any gambling problems you do have, spend as much time as you need and require checking out websites such at both the Gamblers Anonymous and GamCare websites. They both offer a lot of practical advice and will certainly point you in the right direction of where to get help with any gambling problems. Keep in mind though that once you do admit to yourself that you have a gambling problem you are going to have to start closing down online and mobile gambling site accounts that you have, and that could take you quite some time of course if you have lots of such accounts open. However, you can head on over to the GamStop website right now and what you can do when you arrive at their website is sign up to their United Kingdom gambling industry wide self-exclusion register. On you have signed up onto that register all United Kingdom-based gambling site operators are then going to close your accounts with them down and to ensure you do not try to gamble at those sites again in the future each of them will block you from being able to do so. Stay Away from Non-UK Licensed Poker Sites One final thing that you need bringing to your attention, if you are now determined to give up playing poker and gambling online, is that there are quite a number of casinos, poker and other gambling sites that are not located or licensed in the United Kingdom. That does, of course, mean that even if you do sign up to the GamStop self-exclusion register you are still always going to be more than welcome to sign up to and then gamble at those other sites and will never be blocked form doing so even if you are on that register. A gambling site blocker as they are known has one simple yet highly effective purpose and that is to block you from being able to access any website that is related to gambling, and therefore by not being able to access those sites you will never have the chance of giving in to temptation and gambling at any of them.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ที่ดีที่สุด 123 yesคาสิโน คาสิโน ที่ดีที่สุด คาสิโนufabet คาสิโน ufabet
Home Game Heroes Get A Shot To Battle The 888poker Ambassadors
By admin | | 0 Comments |

888poker is giving their players at shot at taking on their ambassadors including Vivian Saliba, Sofia Lovgren, and Dominik Nitsche. Whether watching some of the biggest names in poker at the World Series of Poker, Poker After Dark or any other poker-related show, recreational poker players from all over the world have had the same thought on at least one occasion – “I’d love to test myself and battle against the pros.” If this resonates and hits home, then take note that 888poker is giving all home game heroes and casual poker room players the chance to do just that – battle against the pros. It has never been easier to do so either, there’s no need to navigate a collection of satellite tournaments to get this opportunity. All you need to do is convince the 888poker team why you should be the one to play against the 888poker Ambassadors. Three players will be selected to sit in an exclusive Six Max Sit & Go and battle it out against Dominik Nitsche, Sofia Lövgren, and Vivian Saliba. The winner will walk away with a $1,400 first-place prize while second place will add $600 to their bankroll. Those that want to test their poker skills against their poker idols, go to the 888poker Facebook page and leave a comment. Entries need to be submitted no later than February 16 at 11 pm GMT to be considered. All selected players will be notified within three days and those winners will have a further 72 hours to confirm their seat at the table. This competition also gives poker players another item that can be ticked off their poker bucket list – playing a live-streamed event. The tournament is being aired live on February 22 with World Series of Poker sideline reporter and current 888poker ambassador Kara Scott calling the action alongside veteran poker commentator David Tuchman. Meet The 888poker Pros The selected players will be up against tough opposition, competing against the trio of 888poker pros Vivian Saliba, Sofia Lövgren, and Dominik Nitsche. With almost $20 million in winnings between the three pros, the selected players will need to pull out all the stops to prove they’ve got what it takes to swim with the sharks. Dominik Nitsche With 4 WSOP bracelets, a World Poker Tour title, and over $18 million in tournament earnings, taking the scalp of the German national is definitely a story that would go down a storm at the local card room or home game. This of course will be no mean feat to pull off but running the right bluff or making the most hero of calls could be all it takes to take this poker titan down. Vivian Saliba Brazilian-born Saliba mainly cuts her cloth on the PLO streets but is no stranger or slouch to No Limit Hold’em either and can be often found streaming on Twitch under the username ViviSaliba. With 14 WSOP cashes and over $500k in prize money won, navigating past this pro will be harder than avoiding an Ace on the flop when holding pocket kings. Sofia Lövgren The third and final 888poker ambassador taking a seat at the table is Sofia Lövgren. One of the notable highlights in her poker career is a 12th place finish in the 2016 WSOP $1,500 No Limit Hold’em Millionaire Maker for $75,000. With over 7,000 entries into that tournament, Lövgren shows she’s got the patience and composure to wait for her spot and punish anyone who slips up. What’s At Stake The prizes up for grabs in this golden opportunity are nothing to roll your eyes at either, the winner of the Ambassadors Home Game will take home a tidy four-figure score of $1,400 with the runner-up winning a bankroll boosting $600. Also, of note, while players may have plenty of reasons they think they should be considered – there’s a limit of only one submission per player.
คาสิโน มาเก๊า คาสิโน ปอยเปต ออนไลน์ คาสิโน UFABET คาสิโน 66 คาสิโน66
Tokyo Olympics panel starts search for new boss after sexism row
By admin | | 0 Comments |

FILE PHOTO: Tokyo 2020 Olympics organizing committee president Yoshiro Mori announces his resignation as he takes responsibility for his sexist comments at a meeting with council and executive board members at the committee headquarters, in Tokyo, Japan February 12, 2021. Yoshikazu Tsuno/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo The panel charged with finding a new Tokyo Olympics chief after a sexism row began talks on Tuesday as campaigners called for more transparency in the selection process. The eight-person committee convened for the first time to discuss choosing a successor to Yoshiro Mori, 83, who stepped down Friday after his claims that women talk too much in meetings sparked widespread outrage. The panel “discussed the qualities required of a new president,” according to Tokyo 2020 organizers, and agreed on five selection criteria. But campaigners said the process should be made more transparent, with Games chiefs declining to identify the members of the panel, which was expected to have a 50-50 gender split. The postponed 2020 Games are set to begin in July, with officials and organizers insisting they will go ahead despite doubts over the event’s viability given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The formation of the new panel, headed by 85-year-old Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai, was announced Friday after Mori’s reported attempts to hand-pick 84-year-old Saburo Kawabuchi as his successor was met with opposition. “Now they say they won’t reveal who the members are of the committee to choose the next chief,” Kazuko Fukuda, a campaigner for women’s sexual and reproductive rights, told AFP. “So it’s really like the whole process will take place in secret again.” ‘DEEP UNDERSTANDING’ Equality campaigners handed a petition with more than 150,000 signatures to Tokyo 2020 organizers on Tuesday morning, urging them to put concrete measures in place to prevent further discrimination. The selection committee laid out five criteria for choosing a new president — sporting knowledge, international experience, management skills, familiarity with the Tokyo Games organization and “deep understanding” of Olympic principles, including “gender equality, diversity and inclusion.” The committee pledged to select candidates “as swiftly as possible”, with local media suggesting a new president could be named before the end of the week. Reports said Olympic Minister Seiko Hashimoto, Japanese Olympic Committee president Yasuhiro Yamashita and former hammer-thrower Koji Murofushi are among those in contention. Hashimoto — one of just two women in Japan’s cabinet — was reported as saying Tuesday that she had not been approached about taking over. “It should be done with transparency,” she said. “I hope we can get the new structure in place quickly.” Reports said the selection panel is expected to meet again on Wednesday to draw up a list of nominees. The final choice must be endorsed by Tokyo 2020’s executive board. 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
Star signing Suliasi Vunivalu stood down by Reds for off-field incident
By admin | | 0 Comments |

A Set small text size A Set the default text size A Set large text size High-profile Queensland Reds recruit Suliasi Vunivalu has been dropped from what would have been his Super Rugby AU debut for allegedly pushing a security guard in a Brisbane pub. The champion NRL winger had arrived at Ballymore fresh off a premiership with the Melbourne Storm as Rugby Australia’s big-ticket item. But on Tuesday the winger copped a club-imposed $10,000 fine alongside suspension from Friday’s season opener at Suncorp Stadium against the NSW Waratahs. The matter is before the court and will be reviewed by RA and Queensland Rugby Union once it is resolved. It is understood the security guard was not injured during the incident, which was considered minor and occurred earlier this month. Vunivalu was implicated in an NRL integrity unity investigation in 2019 when he was allegedly a victim of a coward punch at a Bali nightspot that sparked a brawl that included former Storm teammate Nelson Asofa-Solomona. The 26-year-old had already spent time in camp with the Wallabies and is considered an immense talent likely to feature in national coach Dave Rennie’s plans ahead of the 2023 World Cup. It’s an early setback for a Reds outfit hunting their first silverware since 2011, having lost the Super Rugby AU decider to the Brumbies last year. © AAP
คาสิโน มือถือ คาสิโน ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ไลน์ คาสิโน คาสิโน sagame350 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริงฟรีเครดิต
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
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
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
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
Get Ready for 107 MicroMillions Events Across Only Four Days!
By admin | | 0 Comments |

February 11 2021 Matthew Pitt MicroMillions returns to PokerStars from February 11 but does so with a twist. PokerStars has named the festival MicroMillions Marathon and you’re about to discover why the new name is so fitting. MicroMillions Marathon takes place at PokerStars from February 11 through February 14, a period of only four days. Despite the short runtime, the festival boasts of a schedule featuring 107 tournaments and combined guaranteed prize pools weighing in at $3 million! It truly is a marathon series. There’s a new MicroMillions Marathon tournament starting every half hour throughout almost all the series. The first tournament, a $3.30 buy-in 3-Stack Turbo 6-Max with $5,000 guaranteed, shuffles up and deal at 7:04 a.m. ET (12:04 p.m. GMT) on February 11. Another 24 micro-stakes tournaments are schedule that day! It is a similar story on February 12 when another 25 MicroMillions Marathon tournaments run throughout the day. What better way to spend a Friday than by grinding more than two dozen tournaments from the comfort of your own home? The weekend sees the remaining 57 events take place, including a massive $1 million guaranteed MicroMillions Marathon PKO Main Event costing only $22 on February 14. “shkolota148” Turns $50 Into $116K and 50/50 Series Main Event Title Sign Up to PokerStars Today You’ll obviously need a PokerStars account if you want to compete in any of the 107 MicroMillions Marathon events. If you don’t have an account, download PokerStars via PokerNews to get your hands on a lucrative welcome bonus worth up to£400. Create your free PokerStars account, make a deposit using the bonus code "200PERCENT" and PokerStars matches your deposit 200 percent up to £400. In fact, your first three deposits in the first 60-days after creating your account are matched up to a combined £400. You then have four months to release as much of this bonus as you can by playing real money poker, including cash games, tournaments, and even Spin & Go tournaments. Full 107-Event MicroMillions Marathon Schedule DateTime (ET)EventGuarantee Thu 11 Feb07:04001: $3.30 3-Stack, Turbo (6-max)$5,000  08:04002: $1.10 PKO, Hyper-Turbo (4-max)$3,500  09:04003: $5.50 NLHE$12,500  09:34004: $1.10 PLO (8-max)$3,500  10:04005: $3.30 PKO Zoom, Turbo (6-max)$10,000  10:34006 $5.50 Heads-Up, Total PKO, Hyper-Turbo$5,000  11:04007: $3.30 NLHE$12,500  11:34008: $1.10 PKO, Turbo (8-max)$8,000  12:04009: $3.30 Win The Button$12,500  12:34010: $5.50 PLO, Turbo (6-max)$8,000  13:04011: $11 (8-max)$80,000  13:34012 $3.30 PKO$40,000  14:04013: $5.50 NLHE$35,000  14:34014: $1.10+R, Hyper-Turbo (8-max)$40,000  15:04015: $3.30 PLO-H/L, PKO, Turbo (8-max)$10,000  15:34016: $5.50 PKO, Turbo$40,000  16:04017: $1.10 NLHE$8,000  16:34018: $5.50 Limit 8-Game (6-max)$3,500  17:04019: $1.10 NLHE (6-max)$5,000  17:34020: $3.30 Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush (8-max)$12,500  18:04021: $5.50 PKO (8-max)$20,000  18:34022: $3.30 NLHE$15,000  19:04023: $1.10 PKO$7,500  19:34024: $3.30 4-max, Turbo, Shootout$3,500  20:04025: $1.10 Big PKO, Turbo$3,500 Fri 12 Feb07:04026: $1.10 Zoom, Turbo (8-max)$3,000  08:04027: $3.30 PKO, Turbo (6-max)$10,000  09:04028: $1.10 NLHE (6-max)$5,000  09:34029: $5.50 NLHE$10,000  10:04030: $1.10 NLHE$8,000  10:34031: $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$10,000  11:04032: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (8-max)$35,000  11:34033: $1.10 PKO, Hyper-Turbo, Zoom$10,000  12:04034: $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$30,000  12:34035: $5.50 NLO, Turbo (6-max)$12,500  13:04036: $3.30 PKO$20,000  13:34037: $11 PKO (8-max)$100,000  14:04038 $5.50 NLHE$40,000  14:34039: $3.30+R, Hyper-Turbo (8-max)$40,000  15:04040: $5.50 PKO, Turbo, Zoom (8-max)$50,000  15:34041: $1.10 PKO$10,000  16:04042: $3.30 6+ Hold’em (6-max)$7,500  16:34043: $5.50 (8-max)$15,000  17:04044: $1.10 PKO, Turbo, Win the Button$5,000  17:34045: $3.30 PKO, Turbo$20,000  18:04046: $1.10 Omaha H/L, PKO (8-max)$3,500  18:34047 $5.50 PKO, Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush$10,000  19:04048 $1.10 Turbo (6-max)$5,000  19:34049: $3.30 Deep Stacks, Hyper-Turbo$5,000  20:04050: $1.10 Hyper Turbo$3,500 Micro Stakes Poker Strategy: How to Beat the Games Online DateTime (ET)EventGuarantee Sat 13 Feb06:04051: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (7-max)$8,000  07:04052 $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$5,000  08:04053: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  08:34054: $3.30 PKO$10,000  09:04055: $1.10 Hyper-Turbo (6-max)$5,000  09:34056: $5.50 PKO (8-max)$12,500  10:04057: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  10:34058: $3.30 PL Fusion (6-max)$3,500  11:04059: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (7-max)$20,000  11:34060: $1.10 NLHE$7,500  12:04061: $3.30 PLO, PKO (6-max)$5,000  12:34062: $9.80 Big PKO (8-max)$125,000  13:04063: $3.30 NLHE$40,000  13:34064: $1.10+R Splash (8-max)$50,000  14:04065: $5.50 PKO$40,000  14:34066: $3.30 Turbo (7-max)$35,000  15:04067: $1.10 NLHE (8-max)$10,000  15:34068: $5.50 NL Omaha H/L, PKO (6-max)$12,500  16:04069: $3.30 Heads-Up, Total PKO, Turbo, Zoom$10,000  16:34070: $1.10 Win the Button (4-max)$7,500  17:04071: $3.30 NL 6+ Hold’em, PK (6-max)$7,500  17:34072: $5.50 Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush (8-max)$5,000  18:04073: $1.10 Turbo (7-max)$3,500  18:34074: $5.50 PKO$10,000  19:04075: $3.30 NLHE$7,500  19:34076: $5.50 Big PKO, Hyper-Turbo (6-max)$5,000  20:04077: $1.10 Turbo (6-max)$3,500 Sun 14 Feb06:04078: $1.10 Total PKO, Turbo (6-max)$3,500  06:34079: $3.30 Zoom (8-max)$10,000  07:04080: $5.50 PKO, Turbo (8-max)$25,000  07:34081: $3.30 Big PKO$10,000  08:04082: $1.10 PKO, Deep Stacks, Hyper-Turbo (8-max)$5,000  08:34083: $5.50 NLHE$15,000  09:04084: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  09:34085: $3.30 PKO, Turbo$15,000  10:04086: $5.50 Win the Button (8-max)$10,000  10:34087: $1.10 NL Omaha (6-max)$3,500  11:04088: $3.30 NLHE$15,000  11:34089: $5.50 NLHE$25,000  12:04090: $1.10 Turbo (8-max)$15,000  12:34091: $5.50 PKO$60,000  13:04092: $3.30 (6-max)$40,000  13:34093: $22 Main Event, PKO$1,000,000  14:04094 $5.50 PKO (8-max)$75,000  14:34095: $11 NLHE$100,000  15:04096: $3.30 PKO$60,000  15:34097: $5.50 Turbo (8-max)$50,000  16:04098: $1.10 PKO$20,000  16:34099: $3.30 Limit Horse (6-max)$7,500  17:04100: $1.10 NLHE$5,000  17:34101: $5.50 6+ Hold’em (6-max)$15,000  18:04102: $3.30 Total PKO, Turbo (8-max)$20,000  18:34103: $5.50 PL Omaha H/L, PKO (6-max)$12,500  19:04104: $1.10 Hyper-Turbo, Bubble Rush (8-max)$7,500  19:34105: $3.30 NLHE (8-max)$20,000  20:04106: $5.50 Turbo$30,000  20:30107: $1.10 Turbo (8-max)$10,000 The Stars Group is a majority shareholder in Oddschecker Global Media, the parent company of PokerNews
wmคาสิโน คาสิโน1688 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ จีคลับ คาสิโน ออนไลน์ pantip คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 777
1 2 3 170