รวยจาก คาสิโน
USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rankings: สัปดาห์ที่ 11
By admin | | 0 Comments |

หลุยส์วิลล์กี. - ถ้าคุณเคยได้ยินหยุดเรา: Neshoba Central มาถึงสถานะสุดท้ายของคลาส 5A แล้ว ตำแหน่งแชมป์รัฐมิสซิสซิปปีเจ็ดสมัยและทีมอันดับ 1 ของสหรัฐอเมริกาจะเผชิญหน้ากับ East Central ในวันนี้ในการเปิดการแข่งขันชิงแชมป์สามอันดับแรกที่ Southern Mississippi University Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 ในวันนี้ เกมที่สองจะจัดขึ้นในวันศุกร์และเกมที่สามกำหนดไว้สำหรับวันเสาร์หากจำเป็น (30-0) The Rockets ชนะ 37 เกม ในขณะเดียวกัน№ 2 Lake Creek (36-0), Hewitt-Trussville อันดับสาม (43-2-1), อันดับ 4 Lakewood Ranch (27-2) และ Park Vista อันดับที่ 5 (27-0) ทุกคนยังคงอยู่ต่อ อาชีพที่เกี่ยวข้องลุยทัวร์นาเมนต์ของรัฐและเล่นให้มากขึ้นในอีกไม่กี่วันข้างหน้า ซานอันโตนิโอวอร์เรน (25-2) รู้สึกไม่พอใจในสองเกมสุดท้ายของซีรีส์เพลย์ออฟกับลอสเฟรสนอสทำให้แต่ละทีมจากแปดทีมต่อไปนี้เลื่อนขึ้นหนึ่งรุ่งโดยลดลงจากอันดับหกเป็น 23 ที่อื่น Masuk of Connecticut (14-0) และ Winnakunnett จาก New Hampshire (4-0) เป็นอันดับใหม่ในการจัดอันดับของสัปดาห์นี้ US TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 ใช้การจัดอันดับของรัฐที่กำหนดโดยโค้ชสมาชิก NFCA ทีมจะถูกเลือกตามคุณภาพคุณภาพของรายการและความแข็งแกร่งของกำหนดการ ในปี 2564 โรงเรียนที่ไม่มีการแข่งขันจะไม่สามารถเข้าร่วมการสำรวจได้ USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Survey - 13 พ.ค. 2021 อันดับ | ทีม | บันทึก 2021 | เรตติ้งก่อนหน้า 1. Neshoba Central (Miss.): 30-0 - PR: 1 2. Lake Creek (Texas): 36-0 - PR: 2 3. Hewitt-Trussville (Ala.): 43-2-1 - PR : 3 4. Lakewood Ranch (Fl.): 27-2 - PR: 4 5. Park Vista (Fla.): 27-0 - PR: 5 6. Leander (Texas): 32-0 - PR: 7 7. เคลียร์สปริงส์ (เท็กซัส): 26-0 - PR: 8 8. Barbe (La.): 31-2 - PR: 9 9. Norko (California): 17-1 - PR: 10 10. St. Amant (La) .): 25-3 - PR: 11 11. Marist (Ill.): 21-0 - PR: 12 12. New Palestine (Ind.): 23-0 - PR: 13 13. Keystone (Ohio): 26- 1 - PR: 14 14. Burns (SC): 25-1 - PR: 16 15. Rocky Mountain (Idaho): 21-1 - PR: 18 16. Lakota West (Ohio): 25-1 - PR: 19 17 Roncalli (Ind.): 19-2 - PR: 15 18. South Warren (Ki.): 20-1 - PR: 17 19. Bob Jones (Ala.): 33-4 - PR: 20 20. Barber Hill ( Texas): 33-2 - PR: 21 21. Crown Point (Ind.): 21-2 - PR: 22 22. Masuk (Conn.): 14-0 - PR: NR 23. San Antonio Warren (Texas): 25-2 - ประชาสัมพันธ์: 6 24. วินนากุลเนตร (NH): 4-0 - ประชาสัมพันธ์: NR 25. เทรนตัน (ชั้น): 18-1 - ประชาสัมพันธ์: 25 ซ้าย: อัลวิน (เท็กซัส) สเปนปาร์ก (Ala.) NFCA เพื่อทราบข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rating: 10th Week USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rating: 9th Week USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 Softball Rating: 8th Week USA TODAY Sports / NFCA High School Super 25 อันดับซอฟท์บอล: สัปดาห์ที่ 7
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน คาสิโน 168 คาสิโน168 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888
Jordan Clarkson drops 40 to lead the Utah Jazz past the Philadelphia 76ers
By admin | | 0 Comments |


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

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

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

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


England's Jofra Archer tasted success in his very first Asia Test in India, which is rare, and the pacer has admitted that nothing compares to this win having played all around the world. He also termed the fifth day Chennai surface the worst he has seen, though he expected more fight from India.Winning in India remains the biggest challenge for Test teams in world cricket. No other team even comes close to India's crazy home record. They last lost a Test series in 2012/13 while, overall, they have only lost two Test series since the start of the century. In the last decade, Team India lost only three Tests at home. So, all these stats plus the high of winning Test series Down Under with a depleted side made Virat Kohli's men the topdogs to win the first Test against England. Unlike the Australia series, however, India didn't even show any fight let alone being in game to win. England were clinical enough throughout the game and never gave India a sniff for a fightback. Jofra Archer, who was crucial in England's first innings bowling efforts, taking two wickets in his opening spell, expressed his pleasure at winning the Chennai Test, a feeling and feat which he finds 'incomparable'. "I’ve played in tournaments around the world, and had success, but winning a Test is one of those indescribable feelings, especially against a really good team. Nothing compares," Archer wrote in his column for the Daily Mail, reported HT.There was a lot of hype around the Chepauk wicket. It was heavily criticized in 2016 when it hosted India and England for being excessively flat. But this time the newly appointed curator had promised that there will be sporting wicket with English looks that will support pace bowlers on first day, followed by two batting days and then the last two days in favor of spinners. On the contrary the first two days of the Test was akin to a graveyard for bowlers. There wasn't much carry on the wicket which was slow and turned tricky and unfavorable by the time India's first innings commenced on day three. Commenting on the surface, Archer stated that it was the 'worst surface' that he had seen. He also added that he didn't expect India to surrender so quickly on final day of the Test series opener. “On the fifth day, it was probably the worst surface I’ve seen — its orange colour, bits missing, rough patches for the bowlers to aim at. When we walked out in search of nine wickets on the fifth day, I was very hopeful we would complete the job — although these India players have big reputations and are at home, so should be able to cope with conditions better than anyone. So, I didn’t expect us to skittle them. Equally, I didn’t expect it to finish not long after afternoon drinks."India will take on England in second Test in Chennai again from Saturday onwards before the Caravan moves to Ahmedabad for the last two Tests of the series. At the moment, England have a lead of 1-0.  Follow us on Facebook hereStay connected with us on Twitter hereLike and share our Instagram page here .
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน คาสิโน 168 คาสิโน168 คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888
Mark Breland Exposes Dark Secrets From Deontay Wilder’s Training Camp, Including Wilder’s ‘Disrespectful’ Behavior
By admin | | 0 Comments |

The feud between the former heavyweight champ, Deontay Wilder, and his ex-trainer, Mark Breland, has caught fire. After a see-saw of painting shots at each other, Breland has finally put a full stop to avoid the war of words for the future. The former pugilist took it to his official Instagram handle with a series of photos detailing his extensive time with the ‘Bronze Bomber’. Breland burst out in a colossal manner. He wrote, “I’ve had enough. I’m going to say some things that were reserved for my Autobiography (still buy the book, there’s so much more).” Mark Breland didn’t want to shed light on anything and everything about Wilder. He even stated that he’s working on an autobiography, wherein he’ll pen as much as he can about his coaching period with the 35-year-old. Moving further, Breland opened up secrets from the usual Deontay Wilder training camp. He wrote, “So Jay was seen as the ‘head trainer’ in the media, but I was the only one on the team with a boxing resume & I was the only trainer.” Breland felt he never got the respect and esteem he deserved from the Wilder camp even after being the only one with a boxing resume. If he had to pass on any message to the Alabama native, it had to go through his head trainer, Jay Deas. Read – Andy Ruiz Jr.’s Childhood, in Pictures Deontay Wilder became untrainable for Mark Breland Breland held back no punches in this snippet of information on his Instagram. In the Instagram post above, Breland added, “Deontay had become untrainable because he was at the point of..,, he know more about boxing than all of us.” NEW YORK, NY – MAY 17: Deontay Wilder looks on during his official weigh-in against Dominic Breazeale at LIU Athletic Center on May 17, 2019 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. (Photo by Mike Stobe/Getty Images)He admitted Wilder became untrainable after he mastered his prowess of knocking out opponents. He claimed that a coach could only teach something if a boxer was willing to learn. Breland claimed that they would wait for hours in the gym for Wilder to show up. Furthermore, if the latter had a bad day, they had to be quiet to avoid his wrath and not get fired. Fans will keep an eye on Wilder’s social media to see if the ‘Bronze Bomber’ responds to Breland. What did you make of the social media post?
บ่อน คาสิโน สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์ เกมรอยัล คาสิโน คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020 เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต
1 2 3 170