Pearl Legend: Hold and Win is a new release which is coming from iSoftBet, a slot machine with a Chinese concentration and utilizing a lot of the designs that are normal for their games. Some of the features included will be familiar to you, as the Hold and Win a part of the title suggests there are a few things which are unique also.You are playing on 5×3 reels with 20 paylines being used each round. Pearl Legend: Hold and Win can deliver top wins of 1,250x the stake but its standard mixes offer maximum of 500x. It has a 96% RTP, while for its huge features there will be Wilds, Pearl scatters, the Pearl Legend Respins, Reel Boosters and regular game modifiers.Betting and Prizes 20 coins are being used and you simply pick their value, in a range of $0.01 to $1. The wagering range coming from this will go from $0.20 to $20.Wins of up to 1,250x the stake can be paid during Respins, which implies that you could leave with $25,000 cash, by utilizing the most extreme wager of $20. Standard wins of up to 500x the stake per spin are delivered during gameplay, utilizing mixes made out of Gold Dragons.A 96% RTP reveals to us that the amount getting back into the pockets of its players is about the same in other slot games.Pearl Legend: Hold and Win Slot Features Anytime you see the Yin Yang image on the reels, it will be joined by the Wild logo, so it will be the substitute which you can use to place along with standard images and get new wins. You can’t have it do likewise for the scatter but that is a standard limitation.There are a few game modifiers which you may use during paid spins. Red Gems will give you 3 to 5 wilds on the reels. Blue Gems will change images into Pearl scatters. There is likewise a Dragon sculpture, which will change Royals to high value images.The Pearls are your scatters and landing at least 5 out of a single spin will take you to the Pearl Legend Respins reward. Both the setting off Pearls and any new ones that go along, will get sticky on the reels. You start with 3 respins but you reset the number on the off chance that you get extra Pearls before the rounds are totally consumed.Pearls may appear during Respins and they can bring certain Boosters, given that you get three that match.Blue Gems: will open up to three extra rows (Reels Boosted).Green Gems: give the Pearl prizes a boost (Values Boosted).Red Gems: gives you 1 extra respin (Spins+ Boosted).Purple Gems: the multiplier goes up as high as 10x (Multiplier Boosted).Theme and Design As far as Chinese themes go, the one from Pearl Legend looks standard. The six images we see are basic in such games, as we’re taking a look at Yin Yang signs for the wilds, a Pearl as scatter alongside premium images with the Dragon, Phoenix Bird, 3 Gold Coins, Frog. The other four base paying images are the ones showing Royals. With everything taken into account, it’s a standard look for such slots. The activity seems, by all accounts, to be put placed in a temple, where we see on the left side a living Dragon holding a pearl in its claws.ConclusionPearl Legend: Hold and Win is definitely not a terrible slot machine, especially as they changed a few things about its major feature, they didn’t just clone the same reward game that every other person is using lately.
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์…
The UK Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is asking football clubs to refrain from discussing and promoting gambling on their social media sites in as part of an effort to avoid triggering problem gamblers. It’s move that may seem extreme to the layman, but will likely help keep UK gambling operators a step ahead of UK gambling regulators.
Guidelines for how football clubs should handle discussions of gambling were sent out by the BGC late last week and utilize a plea from 50 former gambling addicts to make the case. They pointed out that seeing their favorite club site promoting gambling caused them “distress” and “encouraged” them to place wagers.
As an effort to avoid these triggering moments, the BGC is recommending that football clubs refrain from promoting gambling operators or bonus offers and their “organic tweets”. This is a nod to the reality that gambling offers are ubiquitous on social media and that no one is really more than a click or two away from them on the internet anyways.
BGC officials sent a letter detailing the new code of conduct to 11 football clubs, as well as to social media operators.
In a statement reported on by SBC News, Brigid Simmonds OBE, Chairman of the BGC described the importance of the new standards saying, “Our members rightly have a zero tolerance approach to gambling by under-18s, so as an industry we are understandably concerned that children may be exposed to betting adverts on social media platforms. Our new guidelines make clear the standards expected of football clubs when they post gambling promotions on social media, and I look forward to them being put into practice as soon as possible.”
The BGC guidelines are not legally binding, but members of the BGC who wish to remain in good standing are expected to abide by them.
The post BGC ices gambling talk on football social media sites appeared first on .
We recap some stories you may have missed including a huge PKO event and how much of himself is Landon Tice playing for?
KidPoker vs the Poker Brat?
We hinted at it last week and now it seems confirmed that Daniel Negreanu and Phil Hellmuth will play heads-up.
Given both men are traditionally live players it seems inevitable that it will be face to face and streamed on PokerGO.
The early betting markets have suggested Hellmuth is the favourite, which seems ludicrous given how much Negreanu improved in his heads-up challenge against Doug Polk.
Happy to play anyone on @PokerGo App’s “High Stakes Duel.” Looks like they are bringing me the GREAT Daniel Negreanu @RealKidPoker, the guy that studied heads up for months w coaches I respect, so be it. It will be a great challenge for me! Hoping I don’t look like THIS photo!! pic.twitter.com/EpE1BqRMWP
— phil_hellmuth (@phil_hellmuth) February 13, 2021
Tice has skin in the game
The other big heads-up match in the works is Landon Tice vs Bill Perkins, and it has been the subject of a lot of debate this last week.
Namely, how much does the poker wunderkind Landon Tice have invested in himself? Rumours circulated that he is playing for just 10% of himself in this challenge where he is already paying Bill Perkins $720,000 to play.
Tice confirmed that he has sold a lot of action for this event but while his percentage is low, it still means he has a lot of his net worth on the line:
Let me make something clear that I’m sure everyone cares about regarding my challenge with @bp22 I’m selling a lot of action for it. A lot.I’m not rolled to battle at nosebleeds. However, I am putting a very large amount of my relative net worth on myself winning it.
— Landon (@LandonTice) February 11, 2021
MicroMillions the biggest PKO ever?
The MicroMillions Main Event was a PKO for the first time in its history and it (probably) automatically became the biggest field ever for a progressive knockout tournament.
49,487 entries for the $22 Main Event, which was not quite enough to hit the $1 million guarantee.
It did lead to one player bagging almost $60,000 for their troubles including $18,651.13 in bounties alone:
The final table
Table stakes only
OK, so this week’s meme classic from Reddit beats all those ‘toilet roll poker home game’ jokes from last year:
When Polaks Play Poker from r/poker
Will we see Hellmuth vs Negreanu heads-up? Let us know in the comments:
Barry Carter is the editor of PokerStrategy.com and the co-author of The Mental Game of Poker 1 & 2, Poker Satellite Strategy and PKO Poker Strategy
Verified players can continue to play a real-money game, such as Flip & Go and Spin & Gold, for free each and every day.One of the most popular promotions for low stakes players on GGPoker has been further expanded.
During the software update on February 10, the Daily Free Spin promotion changed to Daily Freebie. Furthermore, UK players can now also claim the daily gift for a chance to boost their bankrolls.
All players, both existing and new, just need to have verified accounts and log in each day to claim their gift, which lets plays play real money tournaments—and compete for real money cash prizes.
The update has expanded what is given away. Now, there are Daily Freebie tickets for Flip & Go, the super-successful new format introduced in January 2021. It has also undergone some changes since its launch, with GGPoker increasing the frequency and adjusting the buy-ins as well as the maximum number of stacks for purchase.
“GGPoker is happy to confirm that we’ve relaunched our Daily Free Spin offer as the Daily Freebie; verified players can continue to play a real-money game, such as Flip & Go and Spin & Gold, for free each and every day. All they need to do is log in and claim their daily reward!” said Paul Burke, Head of Public Relations at GGPoker.
“We hope to continue to change up the rewards on offer in the future, giving all players the opportunity to try out GGPoker’s most exciting games, no matter their bankroll.”
For existing players, Daily Freebie is available immediately—just log in and claim.
If you haven’t yet signed up, you can do so today and enjoy the promotion as soon as you have verified your account. You can also take advantage of all of GGPoker’s generous welcome bonuses.
How the GGPoker Daily Freebie Promotion Works
The operator has seen unprecedented growth in 2020 to become one of the leading online poker platforms for tournaments and cash games. GGPoker has achieved that with a plethora of promotions, innovations, and high-profile partnerships. Their continued success has led to a record $7.5 million in promotions given away in February 2021.
One of several promotions for players with smaller bankrolls is the Daily Freebie formerly the Daily Free Spin.
This was launched on September 7, 2020. It has given verified players the opportunity to claim one $0.25 Spin & Gold ticket every day ever since. The free ticket courtesy of GGPoker continues to be available under the new name three times per week—*but this rotates with other ticket types.*
Players can see the next six upcoming Daily Freebies listed under the “My Promo” tab. A new daily gift becomes available after each daily reset at midnight Pacific time. Each ticket will continue to feature an expiration date of 24 hours once the Daily Freebie has been awarded.
The current rotation of Daily Freebie is fixed for the time being. However, GGPoker hopes “to change the daily prizes on a semi-regular basis,” according to Burke. He also hinted at a strong possibility that the Daily Freebie will include the alternative currencies C$ or T$ sometime soon.
Newly included as a prize in the Daily Freebie is a $1 Spin & Gold ticket, which can be claimed once per week. Furthermore, five $0.05 Flip & Go tickets are up for grabs three times per week, giving players the chance at trying the new tournament format free of charge.
As a mixture between a Flipout and regular tournament, Flip & Go was launched on January 12, 2021. However, it only took a few days for the first tweaks to be made. Initially slated to take place once every hour, it was soon increased to once every 30 minutes.
The buy-ins were also adjusted and the lowest available stake was increased to $0.05 with a guarantee of $50. Players can now take a shot at their own leisure three times per week and enter this lowest tier with five stacks thanks to the Daily Freebie.
Upon launch, the Flip & Go featured a maximum of 10 entries for each of the four stakes. However, that number has been adjusted recently and the stacks for purchase are now capped at a maximum of eight. This makes the bonus stacks based on the holdings during the Flipout stage more valuable in comparison.
The overall feedback for the new tournament format has been very positive, as outlined by Burke.
“Players love it! We have been very pleasantly surprised by the positivity seen across almost all feedback, of course not all players are interested in a new game type but those who have tried it have mostly good things to say about Flip & Go. We’ve also received some constructive criticism, which is also valuable.”
Further tweaks to the Flip & Go format may very well possible, as GGPoker is constantly reviewing and optimizing its schedule. One such adjustment was made with the expansion of the popular Daily GGMasters earlier in February.
The changes to the Daily Freebie promotion went live on February 10. All verified GGPoker players in eligible countries can claim their daily gift under the “My Promo” tab after each daily reset.
Intelitics, the leading performance marketing and analytics platform provider, has been granted a licence by the Colorado Division of Gaming allowing it to work with licensed sportsbook operators in the state for the first time.Intelitics already holds licences in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, with Colorado the third with more to follow in the coming months.Intelitics provides online sportsbook and casino operators with a single platform that allows them to track, analyze and grow all acquisition partnerships and campaigns across web and mobile through access to real-time data which in turn allows them to unlock hidden revenue and boost ROI.Intelitics’ real-time data hub keeps media buyers, analysts and executives on the same page about spend and results. Operators can use one set of metrics to “slice and dice” media performance to discover what activity is delivering the best results.Powerful, streamlined reports provide full visibility into cross-channel interaction and the customer journey. A holistic view of costs v player value means operators can easily determine the most valuable media sources which improves revenue allocation modelling and inform media investment.CasinoAffiliatePrograms, the premier standalone iGaming specific Ad Network, which is powered and run by the Intelitics team, has delivered more than $70m in net game revenue through 150,000+ new depositing customers.Armed with its Colorado licence, Intelitics is now looking to work with licensed online sportsbook operators in the state in order to help them unlock the greatest value from their marketing activity.Allan Stone, CEO at Intelitics, said: “We are delighted to have secured a licence from the Colorado Division of Gaming allowing us to work with licensed sportsbook operators in the state for the very first time.”“As legal online sports betting continues to roll out across the US, there is a tremendous first mover advantage to be had but operators must ensure they are acquiring players at the right cost and through channels that deliver true value.”“Our cutting-edge platform provides the real-time data, insight and reporting that operators need to do just that across all of the channels they use to market to players. We look forward to working with sportsbooks licensed in the state of Colorado.”
Tyrant King Megaways plays on 6 reels, gets as many as 117,649 Megaways during regular spins, however then it likewise gets up to 200,704 different ways on the off chance that you get to its free spins. Besides the free spins, there will be Cascading reels, expanding multipliers, wilds and respins. Payouts can be very acceptable, going to 10,000x the stake, while RTP is OK at 96%.Betting and Prizes $0.20 is a low bet, that most players can make use of it and it’s the lowest amount that Tyrant King Megaways permits. At the other end, the highest wagers used is up to $20.Winning big is consistently a chance in slots which depend on Megaways and it is a significant motivation behind why these games turned out to be so popular. It is not easy however, since the unpredictability is also on the high side. All things considered, a bonanza of up to 10,000x the stake is onThe RTP is set at 96%.Tyrant King Megaways Slot Features Concerning the Megaways system. It depends on a fixed number of reels, 6 for this case but on a random number of images for every one (2 to 7 during regular spins). This permits up to 117,649 different ways to win during your regular spins.After a combination forms, cascading reels will trigger, eliminating winning images and adding others in. This can prompt more wins and cascades.Get at least 4 wilds to show up in one spin and the Respins feature triggers. It will give you a Hold and Win style reward with 3 respins offered, during which you need to get extra wilds on the reels. Just wilds and empty positions can show up in this mode. You gather the setting off wilds and any new ones that may appear. In the event that a reel is covered by them, it transforms into a multiplier wild. The respins reset when you get new wilds.Toward the end of the feature, you get every one of those wilds used as a component of new mixes in the base game. Every combo of up to 6 wilds will settle up to 50x the stake.There will be free spins to go after also, up to 15 rounds offered when up to 6 scattered Dinosaur Eggs show up in view. The game area increases, with one extra line of images, so now you can have 200,704 different ways to win active. Another feature will include an expanding multiplier, going up by 1x after each new cascade.Theme and Design We are going back to the period when the dinosaurs roamed and controlled this planet. The T-Rex will be the star, as a wild while Dinosaur Eggs are represent scatters. Standard images include an unlikely picture of an Adventurer, a Cavewoman, three kinds of dinosaurs and the 10 to A Royals. It is a mix of prehistoric and modern at that point, which reminds me of Jurassic Park because you can’t get such a thing elsewhere.ConclusionTyrant King Megaways looks engaging, giving us some new features to try out, along with the ones we already knew and enjoyed. Top wins of 10,000x the stake are not extraordinary in a Megaways slot but rather they look great all things being equal.
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์…
เนื่องจากบทบาทของคณะกรรมการการพนัน Alderney มีความสำคัญมากในอุตสาหกรรมของเราและเป็นศูนย์กลางของหน่วยงานที่กำกับดูแลที่เราต้องพึ่งพากฎคาสิโนออนไลน์ตอนนี้เราจะให้ภาพรวมของคุณสมบัติหลักของ AGCC เราจะเริ่มต้นด้วยประวัติโดยย่อและคำจำกัดความของ AGCC จากนั้นเราจะดำเนินการตามกิจกรรมและความรับผิดชอบ นอกจากนี้เราจะกล่าวถึงคาสิโนที่มีชื่อเสียงบางส่วนที่มีใบอนุญาต AGCC สุดท้ายนี้เราจะแจ้งให้คุณทราบว่าคุณจะติดต่อ AGCC ได้อย่างไรและจะช่วยคุณได้อย่างไร AGCC – มันคืออะไร? Alderney Gambling Commission (AGCC) ก่อตั้งขึ้นในปี 2543 เป็นหน่วยงานกำกับดูแลอิสระที่กำกับดูแลผู้ให้บริการ iGaming ในนามของรัฐ Alderney ร่วมกับคณะกรรมการการพนันของอังกฤษและหน่วยงานการพนันแห่งมอลตาทำให้มั่นใจได้ว่าผู้ประกอบการจะมอบโอกาสให้กับนักพนันในคาสิโนออนไลน์ที่ปลอดภัย ชื่อ: Alderney Gambling Regulatory Commission เว็บไซต์: www.gamblingcontrol.org ที่อยู่: St Anne House, Queen Elizabeth II Road, Alderney, Channel Islands, GY9 3TB อีเมล: firstname.lastname@example.org โทรศัพท์: +44 (0) 1481 825500 Alderney Gambling Regulatory Commission Commission – ทำในสิ่งที่ AGCC ได้รับอนุญาตให้ออกใบอนุญาตและใบรับรอง ใบอนุญาตการพนันอิเล็กทรอนิกส์มีสองประเภท สิ่งแรกที่ต้องทำคือการลงทะเบียนผู้เล่นและตรวจสอบสัญญาและเงินทุน ประการที่สองเกี่ยวข้องกับการจัดการแพลตฟอร์มการพนัน ทั้งสองสัมพันธ์กันอย่างใกล้ชิด Alderney Gaming Board ได้กำหนดเป้าหมายที่ชัดเจน วัตถุประสงค์หลักคือการปกป้องและปรับปรุงชื่อเสียงในฐานะหน่วยงานหลัก การพนันทั้งหมดดำเนินไปอย่างซื่อสัตย์และยุติธรรม การพนันออนไลน์รวมถึงการจัดการการดำเนินการและการประหยัดเงินนั้นปราศจากอิทธิพลทางอาญา กฎระเบียบที่เข้มงวดและการตรวจสอบปกป้องเยาวชนและผู้ที่มีความเสี่ยง นอกจากนี้ AGCC ยังดำเนินการทดสอบการปฏิบัติตามใบอนุญาต เพื่อทำการตรวจสอบทางเทคนิคตามปกติ AGCC Alderney ทำงานอย่างใกล้ชิดกับห้องปฏิบัติการที่ได้รับการรับรองหรือห้องปฏิบัติการทั่วโลก สุดท้าย AGCC ให้ความโปร่งใสแก่ผู้เล่นและผู้ประกอบการ ในเว็บไซต์คุณจะพบชื่อของผู้รับอนุญาต แต่ชื่อของผู้รับอนุญาต Alderney Gambling Commission เนื่องจาก Alderney Gambling Commission (AGCC) เป็นผู้ออกใบอนุญาตและใบอนุญาตรายใหญ่ในอุตสาหกรรมการพนันออนไลน์คุณมักจะพบชื่อของคุณเมื่อค้นหาเว็บไซต์การพนันที่ดีที่สุดในสหราชอาณาจักร นี่คือผู้ให้บริการคาสิโนออนไลน์ยอดนิยมบางรายที่แสดงโลโก้ AGCC บนเว็บไซต์ของตนอย่างภาคภูมิใจเพื่อเป็นหลักฐานว่าพวกเขามีใบอนุญาตที่ถูกต้องจากคณะกรรมการ ทำไมต้องเล่นที่ AGCC Casino? แต่ทำไมคุณควรเลือก Alderney Gambling Commission Casino? มีหลายสาเหตุ ก่อนอื่นคุณไม่ควรพิจารณาเล่นคาสิโนที่ไม่มีการควบคุม AGCC เป็นหนึ่งในสถานที่ที่ดีที่สุดในการระบุไซต์การพนันออนไลน์และส่งเสริมการพนันอย่างมีความรับผิดชอบ นั่นทำให้ผู้เล่นได้เปรียบมากมาย โลโก้ Alderney ในการรับประกันเว็บไซต์คาสิโน: การปกป้องผู้เล่น: ผู้ประกอบการจะต้องปฏิบัติตามการปกป้องข้อมูลและปฏิบัติต่อข้อมูลที่ละเอียดอ่อนอย่างเหมาะสม ในขณะเดียวกันผู้ที่มีความเสี่ยงและวัยรุ่นได้รับความสนใจเป็นพิเศษ ในที่สุดเงินของผู้เล่นจะถูกแยกออกจากเงินของคาสิโนดังนั้นการรักษาเงินของผู้เล่นไม่ว่าจะเกิดอะไรขึ้นก็ตาม Fair Gaming: คาสิโนออนไลน์มีการตรวจสอบอุปกรณ์อย่างสม่ำเสมอโดยห้องปฏิบัติการทางเทคนิคที่ได้รับอนุญาตซึ่งทำงานร่วมกับ Alderney Commission การควบคุมและการทดสอบทางเทคนิคเป็นประจำเพื่อให้แน่ใจว่าเกมทั้งหมดยุติธรรมและ Random Number Generator (RNG) เป็นจริง ความรับผิดชอบของผู้ดำเนินการ: หากปราศจากความรับผิดชอบคาสิโนออนไลน์จะทำทุกอย่างตามที่ต้องการและผู้เล่นจะต้องสูญเสีย อย่างไรก็ตามคาสิโน Alderney Gambling Commission ยืนตามคำพูดของพวกเขา หากผู้ปฏิบัติงานถูกหลอกลวงจากการกระทำผู้เล่นทุกคนสามารถติดต่อ AGCC – ติดต่อพวกเขาหรือยื่นเรื่องร้องเรียน นอกเหนือจากความโปร่งใสของ AGCC ที่เราได้กล่าวไปแล้ว Alderney Gambling Commission ยังสามารถติดต่อทางโทรศัพท์แฟกซ์อีเมลแบบฟอร์มทางเว็บหรือจดหมาย เลือกวิธีการสื่อสารที่คุณต้องการเพื่อขอข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับกิจกรรมขององค์กรหรือเพื่อยื่นเรื่องร้องเรียน ข้อเท็จจริงที่น่าสนใจ: คุณรู้หรือไม่ว่า AGCC Alderney ต้องการช่วยคุณสื่อสารกับคาสิโนออนไลน์ที่พวกเขาควบคุม ตัวอย่างเช่นหากคุณคิดว่าคุณถูกรังแก แต่ผู้ให้บริการคาสิโนไม่ตอบสนองต่อข้อความของคุณโปรดติดต่อ Alderney อันที่จริงเนื่องจากเป้าหมายของ Alderney Gambling Commission คือเพื่อให้แน่ใจว่าผู้เล่นได้รับการปฏิบัติอย่างเป็นธรรมและมีการเล่นการพนันอย่างตรงไปตรงมาคุณจึงสามารถพึ่งพาความช่วยเหลือจากองค์กรปกครองได้ ติดต่อ Alderney – ยื่นเรื่องร้องเรียน – ในกรณีใด ๆ ที่คุณเชื่อว่าผู้รับอนุญาตนั่นคือคาสิโนออนไลน์ได้ละเมิดข้อกำหนดใด ๆ ตามที่กำหนดโดย AGCC คำถามเกี่ยวกับคณะกรรมการการพนันของ Alderney เราได้พยายามหาวิธีที่ดีที่สุดกับ Alderney Gambling Commission (AGCC) โดยไม่ต้องลงรายละเอียดมากเกินไป เราได้อธิบายว่า AGCC คืออะไรและทำหน้าที่อะไร นอกจากนี้เรายังแจ้งให้คุณทราบว่าคณะกรรมการ Alderney สามารถช่วยคุณในการสื่อสารกับคาสิโนออนไลน์ได้อย่างไร ในที่สุดเราก็ได้เสนอชื่อเจ้าของคาสิโน AGCC ชั้นนำ ตอนนี้เราจะตอบคำถามยอดนิยมที่ผู้เล่นมีเกี่ยวกับ AGCC AG️ AGCC ยืนยันอะไร? AGCC ย่อมาจาก Alderney Gambling Regulatory Commission เป็นหน่วยงานการจัดการที่ได้รับการยอมรับมากที่สุดแห่งหนึ่งใน iGaming AGCC ทำงานอย่างใกล้ชิดกับคณะกรรมการการพนันแห่งสหราชอาณาจักรเพื่อรักษาและรับรองประสบการณ์การพนันออนไลน์ที่ปลอดภัยสำหรับนักพนันชาวอังกฤษ ค่าคอมมิชชั่น Alderney Commission ทำอะไร? Alderney Gambling Commission (AGCC) ออกใบรับรองและใบอนุญาตให้กับผู้ประกอบการคาสิโนที่ปฏิบัติตามกฎของคณะกรรมการเพื่อความปลอดภัยของผู้เล่นความยุติธรรมในเกมและการคุ้มครองเด็กและเยาวชนและความเสี่ยง นอกจากนี้ยังช่วยให้ผู้ปฏิบัติงานรักษาความสม่ำเสมอโดยการทดสอบอย่างสม่ำเสมอ 🃏อะไรทำให้ AGCC Casino ปลอดภัย? หากผู้ให้บริการแสดงโลโก้ AGCC บนไซต์ของพวกเขาไซต์การพนันนั้นเป็นสถานที่ที่ปลอดภัยที่คุณสามารถเล่นเกมด้วยเงินจริงและคาดหวังผลลัพธ์ที่ยุติธรรมและซื่อสัตย์ด้วย RNG แบบสุ่ม Alderney Gambling Board Casino เป็นตัวเลือกที่ยอดเยี่ยมสำหรับผู้เล่นชาวอังกฤษ การเล่นที่ AGCC Casino มีข้อดีอย่างไร? คุณอาจสงสัยว่าข้อดีของ AGCC Casino คืออะไร เนื่องจากคณะกรรมการการพนันของ Alderney ทำงานเพื่อให้แน่ใจว่าประสบการณ์การพนันออนไลน์ของสหราชอาณาจักรได้รับการปรับให้เหมาะสมเว็บไซต์คาสิโน AGCC จึงมีความเป็นเลิศในหลาย ๆ ด้านเช่นการคุ้มครองผู้เล่นการพนันที่ยุติธรรมและความรับผิดชอบของผู้ประกอบการ CC AGCC ทำอะไรให้ผู้เล่นได้บ้าง? AGCC เป็นผลประโยชน์สูงสุดของผู้เล่นชาวอังกฤษซึ่งรวมถึง แต่ไม่ จำกัด เพียงความปลอดภัยและความสะดวกสบายของผู้เล่น ดังนั้นหากคุณมีปัญหาที่ AGCC Casino ปฏิเสธที่จะแก้ไขคุณสามารถดำเนินการต่อและใช้แบบฟอร์มการติดต่อ AGCC หรือวิธีการสื่อสารอื่น ๆ เพื่อตั้งค่าสถานะปัญหา หรือคุณสามารถยื่นเรื่องร้องเรียนอย่างเป็นทางการ
Glorious Guardians is going to be a joint title, from Ash Gaming and Playtech, one of the 2021 slot games that will be coming out from this developer. The base for this one comes from China and from its amazing creatures specifically. We see the concept both in its design and in its utilization of Twin Symbols during its major feature.Glorious Guardians gives 5×3 reels. The slot will settle up to 2,000x the stake through its fixed bonanzas. It’s major features are the Wild, free spins with Twin Symbols and scattersBetting and Prizes A few fixed bonanzas can be delivered by Glorious Guardians. These are the Mega Jackpot of 2,000x the stake, Major Jackpot of 200x the stake and Mini Jackpot of 50x the stake.Glorious Guardians Slot Features In spite of the fact that extremely basic for an uncommon feature, the Wild image is as yet going to have a significant effect over the long haul, and for some it might simply do what’s necessary to transform a losing meeting into a productive one. The manner in which it works is standard, as a substitute that you can utilize while framing new blends, given that you get different images which are required.The huge feature of Glorious Guardians will depend on the free spins however. When you get those set off, you will locate that the first and fifth reels will have coordinating images on them, with the guardians covering both. During the free spins, this can make it simpler to shape 5 image mixes of that kind.Theme and Design Obviously, there is a major spotlight on the creatures mentioned in the story of China and I love how Playtech and Ash Gaming managed it design wise. We’re taking a look at a background picture showing palaces and sculptures of these creatures on the two sides while the reels mark the outer reels with red and the center ones are kept separate.Images will give you pictures of the Royals at first, beautiful but standard choices in any case. You at that point proceed onward to images with the creatures (Dragons in green or gold, White Tigers, Phoenix Bird Turtles) and the feature triggers (Wild).ConclusionGlorious Guardian is generally a good slot machine with nice features, so you can try it out.
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์…
Posted on: February 15, 2021, 10:16h.
Last updated on: February 15, 2021, 10:32h.
Read MoreNew York state Sen. Joseph Addabbo, Jr. (D-Queens), the lawmaker spearheading the push for the Empire State to embrace mobile sports betting, doesn’t just believe the state legislature will pass a bill soon to expand sports betting in the state.
New York state Sen. Joseph Addabbo Jr. takes part in a swearing-in ceremony for his seventh term last month. Addabbo is a leading lawmaker pushing to legalize mobile sports betting in the state. (Image: NYSenate.gov)He also believes the first bets could take place later this year.“I remain optimistic that should it be in the budget April 1st, with a little initiative, our state government can get it up and running by Sept. 9th, which is the first day of the NFL football season,” Addabbo told Casino.org in an interview.It’s been nearly three years since the US Supreme Court opened the door for sports betting nationwide. New York did take advantage and approve retail licenses for its four upstate casino resorts. In addition, Class III tribal casinos are also allowed to offer sportsbooks on their properties.However, analysts and observers point out that New York misses out on a significant revenue stream since it does not allow mobile applications.For example: According to the New York State Gaming Commission, the four retail sportsbooks in the state generated revenue totaling nearly $3.6 million in January. Over the same month, Indiana – a state with roughly a third of New York’s population – saw its mobile and retail operators earn $29.3 million in taxable revenue.The senator said New York usually leads the way when it comes to state policy.“We’re that car in the right lane with four wobbly wheels, and we’re limping along,” Addabbo said. “And these other fast cars like (New) Jersey and Pennsylvania are whizzing by us. That’s an odd spot for New York to be in.”Sports Betting Part of NY Budget TalksA recent study by Spectrum Gaming estimated that mobile sports betting could generate more than $1 billion in gross revenue for New York operators. If the state sets the tax rate at 10 percent, that would mean more than $100 million in annual revenue.Addabbo’s bill, Senate Bill S1183, as well as legislation sponsored by state Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mount Vernon), sets the rate an 8.5 percent. However, that rate, like other portions of the bill are open to negotiation, the senator said.The senator also noted that the original sports betting bill he filed a couple of years ago gave each casino one skin. Now, the bill offers them two, which means a potential of 14 skins, or mobile operators, for the state once the three downstate casinos are awarded.I think that’s all part of the budget negotiations,” Addabbo told Casino.org. “How many skins and the license fee and the tax rate that is all part and parcel of the budget negotiations. It’s all part of the discussions that we’re going to have, and that’s where we’ll have to come to some agreement.”Still, time is of the essence.April 1, the start of New York’s budget year, is just 45 days away as of Monday. While that’s six and a half weeks, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo told reporters Monday, “in government, 45 days is a blink of an eye.”Addabbo Concerned State-Run System Can’t Meet DemandThe good news is that Cuomo is on board with expanding sports betting in the state to include online applications. The bad news is, his vision for sports betting varies significantly from that of Addabbo and Pretlow. Those lawmakers chair the gaming committees in the respective chambers.Both lawmakers’ bills call for New York to operate sports betting like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Each of the state’s casinos currently would get the chance to partner with two mobile operators.Cuomo, though, wants the state to be in more control. He wants a system more like the lottery allowing the state to derive more of the revenue. That approach resembles what Rhode Island, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Oregon have implemented.As Addabbo indicated, though, those states combined have a smaller population than New York.“I’m concerned about New York having a product that can handle the volume and the growing, expanding the market,” Addabbo told Casino.org.He also noted that Oregon leaders are already having second thoughts about their lottery-managed sports betting product.Just last month, Gov. Kate Brown requested that the state’s legislature take up a bill allowing the Oregon Racing Commission to regulate sports betting and grant licenses.“So, if it’s not good enough for Oregon, I don’t think it should be good enough for New York,” Addabbo said.
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.
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.