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
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.”
If you enjoy poker, making a living from playing this game seems like living the dream.
Do something you love, and it will never feel like work.
But, before you go all in, you should be aware of all of the pros and cons that come with playing poker for a living.
If you’re considering getting more serious about your potential poker career, here are some of the most prominent advantages and disadvantages that come with being a professional poker player.
The Advantages of Playing Poker for a Living
You Own Your Own Time
If you’re playing poker for a living, you’re effectively choosing your work hours. Being your own boss, especially in a career path such as this, means that you’re entirely free to tailor your own time and make the best of every day.
The hassle of working night shifts or waking up early every morning to drive to work won’t be a problem if you gown down this road.
Your “offices” are the online poker tables and live poker tournaments you choose to participate in.
Just keep in mind that you must maintain great discipline in such a job, as not to lose yourself in the flexibility and freedom of your own time.
No Salary Ceiling
The biggest reason most poker players want to go professional is the unlimited profit available for those who dare to claim it.
Although money shouldn’t be your primary motivator, it’s hard not to think about the multi-million prizes at the biggest poker tournaments in the world.
Even if you are just starting out playing online on real money poker sites, there are still countless options with prizes significantly more extensive than what most working people can earn in their day jobs.
Plus, the best part about this is that there’s no salary ceiling on how much you can bring home each month.
Living and Traveling Anywhere in the World
Another great advantage of playing poker for a living is that you can experience the feeling of always being on vacation while traveling for work and making money in the process.
If you plan on becoming a full-time poker player, you can look forward to frequently traveling to some of the biggest and most exciting cities in the world.
From Las Vegas and London to Barcelona and Monaco, you make your own schedule as packed or free as you wish.
Moreover, as a professional poker player, you have unlimited freedom in choosing a location where you want to settle down.
If you want to make your home in a sunny and warm place, you can select a popular poker destination such as the Caribbean.
This will allow you to enjoy endless summers while still being very close to some of the most popular and rewarding poker tournaments.
The Disadvantages of Playing Poker for a Living
No Guaranteed Income
The most significant benefit of a day job is that you know exactly how much money you’re earning every month.
When you switch up your day job for a professional poker career, this safety net disappears.
While it’s true that you’ll be able to win massive amounts of money potentially, there’s no telling when or even if this will come.
Instability of income is a typical tradeoff in many careers that offer a higher profit ceiling.
If you like playing it safe and can’t risk running a negative balance for a few weeks or months, pursuing a career in Texas Hold’em probably isn’t the best way to go.
That said, if you’re ready to accept the swings and have the mindset to handle the pressure of unstable earnings, you can turn this disadvantage into your advantage.
The Road to Success Can be Arduous
Watching Daniel Negreanu toy with his opponents makes it seem almost effortless. But, most of us forget that we’re watching the end result of years of studying the game and the psychology of their competitors.
All professional poker players have experienced great highs and lows throughout their long journey.
Don’t go into it thinking that it’s going a smooth ride all of the time. Confidence is a must-have, but you should continuously work on your skills to back this up.
Of course, some players have achieved great success in their first few years of playing the game, but these are outliers.
If you’re aiming to make poker your lifetime career, you need to arm yourself with patience and always remember that you’re in it for the long run, and variance will catch up with you eventually.
Stable Budget Needed to Start
Although poker offers you the opportunity to win a lot of money, you also need to have adequate starting capital before you even consider devoting all of your attention to the game.
The lack of money is one of the more significant reasons why most players don’t commit to playing poker professionally.
For many players, it can take years before they can get to a consistent level of winning in poker. If you don’t have the capital to start or a stable day job to cover your poker losses, you can quickly grow tired of the stress and grind.
It’s crucial to remember that success isn’t guaranteed and that you should never risk the money you can’t afford to lose. Learning good bankroll management is a must!
Are you Ready to Become a Professional Poker Player?
The hard truth is that not everyone is cut out to be a world-class poker player. But, with enough patience and work, you can make a great living from playing poker.
This is because, ultimately, the pros heavily outweigh the cons, and most players who truly commit to studying and learning the game can succeed in it.
If you’re passionate about poker and ready to put your energy into it, nothing is stopping you from making a career out of it.
To get some help on your path, check out the best poker training sites out there, as you’ll find plenty of great resources here.
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.
Posted on: February 15, 2021, 01:14h.
Last updated on: February 15, 2021, 01:14h.
Read MoreCrown Resorts CEO Ken Barton resigned Monday as the fallout continued from a damning report that has left the company fighting for its license in New South Wales.
Ken Barton is expected to receive a big check despite harsh criticism of his performance as Crown CEO. (Image: The West Australian)Barton’s resignation has been in the cards ever since the publication of the report by former NSW Supreme Court judge Patricia Bergin, which described him as “no match for what is needed at the helm of a casino licensee.”“His problems will not be cured by the appointment of people expert in the field who report to him,” Bergin added.The report concluded that Crown was “facilitating money laundering, exposing staff to the risk of detention in a foreign jurisdiction, and pursuing commercial relationships with individuals with connections to Triads and organised crime groups.”It recommended that the state gaming regulator, ILGA, refuse to renew Crown’s gaming license in NSW. The company opened its $1.7 billion Sydney resort in December without casino operations.$3 Million PaydayDespite being singled out in Bergin’s report, Barton is expected to walk away with at least a AU$3m payout ($2.3 million), according to The Guardian.Bergin said Barton had demonstrated a “breath-taking lack of care” when responding to allegations in the media that Crown was facilitating money laundering at its Melbourne and Perth properties.In his previous role as CFO, he had been personally responsible for two VIP accounts that had been used by criminal gangs to launder the proceeds of their illegal operations, Bergin said.Barton was appointed CEO in January 2020, having been at the company for over a decade. Helen Coonan, current chair of the board, will replace him until a new CEO is found.“Assuming the role of executive chairman is a decision I have not taken lightly but the board feels it provides leadership stability and certainty at this important time for the business,” Coonan said in a release to the ASX.Coonan said Monday the company was taking “significant steps to improve our governance, compliance and culture.”Exec ExodusBarton follows five other Crown execs out the door. These include Michael Johnston and Guy Jalland who represented Crown’s biggest shareholder, billionaire James Packer, on the board.Bergin criticized Packer for acting like a “de facto director,” despite not having sat on the board for several years, and suggested he had a “dysfunctional influence” on the company.She also recommended that equity caps of 10 percent be placed on Crown ownership. That would mean Packer would be forced to divest himself of a chunk of his equity in the company — if not all of it.Packer said during testimony at the Bergin inquiry that he would be prepared to give up his stake in Crown if it protected the company’s licenses.
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.
เผยแพร่เมื่อ: กุมภาพันธ์ 15, 2021, 10:16 น. ปรับปรุงล่าสุด: 15 ก.พ. 2564 10:37 น. การเปิด City of Dreams Mediterranean ถูกเลื่อนออกไปจนถึงปี 2565 เนื่องจากผลกระทบจากการก่อสร้างที่เกิดจาก COVID-19 การก่อสร้างยังคงดำเนินต่อไปที่ City of Dreams Mediterranean ภาพนี้ตั้งแต่เดือนมกราคม 2564 แสดงสถานะของโครงการ COVID-19 ชะลอการเปิดรีสอร์ทตามแผนตั้งแต่ปลายปี 2564 เป็นไตรมาสที่ 3 ของปี 2565 (ภาพ: City of Dreams Mediterranean) เตรียมจะกลายเป็นรีสอร์ทคาสิโนที่ใหญ่ที่สุดในยุโรป Financial Mirror รายงานว่า บริษัท แม่ของ City of Dreams Mediterranean Melco รีสอร์ทได้รับการยืนยันเมื่อสัปดาห์ที่แล้ว Phidias Pilides รองประธานของ Cyprus Gaming and Supervision Commission ได้แจ้งต่อรัฐสภาไซปรัสว่าคาสิโนมีเป้าหมายในไตรมาสที่สามของปี 2565 สำหรับการเริ่มต้น การพัฒนา 550 ยูโร (667 ล้านดอลลาร์) เดิมมีกำหนดเปิดให้บริการในปลายปีนี้ Pilides เปิดเผยว่า Melco Resorts กำลังประสบกับความล่าช้าของห่วงโซ่อุปทานที่เกิดจากไวรัสโคโรนา เป็นผลให้การก่อสร้างดำเนินไปในอัตราที่ช้าลงมาก Cyprus Gaming Recovery แม้จะมีการปฏิเสธ City of Dreams ในการต้อนรับแขกที่มาเยือนไซปรัส Melco บอกกับเจ้าหน้าที่ของประเทศหมู่เกาะเมดิเตอร์เรเนียนว่าปี 2564 จะยังคงเป็นปีที่ดีสำหรับอุตสาหกรรมการท่องเที่ยวและเกม ในขณะที่มีการสร้างรีสอร์ทคาสิโนแบบบูรณาการมากกว่าครึ่งหนึ่งพันล้านดอลลาร์ Melco ได้เปิดคาสิโนผ่านดาวเทียมชั่วคราวในลีมาซอลรวมถึงสถานที่เล่นเกมผ่านดาวเทียมในนิโคเซียลาร์นากาปาโฟสและเอเยียนาปา ใบอนุญาตการพนันของ Melco สำหรับ City of Dreams มีอายุ 30 ปีและรวมถึงการผูกขาดการพนันในช่วง 15 ปีแรก ใบอนุญาตเริ่มต้นในปี 2560: แม้ว่า COVID-19 จะทำลายรายได้จากการเล่นเกมขั้นต้น (GGRs) ในคาสิโนในปี 2020 เนื่องจากพวกเขาถูกบังคับให้ปิดการดำเนินการตามคำสั่งซื้อจากรัฐบาล แต่ Melco คาดว่าการเล่นเกมจะกลับมาดำเนินการได้อย่างรวดเร็ว คาสิโนที่เปิดใหม่บางส่วน เราได้เห็นความต้องการเกมภายในที่กลับมาอย่างรวดเร็วซึ่งทำให้รายได้จากการเล่นเกมในไตรมาสที่สามของเรากลับมาอยู่ที่ประมาณ 75 เปอร์เซ็นต์ของระดับปีที่แล้ว “Lawrence Ho ซีอีโอของ Melco กล่าวในการโทรครั้งสุดท้ายของนักลงทุนของ บริษัท การฟื้นตัวและการเติบโตที่เร็วขึ้น ในกลุ่มเกมระดับพรีเมียม” นายโฮกล่าวเสริม ไซปรัสว่าจ้าง Spree ComingMelco Resorts กล่าวว่าภายในสิ้นปี 2564 จะจ้างพนักงานคาสิโนประมาณ 1,400 คนในดาวเทียมสี่ดวงและคาสิโน Limassol ชั่วคราว และในปีหน้า บริษัท จะจ้างงานเพิ่มอีกหลายพันรายเนื่องจาก City of Dreams Mediterranean ใกล้แล้วเสร็จ คาสิโนรีสอร์ทแบบบูรณาการจะมีคาสิโนประมาณ 81,000 ตารางฟุตซึ่งมีเครื่องสล็อต 1,000 เครื่องและเกมโต๊ะ 100 เกม สิ่งอำนวยความสะดวกนี้จะนำเสนอโรงแรมระดับห้าดาวที่มีห้องพัก 500 ห้องร้านอาหาร 11 แห่งร้านค้าปลีกสปาและศูนย์สุขภาพอัฒจันทร์กลางแจ้งและพื้นที่สำหรับการประชุมและกิจกรรมต่างๆ Melco ซึ่งตั้งอยู่ในฮ่องกงเป็นเจ้าของและดำเนินการ City of Dreams และ Studio City of Macau รวมถึง City of Dreams Manila ในฟิลิปปินส์ สิ่งที่ดึงดูดไซปรัสคืออัตราภาษีที่รัฐบาลเสนอให้ Melco จากรายได้จากการเล่นเกมขั้นต้น (GGR) City of Dreams Mediterranean เช่นเดียวกับคุณสมบัติการเล่นเกมที่มีขนาดเล็กกว่า 5 แห่งในปัจจุบันจ่ายภาษี 10% สำหรับเงินที่ชนะคาสิโน จากการเปรียบเทียบคาสิโนมาเก๊าแบ่ง 35% ของเงินรางวัลเกมสล็อตและเกมโต๊ะกับรัฐบาลท้องถิ่น ในฟิลิปปินส์คาสิโนบนบกจะถูกเก็บภาษี 25% สำหรับการเล่นเกมจำนวนมากและ 15% สำหรับเกมวีไอพี
เผยแพร่เมื่อ: 15 กุมภาพันธ์ 2021, 08:48 น. Last updated: 15 ก.พ. 2564 08:48 น. หัวหน้าตลาดหลักทรัพย์นิวยอร์ก (NYSE) ปฏิเสธการเปรียบเทียบตลาดหุ้นล่าสุดกับการพนันคาสิโน Stacey Cunningham ประธานตลาดหลักทรัพย์นิวยอร์กปรากฏตัวที่ชั้นการซื้อขายในปี 2018 หลังจากกลายเป็นเพียงผู้หญิงคนที่สองเท่านั้นที่เข้ารับตำแหน่ง เขากล่าวว่าการเชื่อมต่อล่าสุดระหว่างคาสิโนและหุ้นไม่ถูกต้อง (ภาพ: รอยเตอร์) ความผันผวนในเดือนมกราคมของหุ้นเช่น GameStop และ AMC Entertainment ทำให้นักการเมืองบางคนวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ว่าตลาดดำเนินการอย่างไร พวกเขายืนยันว่าการซื้อขายหุ้นเป็นคาสิโนส่วนตัวของมหาเศรษฐีเจ้าของกองทุนป้องกันความเสี่ยง “นักลงทุนรายใหญ่และรายย่อยปฏิบัติต่อตลาดหุ้นเหมือนคาสิโน” วุฒิสมาชิกอลิซาเบ ธ วอร์เรน (D-Ma.) กล่าว ความคิดเห็นของเขาเกิดขึ้นหลังจากฟอรัม Reddit ชื่อ “wallstreetbets” จัดการกับราคาหุ้น GameStop และ AMC.Rep ได้สำเร็จ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) มีความสุขกับสิ่งที่เห็นได้ชัดว่าเป็นปลาขนาดเล็กกลุ่มใหญ่ที่เผชิญหน้ากับฉลามที่ยิ่งใหญ่แห่ง Wall Street นักลงทุน Reddit ซื้อหุ้น GameStop และ AMC จำนวนมากเพื่อกำหนดเป้าหมายกองทุนป้องกันความเสี่ยงที่ตัดหุ้นอย่างมาก “ฉันต้องยอมรับว่ามันเป็นสิ่งที่จะได้เห็น Wall Streeters ที่มีประวัติอันยาวนานในการปฏิบัติต่อเศรษฐกิจของเราเช่นคาสิโนที่บ่นเกี่ยวกับฟอรัมโปสเตอร์ที่ปฏิบัติต่อตลาดเช่นคาสิโน” Ocasio-Cortez กล่าว ผู้นำตลาดปฏิเสธคำยืนยันในการให้สัมภาษณ์กับ “Axios ทาง HBO” ซึ่งออกอากาศในเย็นวันอาทิตย์ Stacey Cunningham ประธานตลาดหลักทรัพย์นิวยอร์กไม่สนใจความเชื่อมโยงระหว่างการซื้อขายหุ้นและการพนัน ไม่ใช่คาสิโน พวกเขาได้รับการควบคุมและดูแลอย่างสูง “คันนิงแฮมกล่าวเราดำเนินการตลาดที่เปิดโอกาสให้นักลงทุนเข้าไปลงทุนใน บริษัท ที่พวกเขาเชื่อมั่นเชื่อว่าพวกเขาจะเติบโตและมีส่วนแบ่งในการสร้างความมั่งคั่ง” เขากล่าวเสริม คันนิงแฮมเตือนผู้ร่างกฎหมายของรัฐนิวยอร์กว่าหากมีการเสนอภาษีธุรกรรมทางการเงินในออลบานี – เงินภาษีที่จัดสรรไว้เพื่อระดับที่ดีขึ้นของค่ายนักลงทุนจะพิจารณาย้าย NYSE ไปยังรัฐอื่น อย่างไรก็ตามเขาระบุว่าหน่วยงานกำกับดูแลตลาดตราสารทุนกำลัง “ดูใหม่” ในการขายชอร์ตโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งในเรื่องของกองทุนป้องกันความเสี่ยงที่ครองตำแหน่งสำคัญในการเดิมพันกับความสำเร็จของ บริษัท ความแตกต่างมีมากกว่าความคล้ายคลึงกันมีความคล้ายคลึงกันหลายประการระหว่างคาสิโนและตลาดหุ้น เช่นเดียวกับ NYSE คาสิโนเชิงพาณิชย์ในลาสเวกัสได้รับการควบคุมอย่างเข้มงวด การพนันที่ถูกกฎหมายเป็นหนึ่งในอุตสาหกรรมที่มีการควบคุมและกลั่นกรองมากที่สุดในประเทศและผู้ที่เล่นการพนันรวมถึงผู้ที่ซื้อหุ้นก็ทำเช่นนั้นโดยหวังว่าจะได้เงินเพิ่มขึ้น แต่ละคนเกี่ยวข้องกับองค์ประกอบของความเสี่ยงและนักพนันและนักลงทุนที่มีความเชี่ยวชาญจะศึกษาความน่าจะเป็นของ บริษัท และการเงินเพื่อหาข้อได้เปรียบ แต่นั่นคือจุดสิ้นสุดของความคล้ายคลึงกันผู้เชี่ยวชาญคนหนึ่งกล่าว และผู้เชี่ยวชาญด้านโทรทัศน์ได้ดำเนินการมานานหลายปี และนั่นไม่เป็นความจริง “แฮงค์โคลแมนผู้ก่อตั้ง Money Q&A ซึ่งเป็นเว็บไซต์ที่ปรึกษาทางการเงินออนไลน์กล่าว Coleman ชี้ให้เห็นว่าการซื้อหุ้นคือการเป็นเจ้าของเขายังกล่าวด้วยว่าการพนันไม่เหมือนกับการลงทุนคือ” เกมที่ไม่มีผลรวม ” ซึ่งมีผู้ชนะและผู้แพ้เสมอในการลงทุนโคลแมนให้เหตุผลว่าผู้ชนะและผู้แพ้อาจมีระดับที่แตกต่างกันแม้ว่าจะอยู่ในชื่อเรื่องเดียวกันก็ตามโคลแมนยังอธิบายด้วยว่ามูลค่าไม่เคยถูกสร้างขึ้นในการพนัน แต่เป็นเพียงแค่เงิน ที่โอนระหว่างนักพนันหรือคาสิโนและผู้เล่น