Instant Play Blackjack

Pearl Legend Hold and Win Slot Review


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.

คาสิโน888
คาสิโน88
เกม คาสิโน
เกมส์ คาสิโน
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์

Instant Play Blackjack

GGPoker Adds More Variety to No-Strings-Attached “Daily Freebie” Promotion

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.

แทงบอล คาสิโน
sa คาสิโน
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ มือถือ
คาสิโนtrue wallet ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ
คาสิโนbet

อะดรีนาลีนที่มุ่งเน้นไปที่ NFL ด้วยแอพพนันกีฬา Football Genius ใหม่

Colorado Licence for Intelitics


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.”

https://blog.coinsaga.com/feed
https://www.whichcasinos.co.uk/feed/
https://www.top10casinoreviews.com/casino-news/feed/
https://www.jackpotmobilecasino.co.uk/feed/
https://www.casinonline.news/casino-nieuws/feed/ …

Indiana, Pokagon Tribe บรรลุข้อตกลงเกี่ยวกับ Class III Compact สำหรับ South Bend Casino

Did the next Macau bubble just start two weeks ago?


The entire concept of a “bull market in stocks” makes little sense. Sound crazy? These days, certainly, because we’re always hearing about a perpetual bull market in stocks. Valuations increasingly disconnected from economic reality, asset bubbles in one class or another, armies of speculators moving like zombie hoards descending on the next fad and blowing it up to infinity and beyond, Buzz Lightyear-like.Why is the whole concept of a bull market generally, nonsense? Because if the value of everything is going up simultaneously, then nothing is going up. If everyone is a superhero, nobody is. If, in an imaginary economy, absolutely everything costs, say, $5, (labor, land, capital whatever) and then the next day everything costs $10, then what’s changed? The answer is absolutely nothing.The only thing that matters is relative valuations between asset classes. Let’s divide them into three of the most basic ones. Equities (stocks), bonds (debt), and commodities (consumer goods). If all three are going up in tandem, then there is no “bull market” in anything. If commodities are going up faster than stocks and bonds, you have inflation, or even hyperinflation. Ask anyone in Venezuela whether they care that their stock market is doing great, nominally. They don’t. They’re looking for their next glop of gruel or morsel of moldy bread to survive the day.But if stocks and bonds are rising and consumer goods are static to falling, you have a bull market in financial assets. This is where we are now. And boy are we really hard and deep into it now. Below is the ratio of the S&P 500 to the CRB Commodities Index.And I’ve got news for everyone. This bull market in stocks relative to consumer goods in dollar terms is already over. It ended almost a year ago. On April 20, 2020 to be exact. Red circle blowoff top above. That was when oil crashed to negative $35 a barrel and we all lived in an alternative financial freakhouse universe. But I have more news than that. This entire “bull market” in stocks has been one gigantic illusion from the very beginning. Stocks aren’t going up. They haven’t gone up for 21 years. Money is going down. Here is the graph of stocks relative to the prime monetary commodity, gold, over the same timeframe above.We can see here that from 1990 to 2000, we had a real bull market in stocks. Equities rocketed in gold terms and in terms of consumer goods generally. Everyone felt richer. Portfolios up, expenses down. But since that time, money has been dying at an accelerated pace and the standard of living has fallen.The bull market in stocks over the last 21 years has been an illusion, a tiny echo of the bull that ended at the turn of the century. We have spent the last 21 years trying to reinflate it, but gold has exposed the lie. We are now at the point where the illusion is about to collapse completely. In my view, we have only a few months left until it all hits the fan. Until then, the bubbles will keep coming in staccato frenetic fashion, moving from one asset class to another faster and faster, until we all get so dizzy we can’t follow it anymore. Last week I speculated that maybe the next target for the zombie hoard will be in penny gaming stocks. I was close. It’s in Macau stocks. It may already have started two weeks ago. The frenzy has started over news about China opening up again. I mean, just look at this crazy chart of the Macau proxy ETF:That last surge higher is just since February 1. We could be at the beginning of a crazy but brief ride higher in Macau stocks right now. New all time highs again, and Macau isn’t even fully open yet. The latest full month statistics for December show a 78.6% drop in visitors year over year. And yet we’re at new all time highs in these stocks already. It’s just completely crazy. I can understand the Macau opening up again trade, but to argue that this factor is being priced in at these levels, at new all time highs? As if none of this full year shutdown hurt any of the casinos fundamentally at all? That’s just totally bonkers crazy. It’s a reflection of the value of the currency these stocks are priced in, not the stocks themselves.What’s happening is that the zombie hoard of bubble chasers is reading the headlines regarding China starting to open up again, and they’re slamming buy orders and call options like they’ve been doing with tech stocks and Gamestop and BTC and all the other fads. We just got news out of Bloomberg that China’s Imax had a face-ripping rally due to exploding ticket sales. China is, indeed opening up, and the zombie hoard of speculators is now going to spray their money hoses at anything Chinese. Macau might be at the center of it.How high can this Macau bubble go, if that’s what we just saw start two weeks ago? The truth is, it doesn’t matter. If you get into it, you’ll get hooked and keep levering yourself up, counting your paper gains, unable to separate from them until you get caught in a vortex. At some point, my view this year, it’s all going to come crashing down when all the damage from 2020 is finally revealed all over the world. You can’t paper it over forever. The damage to Macau casinos doesn’t just go away. It festers in the form of more and more debt, and a damaged consumer base that can no longer patronize casinos in the way it once could. Festering wounds need the paper bandage removed and they need to be operated on. That is painful. And it’s coming.When we think of the word “bubble”, what are we really talking about? A bubble is something that looks, from the outside, to be really big and stable. The shape of it, a sphere, is the most stable shape in the universe. It’s why planets, stars, moons, and possibly even the spacetime continuum itself, spontaneously shape themselves into spheres. The force of gravity equalizes at every point on the sphere, forming equilibrium. Nature always seeks equilibrium. And so bubbles take on the illusion of stability, but unlike a real sphere, there’s nothing inside them. When they pop, they are gone almost instantly. This one is about to pop. Macau appears to be the next victim sucked up by the bubble. Macau will survive and rebuild. The question is, in what form? I wouldn’t take a bet the depended on me getting the answer to that question right.

ปอยเปต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
dgคาสิโน
ปอยเปต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
คาสิโนsa
คาสิโน sa

Indiana, Pokagon Tribe บรรลุข้อตกลงเกี่ยวกับ Class III Compact สำหรับ South Bend Casino

Tyrant King Megaways Slot Review


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.

คาสิโน888
คาสิโน88
เกม คาสิโน
เกมส์ คาสิโน
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์

Instant Play Blackjack

Glorious Guardians Slot Review


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.

คาสิโน888
คาสิโน88
เกม คาสิโน
เกมส์ คาสิโน
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์

อะดรีนาลีนที่มุ่งเน้นไปที่ NFL ด้วยแอพพนันกีฬา Football Genius ใหม่

Crown Resorts CEO Barton Resigns Following Bombshell Money Laundering Report


Posted on: February 15, 2021, 01:14h. 
Last updated on: February 15, 2021, 01:14h.

Philip Conneller

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.

แทงบอล
บาคทร่า
คาสิโน
คาสิโนออนไลน์
แทงหวย

Instant Play Blackjack

ครอบครัวทรัมป์พยายามฟื้นคืนอำนาจหลังจากพ้นโทษนักพนันกลับไปหาลาร่าทรัมป์


เผยแพร่เมื่อ: 15 กุมภาพันธ์ 2021, 11:43 น. Last updated: 15 ก.พ. 2564, 12:03 น. ตามคำทำนายของนักพนันทางการเมืองอดีตประธานาธิบดีโดนัลด์ทรัมป์พ้นผิดในวุฒิสภาด้วยข้อหาฟ้องร้องเพียงข้อหาเดียวที่เสนอโดยสภา ด้วยการฟ้องร้องครั้งที่สองที่อยู่เบื้องหลังเขาทรัมป์และครอบครัวของเขากำลังเตรียมที่จะฟื้นอำนาจทางการเมืองอีกครั้ง Lara Trump ได้พบกับ Eric Trump สามีของเธอที่งานการจากไปของพ่อตาเมื่อเดือนที่แล้วที่ Washington, DC เขาอาจจะกลายเป็นผู้นำในตำแหน่งที่ว่างต่อไปในวุฒิสภานอร์ทแคโรไลนา (ภาพ: The New York Times) ทรัมป์ออกจากทำเนียบขาวด้วยเรื่องอื้อฉาวอันเป็นผลมาจากการบุกโจมตีศาลากลางของสหรัฐอเมริกาเมื่อวันที่ 6 มกราคมซึ่งเป็นเหตุการณ์หายนะที่พรรคเดโมแครตอ้างว่าได้รับแรงหนุนจากประธานาธิบดีในขณะนั้น ตอนนี้เคลียร์คำฟ้องแล้วมีความรู้สึกตื่นเต้นระหว่างค่ายของทรัมป์: รู้สึกได้รับการสนับสนุนจากผลการพิจารณาคดีเขาควรจะออกจากการจำศีลด้วยตนเองที่สโมสรของเขาในปาล์มบีชฟลอริดาและกำลังสำรวจวิธีการยืนยันอีกครั้ง อำนาจของเขา” จิลล์คอลวินแห่ง The Associated Press เขียนซึ่งอาจเริ่มต้นจากลาร่าทรัมป์ภรรยาของลูกคนที่สามของทรัมป์เอริคทรัมป์นักพนันทางการเมืองเริ่มแสดงความไว้วางใจในอดีตผู้ผลิตรายการโทรทัศน์วัย 38 ปีที่กำลังหาที่นั่งในวุฒิสภาทางภาคเหนือ แคโรไลนารัฐที่เธอเติบโตมา Lara Trump Odds ใน North Carolina Market Shares ตลาดสงสัยว่า Lara Trump จะดำรงตำแหน่งวุฒิสภาพรรครีพับลิกันในนอร์ทแคโรไลนาปี 2020 เพิ่มขึ้นหลังจากที่พ่อตาของเธอพ้นผิด “ใช่” อัตราต่อรองของเขา เพิ่มขึ้นจาก 36 เซนต์ในสัปดาห์ที่แล้วเป็น 48 เซนต์ในวันนี้วุฒิสมาชิกลินด์เซย์เกรแฮม (R-SC) แสดงความคิดเห็นในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์เกี่ยวกับการโหวต โดยการออกจากวุฒิสมาชิก Richard Burr (R-NC) เพื่อตัดสินลงโทษอดีตประธานาธิบดี Richard Burr เพื่อนของฉันทำให้ Lara Trump เกือบจะเป็นผู้สมัครที่แน่นอนสำหรับที่นั่งวุฒิสภาใน North Carolina เพื่อแทนที่เขา “Graham กล่าวระหว่างการปรากฏตัวที่ Fox ข่าววันอาทิตย์. GOP นอร์ทแคโรไลนาบีบเสียงของ Burr ในการประณามทรัมป์โดยเรียกมันว่า “น่าตกใจและน่าผิดหวัง” Graham แสดงการสนับสนุนผู้สมัครรับเลือกตั้งของ Lara Trump ใน North Carolina “ผู้ชนะที่ยิ่งใหญ่ที่สุดของการพิจารณาคดีฟ้องร้องนี้ฉันคิดว่าคือลาร่าทรัมป์” เกรแฮมกล่าวเสริม “ ถ้าเธอวิ่ง … ฉันจะต้องอยู่ข้างหลังเธอแน่ ๆ เพราะฉันคิดว่าเธอเป็นตัวแทนอนาคตของพรรครีพับลิกัน” เพื่อให้มีคุณสมบัติชาวนอร์ ธ แคโรไลนาจะต้องสร้างถิ่นที่อยู่ในรัฐ รัฐธรรมนูญของสหรัฐอเมริกากำหนดข้อกำหนดสามประการสำหรับคุณสมบัติของวุฒิสภาเท่านั้น: บุคคลนั้นต้องมีอายุอย่างน้อยสามสิบปีเป็นพลเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกาเป็นเวลาอย่างน้อยเก้าปีและดำรงตำแหน่งที่อยู่ในรัฐเมื่อมีการเลือกตั้ง ค่ายทรัมป์ยังคงโต้แย้งว่าเพนซิลเวเนียจัดการเลือกตั้งประธานาธิบดีปี 2020 ที่ไม่สมบูรณ์ การเปลี่ยนแปลงขั้นตอนการลงคะแนนเสียงในระหว่างการระบาดใหญ่ของ COVID-19 นั้นไม่ประสบความสำเร็จในศาลโดยตัวแทนของทรัมป์นี่อาจเป็นเหตุผลว่าทำไมจึงมีเสียงดังก้องอยู่ในกลุ่มคนที่ใกล้ชิดกับครอบครัวทรัมป์มากที่สุดเช่นเดียวกับในเพนซิลเวเนียโดนัลด์ทรัมป์จูเนียร์ อาจนึกถึงการวิ่งที่นั่น ดอนจูเนียร์มีความผูกพันกับรัฐในขณะที่เขาเข้าเรียนที่ Hill School ซึ่งเป็นโรงเรียนประจำเตรียมอุดมศึกษาของวิทยาลัยใน Pottstown ลูกชายคนโตของอดีตประธานาธิบดียังศึกษาที่มหาวิทยาลัยเพนซิลเวเนียในฟิลาเดลเฟียและดอนจูเนียร์กำลังพิจารณาลงสมัครรับเลือกตั้งเป็นวุฒิสมาชิกในเพนซิลเวเนีย วุฒิสมาชิก Pat Toomey (D-Pa.) เป็นหนึ่งในวุฒิสภาพรรครีพับลิกันที่ลงมติประณามทรัมป์ เจ้ามือรับแทงในสหราชอาณาจักรมี Don Jr. ลงสมัครรับเลือกตั้งเป็นวุฒิสภาเพนซิลเวเนีย (1/1) นักเดิมพัน PredictIt มีความมั่นใจน้อยกว่ามากเนื่องจากขณะนี้ทรัมป์จูเนียร์ให้โอกาส 15% เท่านั้นในการวิ่ง

แทงบอล
บาคทร่า
คาสิโน
คาสิโนออนไลน์
แทงหวย

Sands China จะเปิดตัวพร้อมกับการเปิดเฟสแรกของ The Londoner Macao ในวันที่ 8 กุมภาพันธ์นี้

Fox, Boivin และ Cheong ได้รับ 10 อันดับแรกในงานปาร์ตี้มินิปาร์ตี้วันที่ 2


สแต็คอยู่ในกระเป๋าสำหรับเที่ยวบินวันที่ 1 ที่ partypoker และ MILLION Mini Main Event ซึ่งได้รับการสนับสนุนจากการรับประกันมูลค่า 1 ล้านดอลลาร์มีผู้เล่นเพียง 169 คนที่เหลืออยู่ในการต่อสู้เพื่อชิงตำแหน่งโดยมี 28 กิจกรรมที่เกิดขึ้นตลอดการแข่งขัน . ล้านออนไลน์เทศกาลบน partypoker งานเปิดเห็นวันที่ 1a และ! b ซึ่งจัดขึ้นในวันเสาร์และวันอาทิตย์ตามลำดับ ในตอนท้ายของสองเที่ยวบินในวันที่ 1 รายชื่อที่ใหญ่ที่สุดรวมตัวกันที่ด้านบนสุดของลีดเดอร์บอร์ด ด้วยการซื้อถึง $ 1,100 กิจกรรมหลักมินิออนไลน์ของ MILLIONS มีผู้เข้าร่วม 1,127 รายการลดลงเหลือเพียง 15% ของสนามโดยให้รางวัลแก่ผู้เล่นแต่ละคนในวันที่ 2 เป็นอย่างต่ำ $ 2,105 ผู้นำในสนามหลังจากเที่ยวบินทั้งหมดในวันที่ 1 คือเซบาสเตียนเฮเนาชาวโคลอมเบียซึ่งรวบรวมชิปได้มากกว่า 27 ล้านชิปมากกว่า 25.4 ล้านจากผู้ชนะกำไล WSOP สองครั้ง Elio Fox และ 23 ล้านที่ได้รับจาก Luciano Hollanda เบื้องหลังผู้เล่นเหล่านั้นบางคนใหญ่มาก รายชื่อกำลังไล่ตามรางวัลแรก $ 184.5 07 โดยมี Patrick Blye (22,663,403), Thomas Boivin (18,388,054), Joseph Cheong (17,118,762), William Kassouf (16,075,000), Espen Jorstad (13,730,257) และ Dominik Nitsche (12,483,080) เพื่อเปลี่ยนเป็นสแต็คโดยเฉลี่ยเป็นหลายพันดอลลาร์ ชื่อหนึ่งที่เกิดขึ้นคือโจชองแน่นอน หากคุณคิดว่าโจเซฟชองเป็นผู้เล่นโป๊กเกอร์ที่โชคดีเพียงแค่ดูที่มือการแข่งขันโป๊กเกอร์เวิลด์ซีรีส์หลักประจำปี 2010 เพื่อกำจัดความคิดนั้น มันยากที่จะไม่เชียร์ชองเสมอไม่เพียง แต่สำหรับพรสวรรค์ของเขาเท่านั้น แต่ยังรวมถึงบุคลิกของเขาด้วย สิ่งที่ตรงกันข้ามอาจเป็นจริงสำหรับแฟนโป๊กเกอร์บางคนเมื่อพูดถึงอดีต WSOP Main Event ที่มีชีวิตอยู่ Will Kassouf ผู้ซึ่งเปลี่ยนจาก “Nine-high like a boss” เป็น “ไล่ออกจากการทำชิปคาสิโน” เป็นเวลาสองเท่าในช่วงหลายปีที่ผ่านมานับตั้งแต่ที่มีชื่อเสียง ช่วงฤดูร้อนของสิทธิพิเศษในลาสเวกัส ด้วยการอนุญาตให้กลับมาในวันที่ 1 ผู้เล่นหลายคนได้ใช้ประโยชน์จากโครงสร้างนั้นและด้วยเงินทั้งหมดในการหยุดวันที่ 2 จำนวนมากจะเปลี่ยนไปเมื่อพูดถึงการเล่นเกมในตอนนี้ ระดับคนตาบอดเพิ่มขึ้นจาก 25 นาทีเป็น 30 นาทีในวันที่ 2 ในขณะที่วันที่ 3 เพิ่มขึ้นเป็น 40 นาทีดังนั้นยังมีอะไรให้เล่นอีกมากในงานเปิด วันที่ 2 จะเห็นเพียง 10 ระดับของบลายด์สิ้นสุดที่ห้าชั่วโมงของโป๊กเกอร์ก่อนที่วันที่ 3 จะลดฟิลด์เป็นตารางสุดท้ายของเก้าดังนั้นผู้ชนะจะชนะในวันพุธที่ 17 ก่อนหน้านั้นมีโป๊กเกอร์ให้เล่นมากมายและ เพลิดเพลินไปกับละครอีกมากมาย เราจะกลับมาในวันพรุ่งนี้เพื่อบอกคุณอย่างชัดเจนว่าวันที่ 2 เป็นอย่างไร … และผู้เล่นคนไหนที่อยู่รอดเพื่อต่อสู้ในวันอื่นเทศกาล MILLIONS Online กำลังดำเนินอยู่และ Mini Main Event ดูเหมือนว่าจะสร้างดราม่ามากมายระหว่างทางที่น่าตื่นเต้น จุดสุดยอดปาร์ตี้โป๊กเกอร์มิลเลียนส์มินิอีเวนต์หลักเริ่มต้นวันที่ 2 จำนวนชิปสูงสุด 10 อันดับ: ตำแหน่งผู้เล่นประเทศชิปบิ๊กบลายด์ 1st เซบาสเตียนเฮเนาโคลอมเบีย 27,039,0491932 และเอลิโอฟ็อกซ์สหราชอาณาจักร 25,419,2601823rd ลูเซียโนฮอลแลนด์ลาบราซิล 23,000,7301644thPatricklunda 19,319,7301644thPatricklundly 19,639,000 บาท Charles Blye, 40Colombia18,039,0491932nd เอลิโอฟ็อกซ์สหราชอาณาจักร 25,419,2601823rd ลูเซียโนฮอลแลนดาบราซิล 23,000,7301644th แพทริคชาร์ลส์บลาย 40 คานิตา 226,36 สาธารณรัฐเช็ก 18,40 คานิเซีย 25,54 เทเชีย 020,3701298thDaria 1762 Krashen

ปอยเปต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
dgคาสิโน
ปอยเปต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
คาสิโนsa
คาสิโน sa

GambleAware Charity Review

Criticisms of Michael Slepian’s Stanford study on poker tells and hand movements (published 2015)


Some places the study was featured.
The following is reposted from a 2015 piece I wrote for Bluff magazine. It was originally located at this URL but has become unavailable due to Bluff going out of business. I saw this study mentioned recently in Maria Konnikova’s book ‘The Biggest Bluff’ and was reminded about this piece and noticed it was offline, so I wanted to share it again. A few notes on this piece:

The original title below and was more negative-sounding than I liked; Bluff chose it. Also, if I could rewrite this piece now, I’d probably choose less negative-sounding phrasing in some places. 
Regardless of the exact factors that might be at work in the found correlation, I realize it’s scientifically interesting that a significant correlation was found. But I also think it’s possible to draw simplistic and wrong conclusions from the study, and my piece hopefully gives more context about the factors that might be at work.
Image on left taken from Michael Slepian’s media page.

The Slepian Study on Betting Motions Doesn’t Pass Muster
A 2013 study¹ conducted at Stanford University by graduate student Michael Slepian and associates found a correlation between the “smoothness” of a betting motion and the strength of the bettor’s hand. In a nutshell, there was a positive correlation found between betting motions perceived as “smooth” and “confident” and strong hands. The quality of the betting motions was judged by having experiment participants watch short clips of players making bets (taken from the 2009 WSOP Main Event) and estimate the hand strength of those bets.
This experiment has gotten a lot of press over the last couple years. I first heard about it on NPR. Since, I’ve seen it referenced in poker blogs and articles and in a few mainstream news articles. I still occasionally hear people talk about it at the table when I play. I’ve had friends and family members reference it and send me links to it. It’s kind of weird how much attention it received, considering the tons of interesting studies that are constantly being done, but I guess it can be chalked up to the mystique and “sexiness” of poker tells.

The article had more than casual interest for me. I’m a former professional poker player and the author of two books on poker behavior: Reading Poker Tells and Verbal Poker Tells. I’ve been asked quite a few times about my opinion on this study, and I’ve been meaning to look at the study more closely and write up my thoughts for a while.
In this article, I’ll give some criticisms of the study and some suggestions for how this study (and similar studies) could be done better. This isn’t to denigrate the work of the experiment’s designers. I think this is an interesting study, and I hope it will encourage similar studies using poker as a means to study human behavior. But I do think it was flawed in a few ways, and it could be improved in many ways.
That’s not to say that I think their conclusion is wrong; in fact, in my own experience, I think their conclusion is correct. I do, however, think it’s a very weak general correlation and will only be practically useful if you have a player-specific behavioral baseline. My main point is that this study is not enough, on its own, to cause us to be confident about the conclusion.
I’ll give a few reasons for why I think the study is flawed, but the primary underlying reason is a common one for studies involving poker: the study’s organizers just don’t know enough about how poker works. I’ve read about several experiments involving poker where the organizers were very ignorant about some basic aspects of poker, and this affected the way the tests were set up and the conclusions that were reached (and this probably applies not just to poker-related studies but to many studies that involve an activity that requires a lot of experience to understand well).
Poker can seem deceptively simple to people first learning it, and even to people who have played it for decades. Many bad players lose money at poker while believing that they’re good, or even great players. In the same way, experiment designers may falsely believe they understand the factors involved in a poker hand, while being far off the mark.
Here are the flaws, as I see them, in this study:
1. The experimenters refer to all WSOP entrants as ‘professional poker players.’
This first mistake wouldn’t directly affect the experiment, but it does point to a basic misunderstanding of poker and the World Series of Poker, which might indirectly affect other aspects of the experiment and its conclusions.
Here are a couple examples of this from the study:
The World Series of Poker (WSOP), originating in 1970, brings together professional poker players every year (from the study’s supplemental materials)
These findings are notable because the players in the stimulus clips were highly expert professionals competing in the high-stakes WSOP tournament.
The WSOP Main Event is open to anyone and most entrants are far from being professional poker players. Categorizing someone’s poker skill can be difficult and subjective, but Kevin Mathers, a long-time poker industry worker, estimates that only 20% of WSOP Main Event entrants are professional (or professional-level) players.
This also weakens the conclusion that the results are impressive due to the players analyzed being professional-level. While the correlation found in this experiment is still interesting, it is somewhat expected that amateur players would have behavioral inconsistencies. I’d be confident in predicting that a similar study done on only video clips of bets made by professional poker players would not find such a clear correlation.
2. Hand strength is based on comparing players’ hands
This is a line from the study that explains their methodology for categorizing a player’s hand as ‘weak’ or ‘strong’:
Each player’s objective likelihood of winning during the bet was known (WSOP displays these statistics on-screen; however, we kept this information from participants by obscuring part of the screen).
They relied on the on-screen percentage graphics, which are displayed beside a player’s hand graphics in the broadcast. These graphics show the likelihood of a player’s hand winning; it does this by comparing it to the other players’ known hands. This makes it an illogical way to categorize whether a player believes he is betting a weak or strong hand.
If this isn’t clear, here’s a quick example to make my point:
A player has QQ and makes an all-in bet on a turn board of Q-10-10-8. Most people would say that this player has a strong hand and has every reason to believe he has a strong hand. But, if his opponent had 10-10, the player with Q-Q would have a 2.27% chance of winning with one card to come. According to this methodology, the player with the Q-Q would be judged as having a weak hand; if the test participants categorized that bet as representing a strong hand, they would be wrong.
It’s not stated in the study or the supplemental materials if the experimenters accounted for such obvious cases of how using the percentage graphics might skew the results. It’s also not stated how the experimenters would handle river (last-round) bets, when one hand has a 100 percent winning percentage and the losing hand has 0 percent (the only exception would be a tie).
It’s admittedly difficult to come up with hard-and-fast rules for categorizing hand strength for the purposes of such an experiment. As someone who has thought more than most about this problem, for the purpose of analyzing and categorizing poker tells, I know it’s a difficult task. But using the known percentages of one hand beating another known hand is clearly a flawed approach.
The optimal approach would probably be to come up with a system that pits a poker hand against a logical hand range, considering the situation, or even a random hand range, and uses that percentage-of-winning to rank the player’s hand strength. If this resulted in too much hand-strength ambiguity, the experiment designers could throw out all hands where the hand strength fell within a certain medium-strength range. Such an approach would make it more likely that only strong hand bets and weak hand bets were being used and, equally important for an experiment like this, that the player believed he or she was betting either a strong or weak hand.
3. Situational factors were not used to categorize betting motions
When considering poker-related behavior, situations are very important. A small continuation-bet on the flop is different in many ways from an all-in bet on the river. One way they are different: a small bet is unlikely to cause stress in the bettor, even if the bettor has a weak hand.
Also, a player making a bet on an early round has a chance for improving his hand; whereas a player betting on the river has no chance to improve his hand. When a player bets on the river, he will almost always know whether he is bluffing or value-betting; this is often not the case on earlier rounds, when hand strength is more ambiguous and undefined.
This experiment had no system for selecting the bets they chose for inclusion in the study. The usability of the clips was apparently based only on whether the clip meant certain visual needs of the experiment: i.e., did the footage show the entirety of the betting action and did it show the required amount of the bettor’s body?
From the study:
Research assistants, blind to experimental hypotheses, extracted each usable video in each installment, and in total extracted 22 videos (a standard number of stimuli for such studies; Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993) for Study 2 in the main text.
Study 1 videos required a single player be in the frame from the chest-up, allowing for whole-body, face-only, and arms-only videos to be created by cropping the videos. These videos were therefore more rare, and the research assistants only acquired 20 such videos.
The fact that clips were chosen only based on what they showed is not necessarily a problem. If a hand can be accurately categorized as strong or weak, then it doesn’t necessarily matter when during a hand it occurred. If there is a correlation between perceived betting motion quality and hand strength, then it will probably make itself known no matter the context of the bet.
Choosing bets only from specific situations would have made the experiment stronger and probably would have led to more definite conclusions. It could also help address the problem of categorizing hand strength. For example, if the experiment designers had only considered bets above a certain size that had occurred on the river (when all cards are out and there are no draws or semi-bluffs to be made), then that would result in polarized hand strengths (i.e., these bets would be very likely to be made with either strong or weak hands).
Also, the experiment’s method for picking clips sounds like it could theoretically result in all strong-hand bets being picked, or all weak-hand bets being picked. There is nothing in the experiment description that requires a certain amount of weak hands or strong hands. This is not in itself bad, but could affect the experiment in unforeseen ways.
For example, if most of the betting motion clips chosen were taken from players betting strong hands (which would not be surprising, as most significant bets, especially post-flop, are for value), then this could introduce some unforeseen bias into the experiment. One way this might happen: when a video clip shows only the betting motion (and not, for example, the bettor’s entire torso or just the face, as were shown to some study groups), this focus might emphasize the bet in the viewer’s mind and make the bet seem stronger. And if most of the hands-only betting clips were of strong-hand bets (and I have no idea how many were), the study participants watching only the hand-motion betting clips would falsely appear to be making good guesses.
My main point here is that thinking about the situational factors of a betting motion, and incorporating that into the experiment in some way, would have resulted in less ambiguity about the results. (It appears that it was difficult to find usable clips from a single WSOP event; in that case, the experimenters could just add footage from another WSOP Main Event to the study.)
4. The number of chips bet was not taken into account
The experiment designers did not take into account the chips that were bet. In their words:
During betting, each player pushes poker chips into the center of the table. Each chip has a specific color, which indicates a specific value. These values range from $25 to $100,000. This range of chip values has a crucial consequence for the current work. The number of chips does not correlate with the quality of the hand (see Table 1A in the main text). Players could move a stack of 20 chips into the center of the table, and this could be worth $500 or $2,000,000 (the winner of the 2009 WSOP won $8,547,042, thus the latter bet magnitude is a bet that can be made in the WSOP). Because no participants were professional poker players, nor considered themselves poker experts, they were not aware of chip values. They could not, then, use the number of chips as a valid cue to judge poker hand quality.
It’s true that your average person would not know what the chip colors at the WSOP Main Event mean. But it seems naïve to think that seeing the chips being bet couldn’t possibly have an effect on the experiment.
For one thing, the number of chips being bet could bias a participant to think a bet was stronger or weaker, whether correctly or incorrectly. What if all the strong-hand bets in the study were also bets that involved a lot of chips? (This is not implausible because smaller bets with weak hands are common early in a hand, when bets are small, whereas larger bets later in the hand are more likely to represent strong hands.) And what if some of the study participants were able to deduce (consciously or unconsciously) the strength of the bet from the number of chips?
Also, it’s possible that some of the test participants were knowledgeable (consciously or not) about some WSOP chip colors and what their denominations were. Or they were able to deduce (consciously or not), from the arrangement and number of chips, what the chip values were. (For example, large denomination chips are generally required to be kept at the front of a player’s stack.)
Again, this could have been addressed by selecting bets taken only from specific situations and only of certain bet sizes. If all bets chosen were above a certain bet size, and this was communicated to the study participants, then this would have lessened the impact of the chips being able to be seen.
5. Quality of “smoothness” was subjective
The experiment was based on the perceptions of study participants watching the assembled video clips. It was not based on objective measurements of what constitutes “smoothness” of a betting motion. This was a known issue in the experiment:
Thus, both player confidence and smoothness judgments significantly predicted likelihoods of winning, which suggests that movement smoothness might be a valid cue for assessing poker hand quality. It is unknown, however, how participants interpreted “smoothness” or whether the players’ movements that participants rated as smooth were truly smoother than other players’ movements. Other physical factors, such as speed, likely played a role.
This is not a major criticism; I think using perception is a fine way to find a correlation, especially for a preliminary study. But I think it does mean that we have no reason to be confident in the idea that smoothness of betting motion is correlated with hand strength. If there is are correlations between betting motion and hand strength (which I believe there are), these could be due to other aspects of arm motion or hand motion, such as: the betting speed, the position of the hands, the height of the hand, or other, more obscure, factors.
In summary
Again, I don’t mean to denigrate the experiment designers and the work they’ve done. I think this was an interesting experiment, and I think it’s probable the correlation they noticed exists (however weak the correlation may be).
Also, as someone who is very interested in poker behavior, I’d love to see similar studies be done. My main goal in writing these criticisms and suggestions was to emphasize that poker is complex, as is poker behavior. There are many behavioral factors in a seemingly simple hand of poker and taking these factors into account can make an experiment stronger and the results more conclusive.
Patricia Cardner, PhD, EdD, is a poker player and the author of Positive Poker, a book about the psychological characteristics of professional poker players. She had this to say about poker’s use in scientific studies:
“While researchers often have the best of intentions, it is difficult for them to fully understand the nuances of poker. Researchers who reach out to poker players for help can make more informed decisions about the research areas they choose to pursue, increase reliability and validity, and improve the overall quality of their results and conclusions.”
¹: Slepian, M.L., Young, S.G., Rutchick, A.M. & Ambady, N. Quality of Professional Players’ Poker Hands Is Perceived Accurately From Arm Motions. Psychological Science (2013) 24(11) 2335–2338.

Related

คาสิโน 1988
คาสิโน ทรูวอลเล็ต
คาสิโน99
88 คาสิโน
88คาสิโน