2021 Australian Open: What to Watch on Tuesday Night


Rod Laver Arena | 11 p.m. TuesdayAndrey Rublev vs. Daniil MedvedevAndrey Rubley and Daniil Medvedev secured the ATP Cup for Russia earlier this month, with neither player losing a singles match throughout. In their three meetings on the ATP Tour, Medvedev has come out on top each time, including in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open in September.This may be Rublev’s chance to finally overcome his friendly rival. He has looked particularly dominant, not dropping a set throughout the tournament. His match against Casper Ruud ended after only two sets when the Norwegian withdrew with an injury. Going into the quarterfinals, Rublev has led the field in both percentage of first service points won and second service points won, a sign of how hard it has been for opponents to break his serve.Medvedev has also been playing well, aside from a chaotic, disorganized third round match against Filip Krajinovic. He has now won 18 matches in a row, with his last loss coming in October at a tournament in Vienna. Although the fast surface fits Medvedev’s flat baseline shots, Rublev’s open stance is well suited in defense, and we’re sure to see many dynamic, aggressive point.Rod Laver Arena | 3:30 a.m. WednesdayRafael Nadal vs. Stefanos TsitsipasRafael Nadal, the No. 2 seed, has moved smoothly through the first four rounds, no surprise for a player with 20 Grand Slam titles. Although Nadal won his only Australian Open title over a decade ago, he has reached the finals on four other occasions since, and is a clear favorite in his half of the draw to do so again. Nadal’s powerful topspin shots are well-suited to clay courts where he can drag opponents around with tightly angled shots. Nadal’s ability to exploit his opponent’s weaknesses with relentless pressure can break most players on their best days.Stefanos Tsitsipas, the ATP finals winner in 2019, is a study in unpredictability. The fifth seed has a capable all-court game, but lacks the consistency to execute match after match. The 22-year-old has worked to improve this aspect of his game, but needed five sets to push back unseeded Thanasi Kokkinakis in the second round. After receiving a walkover in the round of 16, Tsitsipas will be well rested and hoping for an advantage against one of the most mentally tough players on tour.

แทงบอล คาสิโน
sa คาสิโน
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ มือถือ
คาสิโนtrue wallet ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ
คาสิโนbet

Aslan Karatsev of Russia Continues an Unlikely Run at Australian Open


MELBOURNE, Australia — He is the mystery man who few in the sport had heard of just days ago. But Aslan Karatsev of Russia has landed in the semifinals of the Australian Open.In one of the most unlikely runs in the history of modern tennis, Karatsev on Tuesday became one of the few players to make the final four of a Grand Slam after surviving the qualifying tournament when he beat an ailing Grigor Dimitrov of Bulgaria in four sets 2-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-2.Karatsev, 27, who was born in Russia, moved to Israel as a child, then returned to Russia as a teenager to pursue better tennis training, according to The Times of Israel. He had been playing in the tennis hinterlands for several years with little success. He had never qualified for a Grand Slam before this tournament. He won three straight matches at the Australian Open qualifying event in Doha to win a spot in the main event and came in ranked No. 114 in the world. He has never been ranked higher than No. 111.Dimitrov appeared to have the match under control after the first set but suffered what looked to be back spasms in the third set and appeared to be on the edge of retiring for the rest of the match.Just four other players have made the semifinals of a Grand Slam after getting through the qualifying event.Ahead of the Australian Open, he played doubles for Team Russia in the ATP Cup, a team event in which players represent their countries. Russia won the competition, but not because of Karatsev, who lost all three matches in which he played with two different partners.His teammates noticed that he was playing as well as they had ever seen, and yet none of them would have predicted anything like this.“We felt like he could do something amazing,” Daniil Medvedev, Russia’s top player and the No. 4 seed in the Australian Open. “To be honest, being in your first Grand Slam main draw? Making quarters is something exceptional. He’s not over yet.”He certainly is not.Karatsev will take on the winner of the match between Novak Djokovic and Alexander Zverev, which is scheduled for Tuesday night.

แทงบอล คาสิโน
sa คาสิโน
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ มือถือ
คาสิโนtrue wallet ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ
คาสิโนbet

Hollie Doyle’s Appeal Denied

Hollie Doyle’s Appeal Denied

Home » Archive » Shared News Europe » Hollie Doyle’s Appeal Denied

Monday, February 15, 2021 at 10:39 am |
Back to: Europe, Shared News Europe Updated: February 15, 2021 at 10:42 am

Previous Story |
Next Story
Hollie Doyle | Scoop Dyga

The Feb. 8 appeal made by Hollie Doyle in regards to a six-day ban after improper use of the whip on Echo Brava (GB) (Proclamation Ire) at Kempton was denied by the British Horseracing Authority Disciplinary Panel, the BHA announced on Monday. The six-day ban will stand. The Group 1-winning rider had chosen to appeal after feeling that the stewards’ tone when conducting the original inquiry was objectionable.

Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.

This story was posted in Europe, Shared News Europe, Top News Europe and tagged appeal, BHA, British Horseracing Authority, British Horseracing Authority Disciplinary Panel, Echo Brava (GB), Hollie Doyle, improper use of the whip, Kempton, stewards’ inquiry.

Your TDN download has begun.If the download does not complete, Click Here.

คาสิโน ออนไลน์888
ทางเข้า คาสิโน
คาสิโน 1688
คาสิโน 1988
คาสิโน ทรูวอลเล็ต

Mohegan มองว่ายอดขายสุทธิลดลง 42% ในช่วงไตรมาสที่สี่และคาดว่าจะมี “อุปสงค์โดยประมาณที่สำคัญ” ในอนาคต

บริษัท กล่าวว่าการดำเนินงานดีขึ้นในช่วงเดือนมกราคมและจนถึงเดือนกุมภาพันธ์ที่คุณสมบัติ MGE ส่วนใหญ่ M ohegan Gaming & Entertainment รายงานว่ายอดขายสุทธิลดลง 42.2% เป็น 230.8 ล้านดอลลาร์ในช่วงไตรมาสที่สี่ของปี 2020 ซึ่งเป็นไตรมาสแรกของปีการเงินของ MGE 2021 Mohegan Sun’s รายได้จากการเล่นเกมลดลง 22% ในช่วงไตรมาสดังกล่าว รายได้จาก Nongaming ลดลง 51% มียอดขายสุทธิ 165.9 ล้านดอลลาร์ในช่วงไตรมาสนี้ลดลง 31.8% จากช่วงเดียวกันของปีก่อน รายได้ของ บริษัท จากการดำเนินงานลดลง 75.6% ในช่วงไตรมาสนี้และ EBITDA ที่ปรับปรุงแล้วลดลง 46.2% เมื่อเทียบกับปีก่อนหน้าแคนาดาปิดตัวลงและทำให้ Mohegan Sun Pocono หยุดชั่วคราวใน Wilkes-Barre, Pa ตาม Mario Kontomerkos, MGE’s ประธานและซีอีโอ ในตอนท้ายของไตรมาสการดำเนินงานเริ่มมีเสถียรภาพที่คุณสมบัติ MGE ส่วนใหญ่และปรับปรุงในช่วงเดือนมกราคมและจนถึงเดือนกุมภาพันธ์ Kontomerkos ซึ่งเข้าร่วมกับเจ้าหน้าที่ MGE คนอื่น ๆ ในการประชุมทางโทรศัพท์กับนักลงทุนและนักวิเคราะห์อุตสาหกรรมเกมกล่าวตาม The Day “เราเชื่อมั่นอย่างยิ่งว่าเราพร้อมสำหรับการฟื้นตัวที่แข็งแกร่ง” เขากล่าว Kontomerkos กล่าวว่าการระดมทุนเพื่อกระตุ้นเศรษฐกิจของรัฐบาลกลางการลดลงของอัตราการติดเชื้อ COVID-19 และการเปิดตัววัคซีนจะทำให้ธุรกิจคาสิโนเพิ่มขึ้น การวิจัยชี้ให้เห็นว่าการประหยัด “ส่วนเกินและไม่ได้ใช้” ในสหรัฐอเมริกาสามารถทำได้มากถึง 1.4 ล้านล้านดอลลาร์ การแพร่ระบาดทำให้ MGE ทำการเปลี่ยนแปลงอย่างถาวรในแนวทางของมัน Kontomerkos กล่าวซึ่งส่งผลให้ค่าใช้จ่ายสำหรับการทำงานการตลาดและการตลาดลดลง ในช่วงไตรมาสดังกล่าวพนักงานของ Mohegan Sun ลดลงเทียบเท่ากับพนักงานประจำ 1,823 คนเมื่อเทียบกับปีก่อนหน้าลดลง 36.9% “หลังจากสิ้นสุดไตรมาส MGE ประสบความสำเร็จในการรีไฟแนนซ์ซึ่งช่วยขยายระยะเวลาครบกำหนดทันทีเพิ่มความยืดหยุ่นทางการเงินและทำให้เรามีสภาพคล่องเพียงพอในการก้าวไปข้างหน้า” Kontomerkos กล่าว “เรายังค่อนข้างมั่นใจว่าธุรกิจของเราได้รับการปรับให้เหมาะสมเพื่อใช้ประโยชน์จากสิ่งที่เราคาดว่าจะเป็นความต้องการที่สำคัญโดยประมาณสำหรับการบริโภคเพื่อการพักผ่อนในอีกไม่กี่เดือนข้างหน้า .

คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต
โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน
คาสิโน 168
คาสิโน168
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888

What to Do Versus a Big River Bet (3 Simple Tips)

This article was written by blackrain79.com contributor Fran Ferlan.

Playing the river optimally is what makes or breaks your winrate. 

It’s the biggest money street and you often have to make a decision for your
whole stack. The amount of money in the pot by the river often paralyzes
players, because they are overly focused on the pot size, which affects their
decision making process. 

So what should you do versus a big river bet? Well, when you ask a broad
question, you tend to get a broad answer, so here it is: it depends.

There’s a lot of factors to consider here: your opponent type, previous
action, board runout, pot odds, your relative hand strength, just to name a
few.

Not a huge help, so let’s try to break it down in this article.

1. Try to Bluff Catch Versus Loose and Aggressive Players

Let’s start with the type of player we are up against. Most players will
primarily bet for value when they fire off a big river bet, especially at the
micros. 

The only exception would be loose and aggressive players. This is true for
both regulars and aggrofish. You can generally call wider against aggrofish
than you would against LAG regulars. The looser and more aggressive the
player, the wider you should call them down. 

This is an advanced poker strategy that works extremely well in today’s small stakes games. BlackRain79 discusses it in more detail in this video:
So in practice, this means that sometimes you should call them down with hands
you wouldn’t be comfortable calling with otherwise, like top pair weak kicker,
second pair, two pair on a wet board and such. 

It’s important to trust your judgment in these situations, otherwise you’re
better off folding earlier if you suspect you’re going to get barrelled and
pushed out of the pot. 

However, just because someone is loose and aggressive, doesn’t mean they will
have only bluffs in their range, especially on the river.

The board runout is an important factor when deciding how wide you should
call. Generally speaking, the drier the board, the wider you can bluff
catch. 

Why? 

Because your opponent sees the same community cards you see, and if they bet
huge on the river, they’re basically saying that the board doesn’t scare them
and they don’t care what you are holding. 

On the other hand, if the river bricks (i.e. a river card doesn’t change
anything significantly, because it fails to complete any straight or flush
draws, for example), your more observant opponents might put you on a busted
draw and try to bluff you out of the pot. 

They can also have a busted draw of their own, as decently winning LAGs know
the power of semibluffing on earlier streets, and know a large majority of
their opponents won’t have the heart to call down their triple barrel without
a monster hand.

In this situation, you should look for an opportunity to bluff catch with your
top pair or second pair, for example. Bear in mind that this isn’t something
you should try to do often, as these kinds of situations are more of an
exception than the rule, but who doesn’t love a good hero call from time to
time?

If you’re able to pick off a huge pot with a mediocre hand, it can do wonders
to your bottom line, as most players wouldn’t have the nerve to pull it
off. 

It will also make it more difficult to play against you, because you’ll show
that you are able to call down in less than ideal circumstances, and won’t be
pushed around. 

Just a disclaimer: 

Know that it’s a high-risk, high reward play, and should be attempted only in
specific circumstances, against specific opponents, on specific boards and
against specific previous action. 

You should base it on sound information and tells you’ve picked up on, not
just the feeling that this guy is bluffing, I’m gonna call him down with my
Ace-high.

Big River Bet Example Hand #1

Effective stack size: 100BB.

You are dealt A♦8♦ in the BB.

A LAG reg open-raises to 3x from the BU.
SB folds, you call.

Pot: 6.5BB.

Flop: T♣7♠6♥

You check. Villain bets 3BB. You call.

Pot: 12.5BB.

Turn: 2♣
You check. Villain bets 6BB. You call.

Pot: 24.5BB.

River: A♠
You check. Villain bets 16BB.

You: ???

You should call.

This is a great spot to bluff catch based on our opponent type, previous
action, and the board runout. Let’s break it down.

A loose and aggressive reg open raises from the button. We assume their range
is very wide here, probably close to 50% of all hands. We have a decent
speculative hand. We can even opt to 3-bet light from time to time, but we
decide to flat call.

We flop a gutshot straight draw, and we expect the villain to fire off a c-bet
with pretty much a 100% of their range, which he does.

The turn doesn’t change much for us, except it puts a possible flush draw on
the board. The villain double barrels, but since not much has changed for us
from flop to turn, and are getting about 3:1 odds on a call, we decide to
continue.

The river doesn’t complete our gutshot, but we do end up improving to a top
pair. Is it good enough for a call? Let’s look at it from the villain’s
perspective. 

We didn’t give him any reason to assume we are holding an Ace. In fact, we
checked three times, so if they had to put us on a range, they would assume we
have a Tx hand, a busted straight or a flush draw. 

Conveniently, that’s a part of their perceived range as well. The river comes
with a scare card, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they tried to buy the pot
there.

Are we going to be good a hundred percent of the time? Of course not, but we
don’t need to be. This is something that BlackRain79 talks about in Modern Small Stakes.

They have a significant amount of bluffs in their range for our call to be
+EV, considering their player type, their open-raising position, our passive
lines, non-coordinated board and so on. 

When we take all of that into consideration, we can infer that we can call
profitably.

As for the aggrofish, aka complete maniacs, you can widen your river calling
ranges considerably. It is also a high risk, high reward play, but these
players are the only ones that will have a significant amount of bluffs on the
river. 

Why? 

Because their ranges are already extremely wide on previous streets, so it’s
fair to assume they will get to the river with all kinds of busted draws,
Ace-high hands, fourth pair etc.

While their aggression can certainly be profitable in the short term, as even
they can occasionally catch a monster hand, they will be the most significant
long term losers. 

You can’t outrun math. So when playing against them, you should be making more
hero calls than you would usually be inclined. 

Be aware that their maniacal ways are usually short-lived, so you should try
to get them to donate their stacks to you before the next guy. 

And you usually won’t have the luxury of waiting around for the monster hand
to try and trap them. 

So next time you find yourself facing a huge river bet against them, go with
your gut, take a deep breath and call them down. Your winrate will thank you
for it.

Make $500+ Per Month in Low Stakes Poker Games With My Free Poker Cheat Sheet

Are you having trouble consistently beating low stakes poker games online or live? Are you looking to make a consistent part time income playing these games?

 That is why I wrote this free little 50 page poker cheat sheet to give you the exact strategies to start consistently making $500 (or more) per month in low stakes poker games right now. These are the exact poker strategies by the way that I used to create some of the highest winnings in online poker history at the lower limits, as a 10+ year poker pro. And I lay them all out for you step by step in this free guide.

Enter your details below and I will send my free poker cheat sheet to your inbox right now.

2. Look for Possible Completed Draws

As far as all the other player types are concerned, like fish who aren’t of
the aggro persuasion (which is most of them) and TAGs, you should be very
careful when calling big river bets. This is especially the case if they donk
bet big into you. (A donk bet is a bet made against the previous streets’
aggressor). 

Look for possible completed draws and ask yourself if their previous action
makes sense that way. If the answer is yes, your overpair or top two pair
probably isn’t good enough anymore. 

Think of it this way: would you bet big out of position on the river against
someone’s previous incessant aggression without a really strong hand? You
probably wouldn’t. And neither would the majority of the player pool at the
micro stakes. 

Big River Bet Example Hand #2

Effective stack size: 100BB.
You are dealt A♠Q♠ on the BU.

You open-raise to 3x.
SB folds, a loose passive fish calls in the BB.

Pot: 6.5BB

Flop: A♦3♦Q♥

Fish checks. You bet 5BB. Fish calls.

Pot: 16.5BB

Turn: 8♣
Fish checks. You bet 16.5BB. Fish calls.

Pot: 49.5

River: J♦

Fish bets 40BB.
You: ???

You should fold.

Let’s break down the action street by street.

There’s not much to say about preflop. We’re dealt a great hand on the button,
and we can assume the recreational player will call us down pretty wide in the
big blind.

We flop top two pair and should start building the pot as soon as possible. We
expect to get called by a bunch of Ax hands, gutshot straight draws, flush
draws, you name it.

The turn doesn’t change much, but it does add a couple of gutshot draws if our
opponent called the flop with hands like JT, J9, or T9, for example. 

We’re still miles ahead of villain’s range, so we decide to charge them a
premium for their drawing hands. We can even consider overbettting, but we go
for a pot sized bet.

And we get one of the worst river cards possible. The fish fires off a huge
donk bet. There is nothing left for us to do but bemoan our luck and fold
begrudgingly. 

The Jack on the river completes a number of straight draws and a flush draw.
If we go back to preflop, we should expect this particular opponent to have
practically all suited junk in their range. 

Fish love chasing draws, and they love playing suited junk. Nevermind the fact
that the chances of flopping a flush are only 0.8%.

Now, we could argue that it’s a fish, they don’t know what they’re doing, they
could be bluffing. Or they could have any number of two pair hands we’re ahead
of. Fair enough.

But if they did have a two pair hand, for example, wouldn’t they go for a
check-call option, considering such a scary board? 

Even fish can see three diamonds on a board. And yes, they could be bluffing,
but there is nothing in their previous history that would suggest that.

You should always be on the lookout for disrupting patterns when playing
poker. 

If an otherwise weak and timid opponent suddenly starts blasting off big bets,
they didn’t just randomly decide to mix it up a little. They are politely
letting you know they have the nuts.

As a rule of thumb in poker in general, calling should be the last option you
consider. As the old adage goes, if your hand is good enough for a call, it’s
good enough for a raise.

3. Check Your HUD Stats to Make an Informed Decision

But how do you know what type of player you’re up against? Well, the most
accurate way would be to check their VPIP (voluntarily put money in pot), PFR
(preflop raise) and AF (aggression factor) in your poker tracking software HUD.These are statistics which are placed right on your online poker table, beside each of your opponents, which tell you what type of player you are up against. This is highly useful information to have especially in the fast paced, multi-tabling, world of online poker. 

These three poker HUD stats alone can give you a pretty good idea of the type of player you’re
facing, and only after a hundred hands or so. Of course, the bigger the sample
size, the better, but you can draw some general conclusions pretty
quickly. 

However, as we all know, most hands don’t get to showdown, and while we can
make some wide generalizations about some player types, it’s better to have
more info than less. If you are using a HUD, you might want to consider adding
stats like WWSF, WTSD, and W$SD to accurately assess your opponent’s postflop
tendencies.
By the way, if you aren’t using a poker HUD yet, BlackRain79 shows you how to set up your HUD in less than 5 minutes in this video:

So, WWSF stands for Won When Saw Flop, and is a percentage of times a player won
the pot after seeing the flop. The lower the WWSF, the weaker the player,
meaning they play aggressively with very strong hands only, and conversely,
the higher the WWSF, the more they bluff and fight for the pot post flop.

Here is a rough estimation of the spectrum.Use These Specific HUD Stats to Make Optimal Decisions Versus a Big River Bet

If their WWSF is less than 42%, they are weak and give up too much post flop. They don’t bluff enough, and if they give you action, especially on the big
money streets (turn and river) they have a very strong hand.

WWSF between 42% and 52% is the average. Of course, the higher the number, the
more often they bluff.

If their WWSF is bigger than 52%, they bluff way too often. You can call them
down widely and use their aggression against them.

WTSD stands for Went to Showdown, and shows the % of times a player, well,
went to showdown.

A player with a WTSD below 20% is an extreme nit, and goes to showdown with
very strong hands only.

A WTSD between about 24% and 27% is the norm for most winning players. Players with a WTSD above 30% are huge calling stations, and you should value
bet them relentlessly.

W$SD or Won Money at Showdown (or WSD) indicates the % of times a player won
the pot after the showdown. It’s inversely proportional to the WTSD, i.e. a
player with a low WTSD will have a big W$SD because they only see the showdown
with very strong hands, and huge calling stations will have a low W$SD because
they call down with a bunch of garbage hands.

Nitty players will have a W$SD of about 60% or more, fishy players about 40%
or less. Solid winning players will therefore be right in the middle with
about 50%.

One very important caveat, these stats require a huge sample size in order to
be accurate. 

You will need 500 hands at the bare minimum to make any informed assumptions.
1000 hands is a decent sample size, but they get really accurate only after
5000 hands or so.

Needless to say, the more they tend towards the extremes of the spectrum, the
less hands you need to be sure, and the more you can exploit them by either
overbluffing or betting for value, depending on which side they fall.
If you want to learn much more about all these HUD stats make sure you check out BlackRain79’s popular optimal HUD setup guide.

Summary

In order to play the river effectively, you need to take into account a number
of factors, including, but not limited to: the pot odds, your relative hand
strength, board runout, type of opponent you’re up against, previous action
and so on.

You basically have to apply all of your theoretical knowledge at the same
time. While it may seem daunting at first, the more you practice, the more
automatic the process will become, and after a while you’ll be able to put
your opponents on correct ranges, maybe even zero in on their exact hand.

It will certainly take a great deal of practice, because as we know, most
hands don’t even get to showdown, and river spots are so rare and unique that
it’s hard to even try to answer what to do in these spots in a single article.

However, there are some general guidelines you should adhere to:

First of all, big river bets usually indicate a strong made hand, especially
at the micros. Most players will bet for value, and aren’t really inclined to
risk a significant portion of their stack without something to back it up.

The only exception would be loose and aggressive players, and maybe some solid
tight and aggressive players who know what they’re doing, and know that a well
timed aggression can go a long way. 

But again, these are quite rare at the micros.

So against LAGs, you should try to bluff catch from time to time if you
believe they have a significant amount of bluffs in their range. 

Just bear in mind that it’s a high variance play, so be prepared to take it in
stride when they actually had the nuts all along.

Against aggrofish (aka maniac fish) you should widen your river calling ranges
significantly, and be prepared to call them down with less than ideal
holdings. 

Don’t wait around for a monster hand, because these don’t come along as often,
and try to take their stack before the next guy. 

Lastly, if an otherwise weak and timid player starts making huge bets, your
top pair hand probably isn’t good enough anymore. 

Look for completed draws and assume they have it. Make a disciplined laydown
and live to fight another day. 

One bonus tip, be sure to practice hand history review off the felt. Filter
for the hands that went to showdown, and try to narrow your opponent’s range
street by street. 

Talk to yourself out loud and tell yourself all the information you have. This
will sharpen your decision-making skills in-game, and you’ll be able to
accurately assess your opponent’s ranges in no time. 

You’ll be able to read souls, make all kinds of huge laydowns and hero calls
like a pro. Just remember, practice makes perfect.

.

เกม คาสิโน ได้เงินจริง
เกม คาสิโน ออนไลน์
คาสิโน ใหม่ ล่าสุด
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ สล็อต
เฮง เฮง คาสิโน

เชสเตอร์เผยแผนรองรับผู้ชม 5,000 คนเพื่อเข้าร่วมเทศกาลเดือนพฤษภาคมพร้อมการทดสอบโควิดจำนวนมากในสถาน


สนามแข่งม้าเชสเตอร์เผยแผนรองรับผู้ชม 5,000 คนต่อวันเพื่อเข้าร่วมเทศกาลเดือนพฤษภาคมพร้อมการทดลองภาคสนามครั้งใหญ่โดยโควิดและนักแข่งพร้อมกำหนดเวลาเดินทางมาถึงเพื่อหลีกเลี่ยงความแออัด โครงการปิดประตูทั้งหมดของเชสเตอร์ในปีที่แล้วจะต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก BHA และปฏิบัติตามระเบียบการของรัฐบาล Marcus Town สำหรับ Daily Mail โพสต์เมื่อ: 16:46 EST, 15 กุมภาพันธ์ 2021 | อัปเดต: 19:54 น. ตามเวลามาตรฐานแปซิฟิก 15 กุมภาพันธ์ 2564 เชสเตอร์ประกาศแผนการที่จะอนุญาตให้ผู้ชม 5,000 คนเข้าร่วมการประชุมในเดือนพฤษภาคมโดยผู้เข้าร่วมแต่ละคนจะต้องมีการทดสอบโควิดในสถานที่ โปรแกรมทั้งหมดของเชสเตอร์เมื่อปีที่แล้วจัดขึ้นหลังปิดประตู แทร็กกล่าวว่าไม่สามารถจัดการแข่งขันกีฬาในปีนี้ได้หากไม่มีการเปลี่ยนแปลง เชสเตอร์วางแผนที่จะเป็นเจ้าภาพจัดประชุมนักปั่นมากถึง 5,000 คนในแต่ละวันของการประชุมเดือนพฤษภาคม Richard Thomas ซีอีโอกล่าวว่าผู้ชมน้อยกว่า 5,000 คนหมายความว่าวันแข่งขันจะสูญเสียเงินและข้อเสนอนี้อาจเป็นวิธีเร่งการเพิ่มจำนวนผู้ชมเนื่องจากรัฐบาลเริ่มผ่อนปรนข้อ จำกัด โธมัสซึ่งรับทราบว่าแผนดังกล่าวจำเป็นต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก BHA และอยู่ภายใต้มาตรการของรัฐบาลกล่าวว่า “นี่เป็นเพียงจุดเริ่มต้นเราจะมีการพูดคุยกับหน่วยงานในพื้นที่มากขึ้นและหวังว่าจะได้ร่วมกับรัฐบาล” ขณะเดียวกันโค้ชกอร์ดอนเอลเลียต ได้ตัดสินใจเดลต้า “ออกจากการแข่งขัน Cheltenham Gold Cup ซึ่งเขาจบอันดับที่ 5 เมื่อปีที่แล้ว” All Mankind “ของ Dan Skelton ยังคงอยู่ที่ 8 -1 สำหรับ Ark Rookie Chase หลังจาก Sky Pirate 3 ปอนด์และการตี 17 เมตรใน Warwick King Chase ใน Warwick แบ่งปันหรือแสดงความคิดเห็นในบทความนี้:.

คาสิโน ออนไลน์888
ทางเข้า คาสิโน
คาสิโน 1688
คาสิโน 1988
คาสิโน ทรูวอลเล็ต

ไซต์รัสเซียของ Bwin ถูกปิดและบัญชีลูกค้าจะถูกโอนไปที่ Parimatch

ในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์ที่ผ่านมาผู้เล่นอดสงสัยไม่ได้ bwin เว็บไซต์การพนันออนไลน์สาขารัสเซียปิดให้บริการในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์และสถานการณ์นี้ดูเหมือนจะถาวร เมื่อพยายามเข้าสู่ระบบลูกค้าของ bwin.ru จะเห็นข้อความต่อไปนี้: “ขออภัยขณะนี้เว็บไซต์ของเราไม่สามารถใช้งานได้เนื่องจากการบำรุงรักษาระบบขอขอบคุณที่เข้าใจ” แต่อันที่จริงแล้วนี่เป็นเพียงข้อมูลตัวอย่างเท่านั้น ไม่มีการบำรุงรักษาระบบที่จะทำให้ไซต์เป็นอัมพาต ไม่มีใครจาก บริษัท ตอบคำถามเกี่ยวกับสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์ อย่างไรก็ตามในวันจันทร์ที่ผ่านมา bwin.ru ได้ยืนยันว่าเสร็จสิ้นโดยอ้างว่า “ความเป็นจริงที่เปลี่ยนแปลงอย่างรวดเร็วและการริเริ่มทางกฎหมายใหม่ ๆ ” บัญชีลูกค้า Parimatch สามารถโอนไปยัง Parimatch.ru ได้ดังนั้นเงินควรปลอดภัย ผู้คนจะไม่เคยรู้เกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ แต่เมื่อพิจารณาว่า a) bwin ได้บรรลุข้อตกลงกับ Parimatch สำหรับการโอนบัญชีธุรกรรม b) bwin นั้นถูกกฎหมายและเป็นเจ้าของโดย Entain ซึ่งเป็นหนึ่งในยักษ์ใหญ่ในการพนันออนไลน์ โลกอาจจะดี ลูกค้าเดิมของ bwin อาจไม่มีโอกาสกลับเข้าเกมทันที เป้าหมายของ Parimatch คือการโอนบัญชีทั้งหมดให้เสร็จสิ้นภายในสิ้นเดือน แน่นอนว่าสิ่งต่างๆอาจเกิดขึ้นเร็วกว่านั้น ลูกค้าที่ตัดสินใจใช้ Parimatch จะได้รับ “ข้อเสนอโบนัสพิเศษ” Ruslan Medved ซีอีโอของ Parimatch Russia ดูเหมือนว่าจะเห็นใจอย่างสุดซึ้งต่อสภาพของ bwin.ru (ฉันคิดว่า – ฉันหวังว่าคำอธิบายของฉันจะถูกต้อง) เขากล่าวว่า“ ไม่ใช่ทุก บริษัท ที่สามารถแข่งขันกับ Mast ได้ในตอนนี้และมีความสำคัญเท่าเทียมกัน คือการแข่งขันกับตลาดในความเป็นจริง “เขาสัญญาว่าจะให้ลูกค้าใหม่ดำเนินการเปลี่ยนแปลงให้เสร็จสิ้น” โดยง่ายที่สุด ” การเป็นหุ้นส่วนไม่ดี Bwin.ru ก่อตั้งขึ้นในเดือนพฤศจิกายน 2017 โดยเป็นการร่วมทุนระหว่าง Entain บริษัท แม่ของ Bwin (จากนั้นก็คือ GVC Holdings) และ Digital Betting LLC ในรัสเซีย ไม่ถึงสองปีต่อมาในเดือนพฤษภาคม 2019 Dmitry Sergeyev (Dmitry Sergeyev) ออกจากตำแหน่งซีอีโอของ bwin.ru เพื่อทำงานในหน่วยธุรกิจของ Parimatch ในรัสเซีย จากนั้นในเดือนกุมภาพันธ์ปีที่แล้ว bwin.ru ได้ขายให้กับ Nirevia Holdings Ltd ซึ่งเป็นองค์กรนอกไซปรัส ในธุรกรรมที่เริ่มต้น bwin.ru GVC ควรรับผิดชอบด้านเทคนิคในขณะที่ Digital Betting รับผิดชอบด้านการตลาดและการออกใบอนุญาต Sergeyev เปิดเผยว่าปัญหาใหญ่สำหรับ bwin ในรัสเซียคือการเดิมพันดิจิทัลยังไม่บรรลุตามกำหนดเวลาของข้อตกลงและล้มเหลวในการจัดหาทรัพยากรทางการเงินที่จำเป็นในการทำการตลาดให้กับไซต์อย่างเหมาะสมทำให้ความสามารถในการพัฒนาฐานผู้เล่นเสียหาย

แทงบอล
บาคทร่า
คาสิโน
คาสิโนออนไลน์
แทงหวย

PokerStars Launches Tetris Spin & Go Promotion

Clear lines, advance levels

PokerStars has never shied away from special Spin & Go promotions, but the one the online poker room just announced is a little different. While it’s still just a Spin & Go promo with leader boards and what-not, this time PokerStars has teamed up with Tetris, arguably the greatest video game of all time.

The Tetris Spin & Gos begin today, February 15, and run through March 28. There are ten different buy-in levels, ranging from $0.25 to $500. The goal of the promotion is to clear lines, just like in a game of Tetris, but in this case, there are no falling blocks. Just poker.

We were never told there would be math

To earn “line clears,” all one has to do is play in one of the labeled Tetris Spin & Gos. Players earn line clears based on their finish, but every spot earns at least one line clear. The number of line clears depends not just on order of finish, but the multiplier, as well. 2x multiplier games earn four, three, and two line clears for first, second, and third place, respectively. At 3x multiplier games, the line clear count goes down by one. And at any multiplier above that, the line clears are two, one, and one.

For every five line clears, a player’s level goes up. The importance of this is that the higher the level, the more leader board points a player earns. The formula for points is relatively simple. One line clear awards 40 points times one more than the player’s level. So for Level 0, it’s 40 x (0 + 1), or 40 points.

Two line clears awards 100 x (n + 1), with n representing the player’s level. For three line clears, the formula is 300 x (n + 1) and for four line clears, it’s 1,200 x (n + 1). Thus, advancing levels is important.

Game over, man, game over!

And because this promo is loosely based on a video game, there is a chance for that “GAME OVER” message to flash on the screen. What game over means in this case is that one’s opportunity to earn any more points on a daily leader board is done and the player will have to wait for the next day to try again.

The “Playing Field” also consists of 20 levels, with each player starting at zero. Based on one’s placement in a Tetris Spin & Go, the one’s level can go up or down. The probability of an up, down, or no move at all changes based on the level and finishing position. Winning a Spin & Go guarantees one’s level will at least stay the same. Losing guarantees it won’t go up. It can never get worse at Level 0 or 1, but color coded playing field states (green, yellow, red) indicate how close one is to their game ending.

Players who finish in the top 100 places of the $0.25 through $5 leader boards will receive cash prizes. The top 50 places pay on the $10 and $25 leader boards and top 20 for the $50 and $100 leader boards. For the $250 leader board, only the top five places pay, and only the winner receives money for the $500 board.

แทงบอล
บาคทร่า
คาสิโน
คาสิโนออนไลน์
แทงหวย

อิลลินอยส์: กระบวนการคัดเลือกผู้ดำเนินการคาสิโน Waukegan ล่าช้า

คณะกรรมการเกมของสวีเดนยังคงมองหาวาณิชธนกิจเพื่อประเมินผู้สมัครสามคน กระบวนการมอบใบอนุญาตในการพัฒนาคาสิโนใน Waukegan ในปีหน้าล่าช้าไปสองสามเดือนเนื่องจาก Illinois Gaming Board ยังคงมองหาวาณิชธนกิจเพื่อช่วยประเมินผู้สมัครทั้งสาม ก่อนที่คณะกรรมการจะสามารถมอบใบอนุญาตสำหรับคาสิโนซึ่งจะเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของสวนสนุกบนพื้นที่ 28 เอเคอร์ของเมืองถัดจากศูนย์การค้า Fountain Square จะต้องมีวาณิชธนกิจเพื่อช่วยในกระบวนการเสนอราคาที่แข่งขันได้รายงาน ชิคาโกทริบูน แม้ว่าคณะกรรมการจะออกคำขออย่างเป็นทางการสำหรับข้อเสนอที่เชิญชวนให้มีการเสนอราคาจากวาณิชธนกิจเพื่อช่วยในการประเมินผลผู้ดูแลระบบ Marcus Frutcher กล่าวในที่ประชุมเมื่อวันที่ 27 มกราคมว่าไม่มีการเสนอราคาภายในวันที่ 8 มกราคมซึ่งจะทำให้การอนุญาต Waukegan ล่าช้าออกไปอีก “ น่าเสียดายที่เราไม่ได้รับการเสนอราคาดังนั้นจึงไม่สามารถให้ บริษัท วาณิชธนกิจเพื่อช่วยในกระบวนการนี้ได้” Frutcher กล่าวในที่ประชุม “รหัสการจัดซื้อแนะนำขั้นตอนต่างๆที่เราต้องนำไปใช้และเรากำลังดำเนินการให้เสร็จโดยเร็ว” เมื่อคณะกรรมการออก RFP ในเดือนธันวาคมคณะกรรมการได้ขอความช่วยเหลือจากวาณิชธนกิจและผู้เชี่ยวชาญอื่น ๆ เพื่อตรวจสอบปัญหาต่างๆรวมถึงผลกระทบทางเศรษฐกิจของโครงการคาสิโนการสร้างงานที่มีศักยภาพและการคาดการณ์ทางการเงินโดยรวม ตามกฎหมายปี 2019 ที่อนุมัติคาสิโนเพิ่มเติมในอิลลินอยส์วอคีแกนแดนวิลล์ร็อคฟอร์ดชานเมืองคุกเคาน์ตี้ทางตอนใต้และเขตดาวน์สเตตวิลเลียมสันเคาน์ตี้ได้รับการวางแผนที่จะได้ ผู้ประมูลสามรายได้รับการอนุมัติจาก Waukegan City Council ในปี 2019 และออกจากคณะกรรมการเพื่อเลือกผู้รับใบอนุญาต คาดว่าจะมีผู้ชนะในเดือนตุลาคม Frutcher กล่าวในที่ประชุมคณะกรรมการเมื่อวันที่ 29 ตุลาคมว่าการตัดสินใจล่าช้าเนื่องจากทั้งการแพร่ระบาดของไวรัสโคโรนาและความต้องการวาณิชธนกิจ Joe Miller ประธานบอร์ดของบอร์ดเกมกล่าวว่ามีหลายทางเลือกสำหรับคณะกรรมการในการเลือกวาณิชธนกิจรวมถึงการโพสต์ RFP อื่น เขาไม่รู้ว่ามันจะเกิดขึ้นได้เมื่อไรเพราะคณะกรรมการไม่ได้คาดเดาเกี่ยวกับไทม์ไลน์ Frutcher กล่าวในเดือนตุลาคมว่าเมื่อมีการเลือกตั้งวาณิชธนกิจคณะกรรมการจะแจ้งให้ผู้รับใบอนุญาตทราบภายในหกเดือน มิลเลอร์กล่าวว่าเขาไม่รู้ว่าทำไมจึงไม่ได้รับการเสนอราคา Sam Cunningham นายกเทศมนตรีเมือง Waukegan กล่าวว่าเขารู้สึกผิดหวังกับความล่าช้าอีกครั้ง แต่ยังคงตั้งหน้าตั้งตารอการพัฒนาในที่สุดเพื่อเป็นพรทางเศรษฐกิจสำหรับเมืองและชุมชนอื่น ๆ ในภาคตะวันออกเฉียงเหนือของรัฐอิลลินอยส์ เขาเข้าใจถึงความจำเป็นในการตรวจสอบโดยผู้เชี่ยวชาญด้านการเงิน “พวกเขาต้องการให้แน่ใจว่าหมายเลขของผู้สมัครอยู่ในสนามเบสบอล” คันนิงแฮมกล่าว “ ฉันผิดหวัง แต่มองในแง่ดีเพราะมันจะเกิดขึ้น กรอบเวลาจะยาวขึ้น “คันนิงแฮมกล่าวด้วยความล่าช้าล่าสุดว่าเขาไม่คาดว่าการก่อสร้างจะเริ่มได้จนถึงไตรมาสที่สองหรือสามของปีหน้า ผู้สมัครสามคนที่คาสิโน Waukegan ได้แก่ Full House Resorts, North Point Casino และ Midwest Gaming ในขณะที่ตัวแทนของ Midwest Gaming กล่าวว่า บริษัท ไม่มีความคิดเห็นเกี่ยวกับความล่าช้า แต่ผู้ได้รับใบอนุญาตรายอื่นยังคงพอใจกับโครงการนี้ ทั้ง North Point และ Full House ได้รับเงินทุนที่จำเป็นสำหรับโครงการนี้ตัวแทนกล่าว Bill Warner ซีอีโอของ Warner Gaming ซึ่งเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของกลุ่ม North Point กล่าวในอีเมลว่าเขาเคารพในความขยันของบอร์ดเกม แต่ก็ยังรู้สึกตื่นเต้นกับการสร้างและดำเนินการคาสิโนใน Waukegan “North Point Casino ใช้เงินทุนเต็มจำนวนและพร้อมที่จะสร้างแหล่งความบันเทิงระดับโลกที่เน้นเฉพาะในพื้นที่ตอนนี้ที่ Waukegan” เขาเขียน. “เราเชื่อว่า Waukegan คุ้มค่ากับการรอคอยและความมุ่งมั่นของเราที่มีต่อสังคมจะไม่ยอมแพ้เมื่อเวลาผ่านไป” Alex J.Stolyar รองประธานอาวุโสและประธานเจ้าหน้าที่ฝ่ายพัฒนาของ Full House Resorts, Inc. กล่าวว่า บริษัท ของเขายังมีการจัดหาเงินทุนและพร้อมที่จะดำเนินการต่อหาก Full House ได้รับใบอนุญาต “ เราตื่นเต้นที่จะได้เริ่มต้น” เขากล่าว “เราใช้เงินทุนเต็มจำนวนและพร้อมที่จะดำเนินการให้เร็วที่สุด” Stolyar กล่าวว่าเมื่อออกใบอนุญาตแล้ว Full House มีแผนที่จะเปิดคาสิโนชั่วคราวบนเว็บไซต์ภายในหกเดือน เขาคาดว่าการก่อสร้างจะเริ่มดำเนินการถาวรได้อย่างรวดเร็วและพร้อมใช้งานในอีกประมาณสองปี .

คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ฟรีเครดิต
โปรโมชั่น คาสิโน
คาสิโน 168
คาสิโน168
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ 888

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


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

คาสิโน77
saคาสิโน
รอยัล คาสิโน
คาสิโน 777
คาสิโน 888