It does not make any logical sense to keep gambling. We have to be aware that our brains are wired differently. If you ask any person on the street about gambling, they would say we gamblers are out of our minds. And they are correct. Just think about it for a minute. Handle your whole paycheck to a stranger in exchange for making you stressed out the whole time? even worse, handing out future paychecks (debt) in exchange for bad things? Thinking about it, I think what we are buying is hope. We hope we can strike it big. But even then, we might strike it big, but only to lose all of it again in an instant. Numbers do not lie. The law of big numbers say that we will lose the house edge of all our bets placed, which in the end, that tiny percentage, will be huge. You’ll be shocked. I am 31, and realized that if I keep doing what I do, I will be 40 in no time, at a very crucial time in our lives. I have been gambling for some 11 years total. On and off. I have had several episodes where I have really wanted to stop, even 10 years back. I wished I did. I remember six years ago, a guy at a blackjack table asked me to have a smoke with him outside and warned me about gambling. He said I looked like a decent person and doesn’t want me on the path he and other people are in. 60k gambling down the drain in my lifetime, of which 8k is debt. Some 30k on some other risky investments. I wish I stopped eight years ago when I fessed up to a friend. I wish I stopped six years ago when I was pissed about losing 200 dollars and the guy at the casino gave me a friendly reminder of what gambling is on a bigger scale. I wished I stopped two years ago, when I fessed up to my mom crying. I wish I stopped a year ago, after I lost income due to covid, which made the debt situation worse. I do not want to be a year from now saying: I wish I stopped February 2021. If you are 20 years old and have lost 10k, just think about being 30 and losing 100k. Or 40 and being down 500k. Or 50 and down a million. Just stop now. See my other thread on how we lose big with the seemingly small house edge. To recap my gambling career: 60k loss. 8k debt. Probably some ten thousand hours lost gambling, many others lying and worrying. At the same time, that was time I could have done something constructive with my life. I am stuck on a job I do not like, in part due to my passiveness on not keeping improve myself. Wanting to build businesses, but not doing it due to either not having money or being too busy with it. How easy life would have been if I just worked and kept money in the bank or put it on an index fund? getting home, reading a book or just chilling out? well, I was not able to do that. I fear that if I continue this path, I will be exactly where I am right now but much older. It really is unexcusable. In regards to other areas of my life, I want to get an MBA but will not bea able to pay for it nor have any mind to do it if I keep on gambling. Same goes for a side business. Regarding my personal life, I want a girlfriend but lately have let myself go, so not confidence in going out with the kind of women I would like to date. Who would want to date a broke gambler who just gets home and stares at scores at the screen? I am 31, so am still in age, I think, so will get my life on track. I will not forgive myself if I am 40 and wasted another decade on this nonsense. These are my prime years. I must use them fully. If I stop now, I think I will be able to pay off all debt and be able to pay a pending trip I have to make overseas in the summer, all in this year. It sounds easy but is hard at the same time. It sounds like a long time, but 10 months go by fast. submitted by /u/gamblingsucksass [comments]
ปอยเปต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
ปอยเปต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
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.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริง
As Americans continue to weather the pandemic, the $2.3 trillion coronavirus relief and spending bill passed by the federal government in December brought an unexpected and lasting gift: a new national park.The 5,593-page spending package included a raft of provisions authorizing little-known projects — the construction of the Teddy Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota, for one — and giving lawmakers a chance to advance a variety of long-delayed initiatives. Among them was the elevation of the New River Gorge, in southern West Virginia, to the status of Yellowstone, Yosemite and the country’s other most renowned outdoor spaces. The designation of the area — roughly 72,000 acres of land flanking 53 miles of the gorge — as a national park and preserve creates the 63rd national park in the United States and completes a multigenerational effort, started in the mid-twentieth century, to transform a tired industrial area into a national landmark.“Towards the end of this year, with these big bills coming down, I decided to strike,” said Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican and the state’s junior senator, who, along with Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat, introduced the New River Gorge legislation in 2019.“This was the right opportunity,” she said.A draw for rafters, kayakers and other outdoor enthusiastsThe gorge and its surroundings have been prized for decades as one of southern West Virginia’s more spectacular natural places.In 1963, the West Virginia House of Delegates passed a resolution seeking to designate the New River Gorge as a “national playground,” preparing to send the proposal to President John F. Kennedy, whose primary campaign was lifted substantially through support from West Virginia voters. But momentum to create a national recreation area stalled after Mr. Kennedy’s assassination later that year.Though the gorge remained a curiosity among rafters and outdoor enthusiasts, the area only received federal protection from the Interior Department in 1978, when it was designated a national river.Now, the outdoor offerings in the gorge have come to define the area as a premier destination for adventure sports in the East.The New River plunges 750 feet over 66 miles, resulting in long stretches of violent rapids that can reach a class five level, generally considered the most difficult that can be navigated by white-water boaters. (Licensed outfitters operate in several towns near the river, providing rentals and tours for rafting and kayaking.)The canyon walls, which soar as high as 1,600 feet, offer miles of cliffs that rank among the best in the East Coast for rock climbing. Sheer faces in the gorge made of robust Nuttall sandstone provide both traditional and sport-climbing routes across the difficulty spectrum.Bike routes are scattered throughout the park on both sides of the river, with options for both technical mountain biking and more casual pedaling along former railroad beds.A glimpse back in timeAccording to the National Park Service, geologists believe the New River — its name a misnomer used by early American explorers who often assigned the same name to any river they came upon for the first time — was a segment of the preglacial Teays River. This larger river, which traversed much of the current Ohio River watershed, was later diverted and broken up by glaciers. The age of the Teays is uncertain, but fossil evidence suggests it could be as much as 320 million years old, leaving its remnant, the New River, as quite possibly the second oldest river in the world.Beyond the millions of years of geological history on display, the gorge is also filled with signs of the region’s heritage as a major coal production hub.Miners once capitalized on the easy access to rich deposits of high-quality bituminous coal in the canyon, where the river had already shorn through hundreds of feet of rock. Especially after the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway linked the New River coal fields to markets in 1873, dozens of boom towns popped up along the river’s edge, thriving well into the 1920s.In 1963, a coal mine was still operating in the gorge, said Dave Arnold, a state tourism commissioner who operated a rafting company for more than 40 years.“In ’76 or ’77, if you were in my boat, we’d have been floating down the river and I would have been showing you, ‘here’s an old coal tipple, here’s the old hotel at Caperton, here’s this and that,’” he said.The demand for coal around the turn of the twentieth century was so high that towns existed every half mile along up the river, according to the Park Service. As the industry went into decline, however, by the 1950s many were already abandoned, leaving ghost towns scattered throughout the gorge. Additionally, logging during the late nineteenth century stripped vast portions of the gorge bare, clearing enormous swaths of virgin forest.The park contains the remnants of communities such as Nuttallburg and Kaymoor, which still stand near the riverbank and are accessible from points higher up. Seams of exposed coal are visible along some trails leading into the gorge and its towns, where abandoned mine portals and the foundations of coke ovens remain.Restoring an ecosystem with diverse wildlifeDespite the environmental degradation and pollution that industry unleashed, some unique ecological features make the gorge well-suited to a diverse combination of wildlife, which has slowly reappeared as time has passed.The river lies at the center of a migration corridor where plants and animals that typically range further north or south come together, including several federally endangered and threatened species, such as the Virginia big-eared bat and the Allegheny woodrat.According to Lizzie Watts, the park’s superintendent, the river itself is also notably warmer than surrounding areas, making it a popular warm-water fishing destination with more than a dozen public access points. The river is one of the premier spots for smallmouth bass fishing on the east coast, and muskellunge and walleye are common in the park today.“The next generation will have the opportunity to see what, in the last 150 years, it looks like when an area goes from being logged and mined to left alone,” Ms. Watts said. “The ecosystem has come back to full trees and mature forests.”As federal protections took effect after the Park Service began overseeing the area as a national river in 1978, wildlife has largely recovered, and many see an opportunity to showcase the region’s natural elegance.“To show off our rock climbing, our extreme sports availabilities in that area, is just really exciting,” said Ms. Capito of what she described as a “kind of wild and wonderful part of our state.” ‘The cream of the crop’The National Park Service, created in 1916, oversees more than 400 areas across the country, including national monuments, seashores and battlefields as well as parks, which together total more than 85 million acres.While the new title for New River Gorge does not fundamentally alter the area’s day-to-day operations, both lawmakers and the Park Service tend to view “national parks” as the crown jewels of the park system — a protection granted to some of the largest and most prized tracts of the country.“National Park status is usually considered like the cream of the crop,” Ms. Watts said. “But it really is just another one of those names.”The New River Gorge does not match the scale of many national parks in the western United States, where Death Valley, the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone sprawl over more than 1 million acres each.Nevertheless, officials expect the new designation to bring a substantial influx of travelers, boosted in part by a dedicated set of enthusiasts who strive to visit every national park.In typical years, around 1.3 million travelers visit the gorge, according to the Park Service’s tourism data. Based on studies of other areas that received national park status, Ms. Capito said she expects to see visitors increase by as much as 20 percent.“It does feel like the very beginning stages of transformation for the whole area,” said Becky Sullivan, the executive director of the New River Gorge Convention and Visitors Bureau. “I’ll be very, very interested to see where we are in about 10 years.”Maintaining the community and its favored pastimesAs unique outdoor attractions throughout the Appalachian region have gained more national visibility, some concern has grown over the idea of a wealthy and mobile set from out of state trampling the communities adjacent to these places.West Virginia remains the second-poorest state in the country in terms of median household income, according to data collected by the United States Census Bureau. And while tourism has brought a needed injection of wealth to areas all around the gorge, it has also changed the makeup of neighboring communities, as more people have come to visit the park or settle down near it.Interest in the natural offerings around the park has brought slow but measurable change for small towns nearby like Fayetteville. Officials say that the advent of remote work during the pandemic has only hastened a trend of properties in the area being repurposed for vacation rentals and outsiders snapping up second homes.“You cannot find a house for sale in Fayetteville, because they’re just in such high demand,” said Sharon Cruikshank, the town’s mayor. “So that definitely changed the budgeting of the town as well as the county.”When legislation was first introduced to designate the area as a national park, pushback came from some locals. Hunters have long enjoyed access to secluded sections of woods around the gorge, and with hunting prohibited in federal parks, some protested the potential loss of thousands of acres of hunting grounds.In a compromise, more than 65,000 acres of the total area were designated as a nature preserve where hunting can continue as before, and only roughly 7,000 acres directly within the canyon are officially off limits as national parkland. A provision was included to empower the park to acquire more than 3,000 acres of private land around its current boundaries as well, to expand the size of the preserve and add public hunting grounds.In a nod to tradition, the legislation also enshrines the right for visitors to continue to make use of one of the park’s most famous features — the New River Gorge Bridge — at least once a year.BASE jumping, an extreme sport in which jumpers parachute from elevated structures or cliffs, is banned in every other national park.But, since 1980, BASE jumpers have been permitted to plunge from the top of the 876-foot-high bridge and parachute down toward the river once a year, on Bridge Day, held one Saturday in October. The legislation designating the area as a national park allows that tradition to continue.As many as 100,000 people typically come to watch the jumpers plunge, according to Ms. Sullivan, providing a major boost for businesses in the region. The event has only been canceled twice, including last year because of the coronavirus.Bridge Day’s organizers advise jumpers that the only dependable way to touch down safely is to plan to land directly in the river. In normal years, hundreds do so, often multiple times that day, gliding down and softly hitting the New River’s waters.
คาสิโน ออนไลน์ ได้เงินจริง
If you enjoy poker, making a living from playing this game seems like living the dream.
Do something you love, and it will never feel like work.
But, before you go all in, you should be aware of all of the pros and cons that come with playing poker for a living.
If you’re considering getting more serious about your potential poker career, here are some of the most prominent advantages and disadvantages that come with being a professional poker player.
The Advantages of Playing Poker for a Living
You Own Your Own Time
If you’re playing poker for a living, you’re effectively choosing your work hours. Being your own boss, especially in a career path such as this, means that you’re entirely free to tailor your own time and make the best of every day.
The hassle of working night shifts or waking up early every morning to drive to work won’t be a problem if you gown down this road.
Your “offices” are the online poker tables and live poker tournaments you choose to participate in.
Just keep in mind that you must maintain great discipline in such a job, as not to lose yourself in the flexibility and freedom of your own time.
No Salary Ceiling
The biggest reason most poker players want to go professional is the unlimited profit available for those who dare to claim it.
Although money shouldn’t be your primary motivator, it’s hard not to think about the multi-million prizes at the biggest poker tournaments in the world.
Even if you are just starting out playing online on real money poker sites, there are still countless options with prizes significantly more extensive than what most working people can earn in their day jobs.
Plus, the best part about this is that there’s no salary ceiling on how much you can bring home each month.
Living and Traveling Anywhere in the World
Another great advantage of playing poker for a living is that you can experience the feeling of always being on vacation while traveling for work and making money in the process.
If you plan on becoming a full-time poker player, you can look forward to frequently traveling to some of the biggest and most exciting cities in the world.
From Las Vegas and London to Barcelona and Monaco, you make your own schedule as packed or free as you wish.
Moreover, as a professional poker player, you have unlimited freedom in choosing a location where you want to settle down.
If you want to make your home in a sunny and warm place, you can select a popular poker destination such as the Caribbean.
This will allow you to enjoy endless summers while still being very close to some of the most popular and rewarding poker tournaments.
The Disadvantages of Playing Poker for a Living
No Guaranteed Income
The most significant benefit of a day job is that you know exactly how much money you’re earning every month.
When you switch up your day job for a professional poker career, this safety net disappears.
While it’s true that you’ll be able to win massive amounts of money potentially, there’s no telling when or even if this will come.
Instability of income is a typical tradeoff in many careers that offer a higher profit ceiling.
If you like playing it safe and can’t risk running a negative balance for a few weeks or months, pursuing a career in Texas Hold’em probably isn’t the best way to go.
That said, if you’re ready to accept the swings and have the mindset to handle the pressure of unstable earnings, you can turn this disadvantage into your advantage.
The Road to Success Can be Arduous
Watching Daniel Negreanu toy with his opponents makes it seem almost effortless. But, most of us forget that we’re watching the end result of years of studying the game and the psychology of their competitors.
All professional poker players have experienced great highs and lows throughout their long journey.
Don’t go into it thinking that it’s going a smooth ride all of the time. Confidence is a must-have, but you should continuously work on your skills to back this up.
Of course, some players have achieved great success in their first few years of playing the game, but these are outliers.
If you’re aiming to make poker your lifetime career, you need to arm yourself with patience and always remember that you’re in it for the long run, and variance will catch up with you eventually.
Stable Budget Needed to Start
Although poker offers you the opportunity to win a lot of money, you also need to have adequate starting capital before you even consider devoting all of your attention to the game.
The lack of money is one of the more significant reasons why most players don’t commit to playing poker professionally.
For many players, it can take years before they can get to a consistent level of winning in poker. If you don’t have the capital to start or a stable day job to cover your poker losses, you can quickly grow tired of the stress and grind.
It’s crucial to remember that success isn’t guaranteed and that you should never risk the money you can’t afford to lose. Learning good bankroll management is a must!
Are you Ready to Become a Professional Poker Player?
The hard truth is that not everyone is cut out to be a world-class poker player. But, with enough patience and work, you can make a great living from playing poker.
This is because, ultimately, the pros heavily outweigh the cons, and most players who truly commit to studying and learning the game can succeed in it.
If you’re passionate about poker and ready to put your energy into it, nothing is stopping you from making a career out of it.
To get some help on your path, check out the best poker training sites out there, as you’ll find plenty of great resources here.
Playing low/middle-limit Texas hold’em, your goal is to go home a winner. Being the best player – the most skilled – at the table will help. But, more likely, you will rank near the middle in the skill department; let us assume that is the case. With eight opponents vying for the same pots, the cost-to-play (house rake, Bad Beat Jackpot drop, and tip to the dealer), chances are you will not be able to realize your goal.
What’s the solution? You need to win the bigger pots and only lose the smaller ones. In principle, that’s simple: Build the pots when your hands are strong; and lose less with the weaker hands. That’s a strategy that ought to apply whether you’re playing at a brick and mortar venue or on the internet at places like online casino Malta. For this column, we will focus on the latter. How can you limit your losses when your hand is not the best?
Avoid the weaker hands
The most obvious strategy is to muck weak hands even before the flop. You will be dealt your fair share of them. Avoid the temptation; save some chips. Those chips saved will add up over time and could easily be more than the cost-to-play.
The Hold’em Algorithm helps make that decision by scoring my hole cards and providing the criteria. (There are also charts available for that purpose.)
Starting with a playable hand
Mucking your weaker hands preflop does take some self-discipline. More important is how you play your hand when it is a decent starting hand but not good enough to invest a lot of chips. We are referring to starting hands such as an Ace or a King with a medium kicker, a middle pair, and suited connectors, 8-7 or higher.
These are the type of hands you should play when there is at most one raise – better yet, no raise – to see the flop and it is multi-way (three or more opponents). I label this the Hold’em Caveat. Since the chances of significant improvement on the flop are relatively small (the odds are against you), be sure there will be enough opponents to build a pot big enough to warrant your investment. (I am willing to invest one Big Blind bet, but not more; otherwise I might get myself too pot committed.)
This is analogous to using the implied pot odds after the flop, when you can easily estimate your card odds. (Note: On the flop, you get to see over 70 percent of your final hand.) If the implied pot odds are higher than your card odds, it will pay to see the turn and river cards. (You have a positive expectation.) In the long run, you are virtually assured of being a winner.
If you are the Big Blind and the pot is not raised, it costs you nothing to see the flop. It’s a free card no matter how weak your hole cards.
In the Small Blind, the Hold’em Caveat should apply. But, in practice I have seen many players calling with weaker hands. Their rationale: It is only a half-bet to see the flop. There are two problems with that thinking:
The vast majority of the time, their hand fails to improve enough to warrant further investment.
With a weak starting hand, their hand often improves just enough to keep them in the pot (chasing) in hope of further improvement which is rare. That can be very costly.
If you find yourself in a game with lots of raising preflop, look around for a friendlier table at which to invest your chips.
About George EpsteinAfter a long and productive career as a leader in the aerospace industry, upon his retirement in the 1990s, George Epstein chose poker as his “second career.”
George has been widely recognized for his many significant accomplishments and contributions to our society. These include pioneering and innovations in various materials, testing and manufacturing technologies for our defense and space programs; teaching specialized engineering courses at UCLA, other colleges, and at seven NASA centers; introducing advanced composites into Air Force space systems; and creating the Air Force Manufacturing Problem Prevention Program (has helped avoid costly failures and anomalies for space systems),
He has authored many engineering reports and books; and is listed in American Men of Science; Leaders in American Science; Who’s Who in the West; Dictionary of International Biography; and Personalities in the West and Midwest.
Since “joining” the poker world, George “The Engineer” Epstein has written three poker books – most recently, Hold’em or Fold’em?– An Algorithm for Making the Key Decision and The Art of Bluffing.
George has organized poker groups at two senior centers, at West L.A. College, and at the VA/West Los Angeles, including teaching poker classes.He is a columnist for several poker and gaming publications.
George has been elected to the Seniors Poker Hall of Fame, and was named Man-of-the-Year by the Westside Optimists, primarily for his efforts in encouraging retirees to learn and enjoy the game of poker.
He firmly believes that playing poker will help to keep seniors/retirees mentally and physically healthy.
บริษัท กล่าวว่าธุรกิจดีขึ้นในเดือนมกราคมและกุมภาพันธ์ที่อสังหาริมทรัพย์ MGE ส่วนใหญ่ M ohegan Gaming & Entertainment รายงานว่ารายรับสุทธิลดลง 42.2% สู่ 230.8 ล้านดอลลาร์ในไตรมาสที่สี่ของปี 2020 ซึ่งเป็นไตรมาสแรกของปีงบประมาณ 2021 MGE รายได้จากการเล่นเกมของ Mohegan Sun ลดลง 22% ในไตรมาสนี้ รายได้จาก nongaming ลดลง 51% โดยสร้างรายได้สุทธิ 165.9 ล้านดอลลาร์ในไตรมาสนี้ลดลง 31.8% จากช่วงเดียวกันของปีก่อนหน้า รายได้จากการดำเนินงานของ บริษัท ลดลง 75.6% ในไตรมาสนี้ในขณะที่ EBITDA ที่ปรับปรุงแล้วเพิ่มขึ้น 46.2% เมื่อเทียบเป็นรายปีอัตราการติดเชื้อ COVID-19 ที่เพิ่มขึ้นซึ่งขัดขวางคาสิโนในสหรัฐฯเกือบทั้งหมดในไตรมาสนี้ แต่ยังคง MGE คาสิโนที่ Niagara Falls, Ontario, แคนาดา. , ปิดตัวลงและทำให้การระงับ Mohegan Sun Pocono ใน Wilkes-Barre, PA อ้างอิงจาก Mario Kontomerkos ประธานและซีอีโอของ MGE ในตอนท้ายของไตรมาสธุรกิจเริ่มมีเสถียรภาพในคุณสมบัติ MGE ส่วนใหญ่และปรับปรุงในระหว่างเดือนมกราคมถึงกุมภาพันธ์ Kontomerkos ซึ่งเข้าร่วมเจ้าหน้าที่ MGE คนอื่น ๆ ในการประชุมทางโทรศัพท์กับนักลงทุนและนักวิเคราะห์อุตสาหกรรมเกมกล่าวตามรายงานของ The Day “ เราเชื่ออย่างยิ่งว่าเราพร้อมสำหรับการฟื้นตัวอย่างแข็งแกร่ง” เขากล่าว Kontomerkos กล่าวว่าการระดมทุนเพื่อสิ่งจูงใจของรัฐบาลกลางระดับการติดเชื้อ COVID-19 ที่ลดลงและการแนะนำวัคซีนจะช่วยเพิ่มจำนวนคาสิโนได้ Kontomerkos กล่าว การวิจัยชี้ให้เห็นว่าการประหยัด“ ส่วนเกินและไม่ได้ใช้” ในสหรัฐฯอาจมีมูลค่าสูงถึง 1.4 ล้านล้านดอลลาร์ อันเป็นผลมาจากการระบาดใหญ่ MGE ได้เปลี่ยนแนวทางอย่างถาวร Kontomerkos กล่าวส่งผลให้ต้นทุนแรงงานการตลาดและการส่งเสริมการขายลดลง ในไตรมาสนี้จำนวนพนักงานที่ Mohegan Sun ลดลงโดยพนักงานประจำ 1,823 คนเมื่อเทียบกับปีก่อนหน้าลดลง 36.9% “ หลังจากสิ้นไตรมาส MGE ประสบความสำเร็จในการรีไฟแนนซ์ขยายระยะเวลาครบกำหนดที่ใกล้ที่สุดเพิ่มความยืดหยุ่นทางการเงินและให้เรามีสภาพคล่องที่เพียงพอในขณะที่เราก้าวหน้า” Kontomerkos กล่าว “เรายังคงมั่นใจว่า บริษัท ของเราได้รับการปรับให้เหมาะสมเพื่อรับประโยชน์จากความต้องการที่สูงมากสำหรับการพักผ่อนในอีกไม่กี่เดือนข้างหน้า” .
สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020
เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต…
S en. David Gowan เปิดตัวพระราชบัญญัติวุฒิสภาปี 1794 ซึ่งพยายามปรับปรุงแทร็กและเกม OTB ในแอริโซนาให้ทันสมัย ข้อเสนอที่จะได้รับการพิจารณาโดยคณะกรรมการวุฒิสภาในวันอังคารนี้จะอนุมัติการแข่งขันม้าครั้งประวัติศาสตร์ [HHR] ซึ่งคาดว่าจะสร้างรายได้ภาษีใหม่ได้มากถึง 140 ล้านดอลลาร์รายงานของ Thoroughbred Daily News จากข้อมูลของ savearizonahorseracing.com จำนวนด้ามจับ pari-mutuel ในรัฐแอริโซนาลดลง 55 ล้านเหรียญต่อปีและกระเป๋าถือ 5 ล้านเหรียญต่อปีตั้งแต่ปี 2547 เนื่องจากการมีส่วนร่วมในการแข่งสดลดลง 45% ในช่วงเวลาเดียวกันรายได้รวมจากเกมเพาะพันธุ์เพิ่มขึ้นจาก 1.3 พันล้านดอลลาร์เป็น 2 พันล้านดอลลาร์ การเรียกเก็บเงินจะปรับปรุงกฎหมายการพนันในรัฐแอริโซนาในขณะที่ จำกัด จำนวนขั้ว HHR ให้เหลือเพียง 15% ของตำแหน่งการเล่นในเผ่า การเดิมพัน pari-mutuel นั้นถูกกฎหมายในรัฐแอริโซนาก่อนที่สัญญาการพนันของชนเผ่าจะเริ่มขึ้นดังนั้นการอนุญาตของพวกเขาจะไม่ละเมิดข้อตกลงของรัฐเหล่านี้ “ ความพยายามในการปรับปรุงให้ทันสมัยซึ่งนำโดยวุฒิสมาชิกโกวันจะช่วยอุตสาหกรรมการแข่งรถในรัฐแอริโซนาและช่วยรักษานักขี่ม้าในรัฐของเรา” บ็อบฮัตตันประธานสมาคมนักขี่ม้าแอริโซนากล่าว “การจัดการแข่งขันม้าครั้งประวัติศาสตร์จะให้การสนับสนุนที่จำเป็นอย่างมากแก่พันธมิตรในอุตสาหกรรมต่างๆที่เกี่ยวข้องในแต่ละวันแข่งขันดึงดูดม้าคุณภาพสูงและฟื้นฟูการแข่งขันม้าทั่วรัฐแอริโซนา” จากข้อมูลของ savearizonahorseracing.com หากผ่านมาตรการดังกล่าวจะสร้างรายได้ภาษีของรัฐใหม่ระหว่าง 100 ล้านถึง 140 ล้านดอลลาร์สร้างงานใหม่ 4,000 ตำแหน่งและสร้างเงินลงทุนมากกว่า 300 ล้านดอลลาร์ในแอริโซนาดาวน์ นอกจากนี้กระเป๋าเดินทางในแอริโซนาจะเพิ่มขึ้นจาก 80,000 เหรียญเป็น 300,000 เหรียญ หนึ่งวันหลังจากการบังคับใช้พระราชบัญญัติ พ.ศ. 2337 กฎหมายกระจกก็ยังคงอยู่ในคณะกรรมการชุดเดียวกันในด้านวุฒิสภา เช่นเดียวกับ บริษัท ในเครือ SB 1797 ให้บริการแพลตฟอร์มมือถือที่เชื่อมโยงกับคาสิโนของชนเผ่าหรือลีกกีฬาอาชีพรวมถึงกีฬาหลักทั้งหมด PGA Tour และ NASCAR กฎหมายทั้งสองฉบับมีใบอนุญาต 10 ฉบับสำหรับผลประโยชน์ทางการค้าและชนเผ่า .
สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020
เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต…
Monday, February 15, 2021 at 3:48 pm |
Back to: Shared News, Top News Updated: February 15, 2021 at 3:50 pm
China Horse Club and WinStar Farm’s Life is Good (Into Mischief) tuned up for an expected start in the Mar. 6 GII San Felipe S. with a five-furlong work in 1:00.80 (4/33) at Santa Anita Monday morning.
“He went extremely well,” trainer Bob Baffert said of the 3-year-old colt.
Tabbed a ‘TDN Rising Star’ following a debut win at Del Mar last November, Life is Good is now two-for-two after opening his sophomore campaign with a win in the Jan. 2 GIII Sham S.
Also working Monday from the Baffert barn, Freedom Fighter (Violence) went four furlongs in :48.60 (11/66). The 3-year-old colt, a first-out victor at Del Mar last August, returned to finish second in the Feb. 6 GII San Vicente S. He is expected to make his next start in the Mar. 6 GIII Gotham S. at Aqueduct.
Both the San Felipe and the Gotham offer 50 Kentucky Derby qualifying points to the winner, and 20, 10, five to the horses finishing second through fourth.
The Baffert-trained Gamine (Into Mischief), recently crowned Eclipse champion female sprinter, also worked Monday at Santa Anita, covering four furlongs in an easy :50.20 (48/66). The 4-year-old was most recently seen winning the GI Breeders’ Cup F/M Sprint.
In other news from Santa Anita, the Arcadia track announced Monday that it has increased the purse of the China Doll S. to be run Mar. 6 from $75,000 to $100,000. Santa Anita will also raise purses on all overnight races on that day’s Big ‘Cap card by $15,000 per race.
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
This story was posted in Shared News, Top News and tagged Aqueduct Race Track, Bob Baffert, China Horse Club, Gotham Stakes, Life Is Good, San Felipe Stakes, Santa Anita, WinStar Farm.
อดีตนักขับ NASCAR แชมป์ NASCAR Xfinity Series และนักวิเคราะห์การแข่งรถ FOX ปัจจุบัน NASCAR Clint Bowyer กำลังเข้าร่วมแบรนด์ FOX Bet สำหรับฤดูกาล 2021 Clint Bowyer นักวิเคราะห์การแข่งขันของ FOX NASCAR ได้เข้าร่วมกับแบรนด์ FOX Bet สำหรับฤดูกาล 2021 Bowyer ซึ่งจะแสดงที่บูธ Dayton Speedweeks FOX NASCAR Cup Series ในสัปดาห์นี้ร่วมกับ Mike Joy ผู้ประกาศการแข่งขันในตำนานและ Nascar Hall of Fame Jeff Gordon แอพ FOX Bet สำหรับเงินจริงเช่นเดียวกับแอพ FOX Bet Super 6 ซึ่งเป็นแพลตฟอร์มฟรีทั่วประเทศ ในแต่ละสัปดาห์ของฤดูกาล NASCAR 2021 Bowyer นำเสนอการพนันกีฬาและข้อมูลเชิงลึกจากผู้เชี่ยวชาญเกี่ยวกับแบรนด์ FOX Bet และแพลตฟอร์มดิจิทัล “ ไม่ต้องสงสัยเลยว่าแฟน ๆ ของ NASCAR นั้นสอดคล้องกับสถิติการแข่งขันเรื่องราวและกระแสการแข่งขันในแต่ละสัปดาห์เหมือนกับแฟน ๆ ทุกคนในอเมริกา” Bowyer กล่าว “ทีมงานของ FOX Bet มีส่วนร่วมในความมุ่งมั่นของฉันในการค้นหาวิธีที่จะสนุกสนานสนุกสนานและท้ายที่สุดก็ปรับปรุงประสบการณ์การแข่งรถทุกสัปดาห์” FOX Bet Super 6 แอปฟรีที่ผู้ใช้คาดเดาได้หกครั้งว่าจะเกิดอะไรขึ้นกับพวกเขาในเกมการแข่งขันหรือการถ่ายทอดสดนำเสนอแคมเปญ“ Win Clint’s Money” สำหรับฤดูกาล NASCAR 2021 หลังจากจบฤดูกาลฟุตบอล Bowyer เข้าร่วมการแข่งขันจักรยาน FOX NFL SUNDAY ของ Terry Bradshaw และแคมเปญ Super 6“ Win Terry’s Money” ซึ่งผู้ใช้จะได้รับโอกาสในการแข่งขันในแอปเพื่อลุ้นรับเงินจริงทุกสัปดาห์ของฤดูกาล NFL การแข่งขัน“ Clint Money” ผ่านแอป Super 6 จะจัดขึ้นทุกสุดสัปดาห์ของการแข่ง NASCAR “คลินท์กำลังปรับปรุงประสบการณ์ของแฟน ๆ ในอากาศโดยเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของทีม NASCAR ของทีม FOX Sports เรารู้สึกตื่นเต้นที่จะแบ่งปันข้อมูลเชิงลึกและความนิยมทางออนไลน์กับผู้ใช้ Super 6” Andrew Schneider หัวหน้าบรรณาธิการของ FOX กล่าว เดิมพัน. “ในขณะที่ Super 6 ยังคงดึงดูดแฟน ๆ NASCAR มากขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ มันก็เหมาะสำหรับพวกเราแฟน ๆ และ Daytona ก็เป็นการเปิดตัวที่สมบูรณ์แบบ” เริ่มต้นด้วย Daytona 500 ซึ่งออกอากาศในวันอาทิตย์ที่ 14 กุมภาพันธ์ (14:30 น. ET) ทาง FOX แอป Super 6 ขอแนะนำ“ การประกวด Clint’s Stage 2” เป็นครั้งแรกในการแข่งขันผู้ใช้ตอบคำถาม 6 ข้อซึ่งเน้นไปที่กิจกรรมในช่วงที่ 2 ของการแข่งขัน Cup ในฤดูกาลนี้ด้วยเงินจริงและรางวัลการันตี เมื่อการประเมินเสร็จสิ้น FOX Bet Super 6 จะประกาศผู้มีผลงานที่ดีที่สุดในช่วงที่สาม (จนกว่าจะมีการตรวจสอบคุณสมบัติ) แบรนด์ FOX Bet นำเสนอประสบการณ์การรับชมกีฬาที่น่าตื่นเต้นซึ่งทำให้แฟน ๆ ใกล้ชิดกับเกมการแข่งขันและทีมที่พวกเขาชื่นชอบมากขึ้นโดยรวมเนื้อหาการพนันกีฬาที่มีการควบคุมไว้ในแอปของพวกเขาและบนหน้าจอทีวีโดยร่วมมือกับ FOX Sports นอกจากนี้แนวทางการเล่นกีฬาของ FOX Bet วิธีการเดิมพันแบบแรกและแบบที่สองเกี่ยวข้องกับการสังเกตการณ์พิเศษโดยนักวิจารณ์และนักวิเคราะห์กีฬาที่ได้รับการยกย่องมากที่สุดในประเทศรวมถึงแบรดชอว์ที่กล่าวถึงข้างต้นและเพื่อนร่วม Pro Football Hall of Famers Howie Long และ Shannon Sharpe ผู้มีส่วนร่วมเพิ่มเติมในแบรนด์ FOX Bet ได้แก่ โฮสต์ของ THE HERD, Colin Cowherd, FS1; FOX NFL KICKOFF เจ้าบ้านชาริสซาทอมป์สัน; FOX BET โฮสต์สด Rachel Bonnetta; และร็อบสโตนผู้นำ FOX Sports ตั้งแต่เดือนกันยายน 2019 แอป FOX Bet Super 6 ได้มอบรางวัลเกือบ 4 ล้านเหรียญสหรัฐให้กับผู้ชนะมากกว่า 22,000 คนทั่วประเทศและผู้ใช้ 4.4 ล้านคนที่มีรายการมากกว่า 90 ล้านรายการ นับตั้งแต่การกลับมาอีกครั้งของกีฬาในปลายเดือนกรกฎาคม 2020 FOX Bet Super 6 มีการดาวน์โหลดมากที่สุดในประเภทเกมการพนันกีฬาฟรี (รวมถึงแฟนตาซี) สำหรับการแข่งขัน Super Bowl LV Super 6 แอปที่มีมากกว่า 1.4 ล้านรายการมีผู้เข้าร่วมมากที่สุดสำหรับการแข่งขันแต่ละรายการจนถึงปัจจุบัน .
สล็อต คาสิโน ออนไลน์
คาสิโน ฟรีเครดิต 2020
เกม คาสิโน ปอยเปต…
Some places the study was featured.
The following is reposted from a 2015 piece I wrote for Bluff magazine. It was originally located at this URL but has become unavailable due to Bluff going out of business. I saw this study mentioned recently in Maria Konnikova’s book ‘The Biggest Bluff’ and was reminded about this piece and noticed it was offline, so I wanted to share it again. A few notes on this piece:
The original title below and was more negative-sounding than I liked; Bluff chose it. Also, if I could rewrite this piece now, I’d probably choose less negative-sounding phrasing in some places.
Regardless of the exact factors that might be at work in the found correlation, I realize it’s scientifically interesting that a significant correlation was found. But I also think it’s possible to draw simplistic and wrong conclusions from the study, and my piece hopefully gives more context about the factors that might be at work.
Image on left taken from Michael Slepian’s media page.
The Slepian Study on Betting Motions Doesn’t Pass Muster
A 2013 study¹ conducted at Stanford University by graduate student Michael Slepian and associates found a correlation between the “smoothness” of a betting motion and the strength of the bettor’s hand. In a nutshell, there was a positive correlation found between betting motions perceived as “smooth” and “confident” and strong hands. The quality of the betting motions was judged by having experiment participants watch short clips of players making bets (taken from the 2009 WSOP Main Event) and estimate the hand strength of those bets.
This experiment has gotten a lot of press over the last couple years. I first heard about it on NPR. Since, I’ve seen it referenced in poker blogs and articles and in a few mainstream news articles. I still occasionally hear people talk about it at the table when I play. I’ve had friends and family members reference it and send me links to it. It’s kind of weird how much attention it received, considering the tons of interesting studies that are constantly being done, but I guess it can be chalked up to the mystique and “sexiness” of poker tells.
The article had more than casual interest for me. I’m a former professional poker player and the author of two books on poker behavior: Reading Poker Tells and Verbal Poker Tells. I’ve been asked quite a few times about my opinion on this study, and I’ve been meaning to look at the study more closely and write up my thoughts for a while.
In this article, I’ll give some criticisms of the study and some suggestions for how this study (and similar studies) could be done better. This isn’t to denigrate the work of the experiment’s designers. I think this is an interesting study, and I hope it will encourage similar studies using poker as a means to study human behavior. But I do think it was flawed in a few ways, and it could be improved in many ways.
That’s not to say that I think their conclusion is wrong; in fact, in my own experience, I think their conclusion is correct. I do, however, think it’s a very weak general correlation and will only be practically useful if you have a player-specific behavioral baseline. My main point is that this study is not enough, on its own, to cause us to be confident about the conclusion.
I’ll give a few reasons for why I think the study is flawed, but the primary underlying reason is a common one for studies involving poker: the study’s organizers just don’t know enough about how poker works. I’ve read about several experiments involving poker where the organizers were very ignorant about some basic aspects of poker, and this affected the way the tests were set up and the conclusions that were reached (and this probably applies not just to poker-related studies but to many studies that involve an activity that requires a lot of experience to understand well).
Poker can seem deceptively simple to people first learning it, and even to people who have played it for decades. Many bad players lose money at poker while believing that they’re good, or even great players. In the same way, experiment designers may falsely believe they understand the factors involved in a poker hand, while being far off the mark.
Here are the flaws, as I see them, in this study:
1. The experimenters refer to all WSOP entrants as ‘professional poker players.’
This first mistake wouldn’t directly affect the experiment, but it does point to a basic misunderstanding of poker and the World Series of Poker, which might indirectly affect other aspects of the experiment and its conclusions.
Here are a couple examples of this from the study:
The World Series of Poker (WSOP), originating in 1970, brings together professional poker players every year (from the study’s supplemental materials)
These findings are notable because the players in the stimulus clips were highly expert professionals competing in the high-stakes WSOP tournament.
The WSOP Main Event is open to anyone and most entrants are far from being professional poker players. Categorizing someone’s poker skill can be difficult and subjective, but Kevin Mathers, a long-time poker industry worker, estimates that only 20% of WSOP Main Event entrants are professional (or professional-level) players.
This also weakens the conclusion that the results are impressive due to the players analyzed being professional-level. While the correlation found in this experiment is still interesting, it is somewhat expected that amateur players would have behavioral inconsistencies. I’d be confident in predicting that a similar study done on only video clips of bets made by professional poker players would not find such a clear correlation.
2. Hand strength is based on comparing players’ hands
This is a line from the study that explains their methodology for categorizing a player’s hand as ‘weak’ or ‘strong’:
Each player’s objective likelihood of winning during the bet was known (WSOP displays these statistics on-screen; however, we kept this information from participants by obscuring part of the screen).
They relied on the on-screen percentage graphics, which are displayed beside a player’s hand graphics in the broadcast. These graphics show the likelihood of a player’s hand winning; it does this by comparing it to the other players’ known hands. This makes it an illogical way to categorize whether a player believes he is betting a weak or strong hand.
If this isn’t clear, here’s a quick example to make my point:
A player has QQ and makes an all-in bet on a turn board of Q-10-10-8. Most people would say that this player has a strong hand and has every reason to believe he has a strong hand. But, if his opponent had 10-10, the player with Q-Q would have a 2.27% chance of winning with one card to come. According to this methodology, the player with the Q-Q would be judged as having a weak hand; if the test participants categorized that bet as representing a strong hand, they would be wrong.
It’s not stated in the study or the supplemental materials if the experimenters accounted for such obvious cases of how using the percentage graphics might skew the results. It’s also not stated how the experimenters would handle river (last-round) bets, when one hand has a 100 percent winning percentage and the losing hand has 0 percent (the only exception would be a tie).
It’s admittedly difficult to come up with hard-and-fast rules for categorizing hand strength for the purposes of such an experiment. As someone who has thought more than most about this problem, for the purpose of analyzing and categorizing poker tells, I know it’s a difficult task. But using the known percentages of one hand beating another known hand is clearly a flawed approach.
The optimal approach would probably be to come up with a system that pits a poker hand against a logical hand range, considering the situation, or even a random hand range, and uses that percentage-of-winning to rank the player’s hand strength. If this resulted in too much hand-strength ambiguity, the experiment designers could throw out all hands where the hand strength fell within a certain medium-strength range. Such an approach would make it more likely that only strong hand bets and weak hand bets were being used and, equally important for an experiment like this, that the player believed he or she was betting either a strong or weak hand.
3. Situational factors were not used to categorize betting motions
When considering poker-related behavior, situations are very important. A small continuation-bet on the flop is different in many ways from an all-in bet on the river. One way they are different: a small bet is unlikely to cause stress in the bettor, even if the bettor has a weak hand.
Also, a player making a bet on an early round has a chance for improving his hand; whereas a player betting on the river has no chance to improve his hand. When a player bets on the river, he will almost always know whether he is bluffing or value-betting; this is often not the case on earlier rounds, when hand strength is more ambiguous and undefined.
This experiment had no system for selecting the bets they chose for inclusion in the study. The usability of the clips was apparently based only on whether the clip meant certain visual needs of the experiment: i.e., did the footage show the entirety of the betting action and did it show the required amount of the bettor’s body?
From the study:
Research assistants, blind to experimental hypotheses, extracted each usable video in each installment, and in total extracted 22 videos (a standard number of stimuli for such studies; Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993) for Study 2 in the main text.
Study 1 videos required a single player be in the frame from the chest-up, allowing for whole-body, face-only, and arms-only videos to be created by cropping the videos. These videos were therefore more rare, and the research assistants only acquired 20 such videos.
The fact that clips were chosen only based on what they showed is not necessarily a problem. If a hand can be accurately categorized as strong or weak, then it doesn’t necessarily matter when during a hand it occurred. If there is a correlation between perceived betting motion quality and hand strength, then it will probably make itself known no matter the context of the bet.
Choosing bets only from specific situations would have made the experiment stronger and probably would have led to more definite conclusions. It could also help address the problem of categorizing hand strength. For example, if the experiment designers had only considered bets above a certain size that had occurred on the river (when all cards are out and there are no draws or semi-bluffs to be made), then that would result in polarized hand strengths (i.e., these bets would be very likely to be made with either strong or weak hands).
Also, the experiment’s method for picking clips sounds like it could theoretically result in all strong-hand bets being picked, or all weak-hand bets being picked. There is nothing in the experiment description that requires a certain amount of weak hands or strong hands. This is not in itself bad, but could affect the experiment in unforeseen ways.
For example, if most of the betting motion clips chosen were taken from players betting strong hands (which would not be surprising, as most significant bets, especially post-flop, are for value), then this could introduce some unforeseen bias into the experiment. One way this might happen: when a video clip shows only the betting motion (and not, for example, the bettor’s entire torso or just the face, as were shown to some study groups), this focus might emphasize the bet in the viewer’s mind and make the bet seem stronger. And if most of the hands-only betting clips were of strong-hand bets (and I have no idea how many were), the study participants watching only the hand-motion betting clips would falsely appear to be making good guesses.
My main point here is that thinking about the situational factors of a betting motion, and incorporating that into the experiment in some way, would have resulted in less ambiguity about the results. (It appears that it was difficult to find usable clips from a single WSOP event; in that case, the experimenters could just add footage from another WSOP Main Event to the study.)
4. The number of chips bet was not taken into account
The experiment designers did not take into account the chips that were bet. In their words:
During betting, each player pushes poker chips into the center of the table. Each chip has a specific color, which indicates a specific value. These values range from $25 to $100,000. This range of chip values has a crucial consequence for the current work. The number of chips does not correlate with the quality of the hand (see Table 1A in the main text). Players could move a stack of 20 chips into the center of the table, and this could be worth $500 or $2,000,000 (the winner of the 2009 WSOP won $8,547,042, thus the latter bet magnitude is a bet that can be made in the WSOP). Because no participants were professional poker players, nor considered themselves poker experts, they were not aware of chip values. They could not, then, use the number of chips as a valid cue to judge poker hand quality.
It’s true that your average person would not know what the chip colors at the WSOP Main Event mean. But it seems naïve to think that seeing the chips being bet couldn’t possibly have an effect on the experiment.
For one thing, the number of chips being bet could bias a participant to think a bet was stronger or weaker, whether correctly or incorrectly. What if all the strong-hand bets in the study were also bets that involved a lot of chips? (This is not implausible because smaller bets with weak hands are common early in a hand, when bets are small, whereas larger bets later in the hand are more likely to represent strong hands.) And what if some of the study participants were able to deduce (consciously or unconsciously) the strength of the bet from the number of chips?
Also, it’s possible that some of the test participants were knowledgeable (consciously or not) about some WSOP chip colors and what their denominations were. Or they were able to deduce (consciously or not), from the arrangement and number of chips, what the chip values were. (For example, large denomination chips are generally required to be kept at the front of a player’s stack.)
Again, this could have been addressed by selecting bets taken only from specific situations and only of certain bet sizes. If all bets chosen were above a certain bet size, and this was communicated to the study participants, then this would have lessened the impact of the chips being able to be seen.
5. Quality of “smoothness” was subjective
The experiment was based on the perceptions of study participants watching the assembled video clips. It was not based on objective measurements of what constitutes “smoothness” of a betting motion. This was a known issue in the experiment:
Thus, both player confidence and smoothness judgments significantly predicted likelihoods of winning, which suggests that movement smoothness might be a valid cue for assessing poker hand quality. It is unknown, however, how participants interpreted “smoothness” or whether the players’ movements that participants rated as smooth were truly smoother than other players’ movements. Other physical factors, such as speed, likely played a role.
This is not a major criticism; I think using perception is a fine way to find a correlation, especially for a preliminary study. But I think it does mean that we have no reason to be confident in the idea that smoothness of betting motion is correlated with hand strength. If there is are correlations between betting motion and hand strength (which I believe there are), these could be due to other aspects of arm motion or hand motion, such as: the betting speed, the position of the hands, the height of the hand, or other, more obscure, factors.
Again, I don’t mean to denigrate the experiment designers and the work they’ve done. I think this was an interesting experiment, and I think it’s probable the correlation they noticed exists (however weak the correlation may be).
Also, as someone who is very interested in poker behavior, I’d love to see similar studies be done. My main goal in writing these criticisms and suggestions was to emphasize that poker is complex, as is poker behavior. There are many behavioral factors in a seemingly simple hand of poker and taking these factors into account can make an experiment stronger and the results more conclusive.
Patricia Cardner, PhD, EdD, is a poker player and the author of Positive Poker, a book about the psychological characteristics of professional poker players. She had this to say about poker’s use in scientific studies:
“While researchers often have the best of intentions, it is difficult for them to fully understand the nuances of poker. Researchers who reach out to poker players for help can make more informed decisions about the research areas they choose to pursue, increase reliability and validity, and improve the overall quality of their results and conclusions.”
¹: Slepian, M.L., Young, S.G., Rutchick, A.M. & Ambady, N. Quality of Professional Players’ Poker Hands Is Perceived Accurately From Arm Motions. Psychological Science (2013) 24(11) 2335–2338.