Intelitics, the leading performance marketing and analytics platform provider, has been granted a licence by the Colorado Division of Gaming allowing it to work with licensed sportsbook operators in the state for the first time.Intelitics already holds licences in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, with Colorado the third with more to follow in the coming months.Intelitics provides online sportsbook and casino operators with a single platform that allows them to track, analyze and grow all acquisition partnerships and campaigns across web and mobile through access to real-time data which in turn allows them to unlock hidden revenue and boost ROI.Intelitics’ real-time data hub keeps media buyers, analysts and executives on the same page about spend and results. Operators can use one set of metrics to “slice and dice” media performance to discover what activity is delivering the best results.Powerful, streamlined reports provide full visibility into cross-channel interaction and the customer journey. A holistic view of costs v player value means operators can easily determine the most valuable media sources which improves revenue allocation modelling and inform media investment.CasinoAffiliatePrograms, the premier standalone iGaming specific Ad Network, which is powered and run by the Intelitics team, has delivered more than $70m in net game revenue through 150,000+ new depositing customers.Armed with its Colorado licence, Intelitics is now looking to work with licensed online sportsbook operators in the state in order to help them unlock the greatest value from their marketing activity.Allan Stone, CEO at Intelitics, said: “We are delighted to have secured a licence from the Colorado Division of Gaming allowing us to work with licensed sportsbook operators in the state for the very first time.”“As legal online sports betting continues to roll out across the US, there is a tremendous first mover advantage to be had but operators must ensure they are acquiring players at the right cost and through channels that deliver true value.”“Our cutting-edge platform provides the real-time data, insight and reporting that operators need to do just that across all of the channels they use to market to players. We look forward to working with sportsbooks licensed in the state of Colorado.”
Let me give you some valuable background info first: I live at home with my Dad & my girlfriend (she’s between houses). They’re both my best friends. I am currently going through a chronic pain type disorder that appeared in both wrists & forearms since July 2020. In & out of appointments/checks every fortnight. I am unable to do much in my day, it hurts to do normal things in my day – so I am unable to work or study anymore. Painkillers are not helping. Thursday was the day, the day I basically lost my entire life savings. Since then, I’ve been using every single dollar I can get my hands on to recover this loss & I’m sure you know where I’m at now. $8 in debt & unemployed with no income. But how did I get here? I got caught gambling when I was 17/18, lost all my money then too but it was less than $1000 (my Dad was the only one who knew). Since then, I vowed to never gamble again & I didn’t until 2 weeks ago. My Dad & I were watching the cricket & he placed a $100 multi (he rarely gambles) & won $450. We both thought this was great so I put in $50 myself for the next game. I ended up losing $25 & won it back in the darts later on. I then decided to move on & not do any more as my girlfriend of 2 years (the one I’ll marry) did not approve of me gambling again. So I stopped – until my Dad persuaded me to lie & just gamble anyway behind her back. It was innocent losses, $5-$10 here & there for the next 2 weeks. It wasn’t until last week, the day after my girlfriend’s birthday, that everything went downhill. She had to work Wed & Thu which left me to be alone for 2 days. I was very down in the dumps & just felt like I had all this money & didn’t use it (which is the stupidest thing ever, I know). So I started gambling on the races. With high $1000 bets & spent hours & hours, got up $10k then back down to $5k before I bet my whole bank to get back where I started at $15k. I stopped, went in my room & realised what I did, I almost lost my ENTIRE bank. Did I stop there? Nope, you guessed it. Eventually, one thing led to another & now I’m $15k down & $9 in debt. I confessed everything to my girlfriend & Dad on Thursday. Which they were both very supportive. I had $2000 in my bank then & said I’d stop. But I didn’t, Iost $1500 yesterday & $500 today. So yes in $9 debt. Although I do not have an addiction (oddly enough I studied psychology for 2 years before this chronic pain stopped me), I have definitely fallen into the trap of gambling once again & I only risked losing my last $2000 to not win the money back, but rather I looked at it as an outlet to make money so I can provide my girlfriend & I with a future. But this was such a bad mindset to approach everything. $9 in debt. I am stopping here. I vow to, right here, right now. I have not told my girlfriend or Dad about the last $2000, but I think I will hang onto this one for now as I can make that back in selling some of my collectables that have been collecting profit over the years. So thank god for that at least. Additionally, I may receive a pension for my condition so if that’s approved, must lock my money away. I had to get all this out & it has put me in an awful lot of PHYSICAL pain to even write this due to my chronic pain condition. I don’t expect anyone to read this all as this is rather for me. Thank you. C. submitted by /u/codesfrost [comments]
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์…
09 1111 February Online Sports Book หลังจากที่สถานี Bovada ทราบว่าผู้ประกาศข่าวเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของทีมจะไม่จ่ายเงินให้กับผู้ชนะรายใหญ่หากโจรขัดจังหวะการแข่งขัน Super Bowl LV ระหว่างหัวหน้าแคนซัสซิตี้และแทมปาเบย์ไฮเวย์ เขาได้เดิมพันครั้งใหญ่กับเหตุการณ์ดังกล่าวในระหว่างเกม Yuri Andrad ชายชาวฟลอริดาวัย 31 ปีสวมกางเกงเลกกิ้งสีชมพูและกางเกงขาสั้นสีดำเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของทีม 50,000 ดอลลาร์ต่อสัปดาห์ที่รายการทอล์คโชว์ฟลอริดา 94.1 Andrad บอกผู้ชมว่าทีมของเขาถูกจับในข้อหา +750 และจะส่งผลให้ถูกปรับอย่างสูง อย่างไรก็ตาม Buvda ตระหนักได้อย่างรวดเร็วว่าเป็นแพลตฟอร์มการเดิมพันแบบเกรย์มาร์เก็ตที่ให้บริการหลายรัฐในสหรัฐอเมริกา ไซต์ดังกล่าวทราบแล้วว่ามี“ กิจกรรมที่น่าสงสัย” ในสายการโฆษณาชวนเชื่อซึ่งอาจมีมูลค่าสูงถึง 50,000 ดอลลาร์ ด้วยเหตุนี้ Bovada จึงได้ประกาศการคืนเงินสำหรับนักมวยปล้ำทุกคนที่ “ไม่” และจะตรวจสอบความถูกต้องตามกฎหมายของการเดิมพันทั้งหมดที่ “ใช่” ก่อนที่จะประกาศอย่างเป็นทางการ แต่ถึงแม้ว่าการแสดงจะไม่ได้สร้างประโยชน์ให้กับ Bovada แต่ก็เป็นประโยชน์ต่อสาธารณะ เว็บไซต์ยินดีที่จะรับเงินจำนวนเล็กน้อย สายงานของ Bovada มีความโดดเด่นในโลกการพนันกีฬาของอเมริกาด้วยการถ่ายทอดสดและสิ่งพิมพ์สดและออนไลน์และด้วยเหตุนี้สถานีจึงอยู่ภายใต้แรงกดดันที่เพิ่มขึ้นจากตลาดที่ได้รับใบอนุญาตและการควบคุมในสหรัฐอเมริกามากขึ้น อย่างน้อยที่สุดสิ่งนี้อาจกระตุ้นให้ Bovada พิจารณารูปแบบการส่งเสริมการขายอีกครั้งซึ่งมีศักยภาพที่จะขัดขวางการแข่งขันตามธรรมชาติที่สำคัญ “ ผู้เล่นของเราให้ความไว้วางใจเราเสมอมาเพื่อรับรองความสมบูรณ์ของการสนับสนุนทั้งหมดที่มีให้ในหนังสือกีฬาของเรา Bovada อธิบาย เราจะดำเนินต่อไปเพื่อให้แน่ใจว่าความโน้มเอียงในที่สาธารณะหรือเจตนาร้ายจะไม่ส่งผลเสียต่อผลลัพธ์ของการเดิมพันของผู้เล่น นี่ไม่ใช่ครั้งแรกที่การพนันออนไลน์ล่มสลายในประวัติศาสตร์ เกือบ 20 ปีที่แล้วเว็บไซต์คาสิโนออนไลน์ GoldenPalace.com โฆษณากิจกรรมที่น่าตื่นตาตื่นใจทุกประเภท ในปี 2004 เขาได้ร่วมสนับสนุนซีรีส์ Super Bowl XXXVIII ซึ่งรวมถึงยาเสพติดของมาร์คโรเบิร์ตส์ ซึ่งเป็นแคมเปญการตลาดที่น่าทึ่งเพียงไม่กี่แคมเปญ คุณชอบบทความนี้หรือไม่?
สำหรับผู้ที่สับสนในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์แขนคู่ขนานของรัสเซีย bwin Russia ได้ปิดตัวลงในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์ซึ่งเป็นสถานการณ์ที่ดูเหมือนจะถาวร ขณะพยายามเข้าสู่ระบบลูกค้า bwin.ru เห็นข้อความ:“ ขออภัยเว็บไซต์ของเราไม่สามารถใช้งานได้ในขณะนี้เนื่องจากการบำรุงรักษาระบบ ขอบคุณสำหรับความเข้าใจ. แต่จริงๆแล้วนั่นฟังดูเหมือนปัญหาโลกแตก ไม่มีการบำรุงรักษาระบบเพื่อดาวน์โหลดไซต์ ไม่มีใครจาก บริษัท ตอบคำถามเกี่ยวกับสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในช่วงสุดสัปดาห์ อย่างไรก็ตามในวันจันทร์ Bwin ยืนยันว่าในที่สุดพวกเขาก็เกิดขึ้นโดยอ้าง “ข้อเท็จจริงที่เปลี่ยนแปลงอย่างรวดเร็วและมาตรการทางกฎหมายใหม่” ยินดีต้อนรับสู่บัญชีลูกค้า Parimatch คุณจะถูกโอนไปยัง Parimatch.ru ดังนั้นเงินของคุณจะต้องปลอดภัย ไม่มีใครรู้เรื่องนี้ แต่ a) Bwin ได้ทำข้อตกลงกับ Parimacht แล้วในการโอนบัญชีของเขาและ b) bwin นั้นถูกกฎหมายและเป็นเจ้าของซึ่งเป็นหนึ่งใน บริษัท ที่ใหญ่ที่สุดในโลกการพนันออนไลน์ซึ่งน่าจะดี ลูกค้าเดิมสองรายจะไม่สามารถกลับเข้าเกมได้ทันที Parimatch มีเป้าหมายที่จะทำกิจกรรมในบัญชีทั้งหมดให้เสร็จสิ้นในสิ้นเดือนนี้ แน่นอนว่าสิ่งต่างๆสามารถเกิดขึ้นได้อย่างรวดเร็ว ลูกค้าที่ตัดสินใจยึดติดกับกระดาษจะได้รับ “โบนัสพิเศษ” Ruslan Medvede ซีอีโอของ Parimch Russia ดูเหมือนจะมีปัญหากับ bwin.ru (ฉันคิดว่า – ฉันหวังว่าการตีความของฉันจะถูกต้อง): เขาสัญญาว่าจะทำให้ลูกค้า“ ไม่เจ็บปวดเท่าที่จะทำได้” ห้างหุ้นส่วนไม่ดี Bwin.ru เปิดตัวในเดือนพฤศจิกายน 2560 โดยเป็นการร่วมทุนระหว่าง บริษัท แม่ของ Bewin Enten (จากนั้นก็คือ GV Houndings) และ LLC การพนันดิจิทัลในรัสเซีย ไม่ถึงสองปีต่อมา ในเดือนพฤษภาคม 2019 Dmitry Sergeyev ลาออกจากตำแหน่งผู้จัดการทั่วไปของ bwin.ru และเริ่มทำงานในหน่วยธุรกิจของ Parimat Russia จากนั้นในเดือนกุมภาพันธ์ปีที่แล้ว bwin.ru ได้ขายเสื้อผ้านอกไซปรัสให้กับ Nirvian Holdings Limited ภายใต้เงื่อนไขของการเปิดตัว Bwin.ru GVV คาดว่าจะเป็นเจ้าภาพในการสิ้นสุดของเทคโนโลยีนี้และการเดิมพันดิจิทัลเป็นผู้รับผิดชอบด้านการตลาดและการออกใบอนุญาต หนึ่งในสองปัญหาที่สำคัญในรัสเซียคือการขาดเงินทุนสำหรับข้อตกลงตาม Digger Betting
The iGaming and 32Red Casino industry veteran Mark Quayle who is currently Kindred’s Head of UK Operations, is set to join BGO Entertainment as their new Chief Executive Officer in Gibraltar from 1st March.Quayle who joined 32Red when Liverpool based Betdirect were acquired by 32Red plc back in 2003 had been heading up Kindred’s UK Operations, since 32Red plc were bought by the Swedish operator for £176m in 2016.In a Press Release issued earlier this afternoon from BGO who were established in 2012, it was confirmed that Quayle had been appointed the iGaming operator’s CEO, a position that he will start at from 1st March 2021.Alex Holt, co-founder of BGO said: “It’s great to have Mark on board and we’re looking forward to working with him as we take the business to the next level.”“Mark was an integral and valued part of the management team who successfully grew the 32Red brand and we’re confident his experience with such a large casino operator will be a huge asset to BGO.”Quayle adding to Holt’s comments, stated: “It’s with heavy heart that I leave 32Red after so many wonderful years, but the time was right for a new challenge and this is a hugely exciting opportunity.”“I can’t wait to start this new chapter in my career. BGO is a successful brand with a great team and, importantly, huge untapped potential.”“There are busy times ahead for us all, but our first step is to set up an office in Gibraltar and strengthen the workforce from the plentiful supply of outstanding local gaming talent as we grow the business.”
แพ็กเกจอยู่ในกระเป๋าสำหรับเที่ยวบิน 1 วันในงานปาร์ตี้และมินิอีเวนต์ MILLION ซึ่งรับประกันด้วยเงิน 1 ล้านเหรียญสหรัฐมีผู้เล่นเพียง 169 คนที่เหลือสำหรับกิจกรรมหลัก วันเปิดงาน 28 อีเวนต์ในเทศกาลออนไลน์นับล้านที่งานปาร์ตี้วันที่ 1a และ! B. จัดขึ้นในวันหยุดสุดสัปดาห์ ในตอนท้ายของสองวันนั้นชื่อใหญ่ 1 ชื่อถูกรวบรวมไว้ที่ด้านบนสุดของกระดาน มินิอีเวนต์ออนไลน์หลายล้านรายการจะลดลง 1,127 รายการเหลือเพียง 15% ในสนามโดยมีผู้เล่น 2 คนในแต่ละวันในราคาต่ำกว่า $ 2,1010 เซบาสเตียนนักเตะชาวโคลอมเบียติดตามที่สนามหลังบินทุก 1 วัน Heno ซึ่งมีชิปมากกว่า 27 ล้านชิปเป็นสองเท่าของสร้อยข้อมือ WSOP สองครั้ง Elio Fox (25.4 ล้านดอลลาร์) และ 23 ล้านดอลลาร์ที่เขารวบรวมได้ใน Luciano Holland เบื้องหลังผู้เล่นเหล่านี้คือชื่อที่ยิ่งใหญ่ที่สุดในการแข่งขันเพื่อชิงรางวัลสูงสุด จากทั้งหมด 184.5 ดอลลาร์, Patrick Blaine (22,663,403), Thomas Bowen (18,388,054), Joseph Cheng (17,118,762), William Kasuf (16,075,000), Espen Jorstad (13,730,257) และ Dominique Nitche (12,803) และ Domik Nitche (12,12.) . ดอลลาร์ออกมาหนึ่งชื่อจริง ๆ แล้วโจเฉิง หากคุณคิดว่าโจเซฟเฉิงเป็นนักมวยที่โชคดีลองดูตอนนี้ของ World Series of Poker 2010 เพื่อเคลียร์ตัวเอง ไม่ใช่เรื่องยากสำหรับเฉิงเสมอไปไม่เพียง แต่สำหรับความสามารถของเขาเท่านั้น แต่ยังรวมถึงรากเหง้าของเขาด้วย บุคลิกภาพก็เช่นกัน สิ่งที่ตรงกันข้ามอาจเป็นความจริงในชีวิตของอดีตแชมป์ WSOP อย่าง Mimi Will Kassouff ผู้ซึ่ง “ผูกพันธ์ตั้งแต่อายุ 9 ขวบ” กับ “Palm Casino Chips” ในฐานะเจ้านายหลังจากหลายปีในช่วงฤดูร้อนที่เวกัสที่ไม่รู้จัก เมื่ออนุญาตให้กลับเข้ามาใหม่ในวันที่ 1 ผู้เล่นหลายคนใช้สิ่งอำนวยความสะดวกนั้นและเปลี่ยนไปมากเมื่อพูดถึงการเล่นเกมกับทุกคนด้วยเงินในวันที่ 2 Blind Stages เพิ่มขึ้นจาก 25 นาทีเป็น 30 นาทีในวันที่ 2 จากเดิม 3 ถึง 40 นาทีต่อวันดังนั้นยังเหลือเกมอีกมากในการแข่งขัน วันที่ 2 มองเห็นเพียง 10 ขั้นตอนตาบอดที่ห่อหุ้มด้วยโป๊กเกอร์ห้าชั่วโมง 3 วันที่แล้วผู้ชนะจะได้รับชัยชนะในวันพุธที่ 17 ก่อนที่สนามจะลดลงเหลือเก้าคนสุดท้าย มีสวนสาธารณะมากมายให้เล่นก่อนหน้านี้และละครพิเศษทั้งหมดก็สนุก เราจะกลับมาในวันพรุ่งนี้เพื่อบอกคุณอย่างชัดเจนว่าวันที่ 2 เป็นอย่างไรและผู้เล่นคนใดจะอยู่รอดได้อีกวัน เทศกาลออนไลน์หลายล้านงานเต็มไปหมดและมินิอีเวนต์นี้จะทำให้เกิดดราม่ามากมายเกี่ยวกับการเดินทางที่น่าตื่นตาตื่นใจ ล้าน .partypoker ของวันที่ 2 Top 10 เริ่มต้นเหตุการณ์อะไรที่สำคัญของ Chipcounts: PositionPlayerCountryChipsBig Blinds1stSebastian HenaoColombia27,039,0491932ndElio FoxUnited Kingdom25,419,2601823rdLuciano HollandaBrazil23,000,7301644thPatrick ชาร์ลส์ BlyeCanada22,663,4031625thNikolai PenkinRussia18,426,9011326thThomas BoivinBelgium18,388,0541317thVitezslav CechCzech Republic18, 020,3701298th Daria Cran hen Nikova Russia 17,750,3481279thTmasmas Macdonald United Nations 17,618,32212610th Joseph Cheng USAA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.
In the nearly two decades since poker experienced a boom thanks to Chris Moneymaker’s historic World Series of Poker main event victory in 2003, the strategy surrounding the game has evolved at a pace never before seen. With online poker, the game’s best players were able to see more hands quickly and develop more complex strategies to win. Bet sizing, aggression levels, and even something as basic as preflop hand selection has changed drastically since the game went mainstream.
Chicago native and Southern California resident Ping Liu has been playing long enough to see most of these changes. With his first significant cash as a pro coming back in 2011 and experience playing online before that, Liu emerged as a true force in 2018 as a contender for the World Poker Tour Player of the Year title. Not only did he finish fourth in the Five Diamond World Poker Classic for $599,147, but he also took fourth in the Rolling Thunder main event for another $97,510, and fifth in the bestbet Bounty Scramble for another $73,734.
Last year, Liu picked up a win at the LA Poker Classic, while also final tabling the $10,000 super turbo bounty event at the WSOP and finishing third in the WSOP Circuit Planet Hollywood main event. He now has $2.1 million in career tournament earnings, and is currently accepting students for poker coaching and can found on Twitter @PingDotCom.
Liu sat down with Card Player to break down a couple hands from the 2007 WPT Borgata Poker Open main event final table, which featured Mike Matusow, Eugene Todd, Mark Weitzman, Haralabos Voulgaris, and eventual winner Roy Winston.
The Action: Roy Winston raised to 230,000 on the button and Mark Weitzman called out of the big blind. On the flop, Weitzman led out for 400,000 and Winston raised to 1,400,000. Weitzman folded.
Steve Schult: Before we even get into the hand itself, the first thing I noticed is the ante size. The blinds are 40,000-80,000, but the ante is just 5,000, meaning there is 30,000 in the middle in antes at the six-handed final table. Nearly all poker tournaments now use the big blind ante, which would put 80,000 in antes in the middle. So how should the ante size dictate your preflop hand selection?
Ping Liu: It’s pretty simple, intuitively, that if there is less dead money in the pot preflop, then you have less to win by raising and trying to steal the blinds. Therefore, you are less incentivized to voluntarily put money in the pot, and because of that, you will be opening slightly tighter ranges.
SS: Should it affect how large or small you raise? In this hand, Winston raises on the button to 230,000 and nowadays you would see something between 160,000 and 200,000 in this spot.
PL: If there is less money in the middle, your raise size should go down as well. If there is less in the middle, and you’re still raising three times the blind, you’re risking more to win less. So, it’s kind of similar preflop where you can just think of what you’re raising by a percentage of the pot.
Let’s say you were in a cash game and the blinds were $1-$2 and you’re raising 2.5 big blinds to $5. That is 62.5% of the pot. And obviously with more dead money in the middle, 60% of the pot gets bigger and bigger effectively. The bigger the antes, the more you should be raising preflop, because you stand to win more if you take the blinds down right away.
That being said, back in the day, people really did raise close to 3x as the standard and I’m not really sure why that was. And I think over the years, preflop raise sizes just started getting smaller and smaller all the way down to just a min-raise, which I think started happening around 2014.
SS: Winston raises to 230,000 and Mark Weitzman calls out of the big blind. Weitzman started the hand with 1.75 million, or about 23 big blinds. I remember a mantra from this time period with regard to stack sizes which generally said that with around 10 big blinds you should be open-shoving and with about 20, you should find spots to just three-bet shove your stack. Should Weitzman have much of a flatting range?
PL: The first thing is that you’re right that 13 years ago, people usually played 20-big blind stacks a lot more like you described. They would just shove over an open. But over the years, [we have realized] there is still a lot more play anywhere between 10- and 20-big blind stacks. You can flat and take your hand post-flop.
But that is also a function of what we were talking about before. If someone is min-raising, and you have 20 big blinds in the big blind, you can still defend and have a decent amount of playability. But when people are opening to 3x, and now you have to call two additional big blinds instead of one, it does make a big difference.
Once they start tripling the blind, your risk/reward for just shoving becomes a lot better. If they fold pre to your jam, you’re going to win another big blind plus what’s in the middle. I think there has been more play post-flop recently at the shorter stack sizes, but that’s also a function of the raise sizes preflop going down.
SS: Weitzman calls and the flop comes jack-high with two clubs. He then donk-bets (betting from out of position into the aggressor) for 400,000. Can you explain the rationale of why you would want to donk-bet?
PL: The rationale behind donk-betting is that you connected with that particular flop stronger than your opponent did. You’re saying that you have the range advantage on that board. Usually, if someone is the preflop raiser, you are going to have the strongest hands in your range. You’ll have A-A, K-K, Q-Q, A-K. And if you just flat the raise preflop, then those hands aren’t going to be present in your range because you most likely would’ve put in a three-bet.
So very often, the player who defends from the big blind, won’t have a big hand. Because the top of their range isn’t going to be present. There are certain, pretty specific board textures, where the big blind theoretically could have a range advantage, but those are going to be on the lower board textures.
Something like 4-5-6 with a flush draw. That’s a board where it is more theoretically optimal to construct a donk-leading range out of the big blind, because you’ll have a lot more of the 4-5’s, the 4-6’s, the 5-6’s, and also more straight combos than the button. The button probably isn’t raising 4-6 offsuit, but from the big blind, you could defend it.
In terms of what I actually think he’s doing here, I would guess that he just has a hand that he is looking to go with at this point. He’s just trying to protect it and take the pot down right away.
SS: How have you seen the donk-bet strategy change throughout the years? Is there more or less of it now than when you started posting results a decade ago?
PL: I do think the amount of donk-betting has gone down over the years quite substantially. Most moderately studied players know that when you defend out of the big blind, the most common play is to check to the preflop raiser and then react accordingly.
That’s something that all the solvers have proven. Checking your range is going to be the best play. Back then in the pre-solver era, people didn’t understand how ranges interacted and they just started donking on boards where they shouldn’t have a leading range on it.
The main problem with doing that is it turns your hand face up. Let’s say you’re playing with a relatively weak player and they donk on this board and you have nothing, so you just fold. Then the next time you play a hand with them and you get a similar board texture, and now they check. Because you know they have a donking range and they put their strong hands in it, their checking range becomes unprotected. Every time they check, you can just c-bet (continuation bet) everything and expect to get a lot of folds because their range will be significantly weaker.
SS: Weitzman had 14 big blinds behind, and there was another player with about 18 big blinds. Is this a good spot for Winston to apply ICM (Independent Chip Model) pressure or does he usually have a hand here?
PL: I think he has to have some equity. He can’t just do it with air because I think the big blind is showing a significant amount of strength by donking so big on this board without much behind. He shouldn’t expect him to lead this big and fold. More likely than not, he’s got a strong top pair.
The Action: The action folded to Haralbos Voulgaris, who completed the small blind. Weitzman checked his option from the big blind. Both players checked the flop and Voulgaris bet 155,000 on the turn. Weitzman called. Both players checked the river and Weitzman won the pot at showdown.
SS: Action folds to Haralabos in the small blind, who completes. Open limping is still somewhat prevalent in today’s game, but what were the types of hands you would generally see people limp with?
PL: Open limping is definitely part of a pretty viable preflop strategy, even in 2020. And you’re going to see it a lot more once you get to a sub-20 big blind stack depth. You can have some open limps from the cutoff with like 15 big blinds or so. And the same thing for the button.
But specifically, in this spot, blind vs. blind, the optimal strategy does include a lot of limps from the small blind. Especially with an ante in the pot, the small blind is getting such a good immediate price to complete, they really are going to be incentivized to play a lot of their hands. And because their ranges are going to be so wide, often times, the small blind will often play a limp-only strategy and then respond accordingly if the big blind does choose to raise.
SS: Weitzman checks his option and the flop is A-K-J with two hearts. Both players check and the 9 comes on the turn. Voulgaris decides to take a pot-sized stab with his deuces. I remember a limp-stab strategy being implemented in these spots. Is this just a delayed limp-stab?
PL: With deuces, nowadays, the standard play preflop would be just to shove when the big blind has 20 big blinds and you cover him. The low pocket pairs don’t play particularly well post-flop, especially against the big blind.
As played, most players would take a stab right away with deuces on the flop. On an A-K-J board texture, when the big blind checks back, he is going to be really capped and not have any of the strong hands in his range. Those are the hands he would’ve raised or shoved preflop.
It’s unlikely that the big blind has an ace in his hand, whereas the small blind can still have some of the stronger hands in his range that was going for a limp-raise. It’s a better board texture for the small blind, so I think the better play would be to stab the flop. Even just for one big blind would be fine. If the big blind has two unders, they aren’t going to continue regardless of what size he chooses.
When we get to the turn, he’s probably thinking the same thing. The big blind probably doesn’t have that much, and he’s just going to bet his hand and deny some equity. I think the pot-sizing is not super effective. What he’s trying to get him to do is get him to fold an air hand, win the pot right away, and protect his low pair. But since the pot is slightly more than two big blinds, then all he needs to do is bet the minimum.
The big blind will fold something like 7-5 offsuit, or whatever rags he has. And if the big blind does have a pair, he won’t fold regardless of whether Haralabos bet one big blind or full pot.
SS: I know you’re speculating here, but do you think Haralabos was planning to limp-shove on Weitzman preflop?
PL: I think it should just be a shove every time, so I’m not sure. From the small blind, there is a lot more limping, but the deeper you are, with more antes in the middle, the more you should play a limp-only strategy because you’re going to be playing out of position and deep-stacked.
The shorter and shorter you get, the more open raising or open shoving you are going to see. At the 20-big blind stack depth, there is a significant portion of your range that is going to want to open shove preflop, and the most prevalent part of that range is going to be the small pocket pairs and low, offsuit aces that don’t play well post-flop. And even some low suited aces could shove preflop. You could shove some suited connectors for balance. He will have some limping in his range and will have raise-calls in his range and some raise-folds. The shallower you get, the more options you want to have from the small blind.
SS: Weitzman actually had Q-J offsuit. Should he be raising? What do you think about his option check preflop?
PL: Did you say he was the shortest stack at this point?
SS: At this point, he is the second-shortest stack. There was one player at the table who had about seven big blinds.
PL: Given that there is a significant amount of ICM consideration because he’s going to get a pretty big pay jump if he just folds and lets the other guy bust, that would make me want to check back his hand a little bit more often.
He could just shove over the limp. And if he knows that Haralabos is going to limp something like 2-2, then I really like shoving as well, because you’re probably going to get him to fold some stuff that he shouldn’t. I think his two options are either to check back or shove.
I don’t think raising is a good strategy because I think there is a portion of Haralabos’ range that will be limp-shoving, and I think 2-2 would be part of that range. You don’t want to raise something like 3x and then face a shove.
SS: Weitzman called the turn bet and both players checked the river.
PL: I think the river action is pretty standard at this point, but it just sort of goes back to what I said about the turn. Haralabos didn’t need to bet so big on the turn because he would’ve accomplished what he was trying to with a one big blind bet. When he does bet turn and check river, it does seem like his plan was to just take the pot down right away. Weitzman played his hand totally fine.
The Result: Weitzman finished fourth, taking home a payday worth $380,240. Voulgaris was able to outlast him by one spot, earning $434,560 for third place. It was also just one spot shy of Voulgaris’ career best, when he finished runner up in the 2005 WPT LA Poker Classic main event.
Winston went on to win the tournament and secure the $1,575,280 first-place prize. The doctor-turned-poker-enthusiast made a deep run in that year’s WSOP main event, finishing 26th for $333,490, and also won a preliminary event at the Five Diamond World Poker Classic for another $230,365, but mostly abandoned the tournament circuit after 2010. ♠
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.
February 15, 2021
The 2021 partypoker MILLIONS Online kicked off its 28-event schedule over the weekend with the Millions Online #01 Mini Main Event completing both its opening flights on Saturday and Sunday.
The event features a $1 million guaranteed prize pool (which was smashed) for a $1,100 buy-in.
Read on to learn more about the Mini Main Event and what else is happening now in the MILLIONS Online at partypoker.
Head to the NEW partypoker HubWant to stay up-to-date on all the latest partypoker news right here on PokerNews? Why not try out the new partypoker Hub!
Sebastian Camilo Toro Henao Leads Mini Main Event
The $1,100 Mini Main Event crushed its $1 million guarantee with 1,127 entrants to generate a tasty $1,127,000 prize pool. Each of the opening flights played down to just 15 percent of the field leaving just 169 players heading into today’s Day 2.
Each of the opening flights allowed for 1 re-entry during the first nine levels. Players were given plenty of time to build a stack with long 25-minute blind levels.
Sebastian Camilo Toro Henao will head into Day 2 with the chip lead after he parlayed his opening stack of 1 million in chips in Saturday’s Day 1a into a massive stack of 27,039,049 in chips.
Two-time WSOP champion Elio Fox (25,419,260) is the closest player on Henao’s tail after virtually bagging the biggest stack on Sunday’s Day 1b. Luciano Hollanda (23,000,730) and Patrick Blye (22,663,403) were the only two other players to end an opening flight over the weekend with at least 20 million in chips.
Other players heading into Day 2 near the top of the leaderboard include Thomas Boivin (18,388,054), Joseph Cheong (17,118,762), William Kassouf (16,075,000), Espen Uhlen Jorstad (13,730,257), and Dominik Nitsche (12,483,080).
Thomas Boivin bags a big stack into Day 2 of the partypoker MILLIONS Online Mini Main Event
Top Ten Stacks Heading into Day 2 of the Mini Main Event
1Sebastian Camilo Toro HenaoMexico27,039,049193
4Patrick Charles BlyeUnited Kingdom22,663,403162
6Thomas BoivinUnited Kingdom18,388,054131
7Vitezslav CechCzech Republic18,020,370129
9Thomas MacdonaldUnited Kingdom17,618,322126
Day 2 of the Mini Main Event Kicks Off Today!
The Mini Main Event resumes on Monday, Feb. 15 at 7:05 p.m. GMT (2:05 p.m. EST) with 169 hopefuls battling it out on Day 2.
The structure becomes deeper on Day 2 with 30-minute blind levels throughout the day as compared to 25-minute blind levels during each of the opening flights.
All of the returning players are each guaranteed a min-cash of $2,105 for nearly double the $1,100 buy-in with all players having their eye on the top prize of $184,507.
Day 2 will conclude after 10 blind levels with any surviving players coming back to compete on Day 3, which features even longer 40-minute blind levels, on Tuesday, Feb. 16.
Day 3 will witness the field trimmed down to just nine players with the final table scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 17 when a winner will be crowned.
Related: Check out the FULL partypoker MILLIONS Online schedule
Mini Main Event Payouts
Mini Second Chance Turbo Starts Today!
The first champion of the MILLIONS Online at partypoker will be crowned today. It won’t be in the Mini Main Event but instead in the one-day MILLIONS Online #2 Mini Second Chance Turbo, which features a $50,000 guarantee for a $530 buy-in.
The Mini Second Chance Turbo begins on Monday, Feb. 15 at 9:15 p.m. GMT (4:15 p.m. EST) with players starting out with 1 million in chips.
As the name of the event suggests, this will be one of the faster event on the schedule with eight minute blind levels.
There is still time to get into the action in this event for much cheaper than the $530 buy-in via the many $66 satellites scheduled throughout the day at partypoker.
Play the Second Chance Turbo at partypoker
Play in the 2021 partypoker MILLIONS Online
You’re going to need a partypoker account if you want to jump into any of the partypoker MILLIONS Online tournaments.
Head there right now if you already have an account, or download partypoker via PokerNews if you don’t have an account.
Deposit $10 to receive $10 in tickets over the course of a week:
Day 1: 2x $1 SPINS tickets + 1x $3.30 MTT ticketDay 2: 4x $0.25 SPINS ticketsDay 4: 1x $3.30 MTT ticketDay 6: 4x $0.25 SPINS tickets
Deposit $20 and receive $30 worth of tickets over the course of a week:
Day 1: 1x $5 SPINS ticket + 1x $3.30 MTT ticketDay 2: 2x $1 SPINS ticket + 1x $5.50 MTT ticketDay 4: 1x $5.50 MTT ticketDay 6: 2x $3 SPINS tickets + 1x$3.30 MTT ticket
Since October 2019, I have lost close to $20k on online websites and buying call options amidst the AMC/GME hype. Being only 21 and a college student and not wanting to keep falling down the rabbit hole, I’ve tried so many times to stop and have just failed so many times. I gambled consistently during my classes and lost so many good friends as I would stay home and gamble, this disease is sickening. I’m about to graduate in June and wondered where all the time went, and it’s sad to say that most of my time in college was spent in my apartment watching the Lithuanian basketball league at 3 in the morning, or betting absurd amounts of money on roulette spins and losing all my balance after two spins. I guess I’m here to say that if there are any college students out there, who happen to be in my shoes, just go out. Have a good time. Gambling is becoming more and more popular among college students and I would hate to see more people fall into this deadly trap.My “last straw” occurred just this past Friday when I went over to my friends’ house to bet on these overseas and international basketball games (yes, we are both huge degenerates). We each lost about $100 that night on his account. However, trying to win everything back I had just lost, I went and logged back into his account without his permission when he was asleep and fired away every penny remaining in his balance (about $600 worth on the computerized blackjack). Let’s just say, he was not happy, and while I did end up paying him everything I had lost on his account and my own bookie for the original 300 I lost that morning, I just came to this realization.I guess it made me finally understand that I really do have a serious problem, that logging into someone else’s account could have gotten me killed, and that I don’t wanna deal with this stress anymore. Gambling is a complete lie, and there is nothing else that can tell me otherwise now. I have had no urges to gamble so far since Saturday morning, and the longest I have been able to quit since October 2019 was two weeks. So, let’s see if this truly was my final breaking point.
ts911 คาสิโน ออนไลน์…