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.”
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?
คาสิโนเก้าแห่งในโอคลาโฮมาจะปิดให้บริการสองสามวันเพื่อประหยัดพลังงานทั่วทั้งรัฐเนื่องจากสภาพอากาศในฤดูหนาวที่รุนแรงส่งผลกระทบต่อเครือข่ายพลังงานในรัฐ พายุหิมะลูกใหญ่กำลังทำร้ายรัฐเท็กซัสและโอคลาโฮมาสองรัฐที่ยังไม่ได้พยายามรับมือ พวกเขากำลังขยายระบบทำความร้อนไฟฟ้าในภูมิภาคซึ่งสร้างแรงกดดันให้กับแหล่งจ่ายไฟในทั้งสองภูมิภาค ชนเผ่าเชอโรกีประกาศก่อนหน้านี้ในวันนี้ว่าจะปิดห้าแห่งรวมถึงคาสิโนฮาร์ดร็อคในทูลิซาและปิดจนถึง 13.00 น. ในวันพุธ หากสภาพอากาศไม่เปลี่ยนแปลงวันที่เปิดอีกครั้งอาจล่าช้า ทางตะวันตกเฉียงใต้ของ Paul O’Leary รายงานว่าโอคลาโฮมาเท็กซัสอาร์คันซอแคนซัสนิวเม็กซิโกลุยเซียนามิสซูรีเซาท์ดาโคตานอร์ทดาโคตามอนทาน่ามินนิโซตาไอโอวาไวโอมิงและเนแบรสกาล้วนขาดแคลนพลังงาน วันอาทิตย์หนึ่งบน Twitter Pokere Hansen ซึ่งเพิ่งเดินทางไปออสตินได้ไปที่ Twitter เพื่อแสดงให้เห็นว่าพายุฤดูหนาวเลวร้ายเพียงใด วิดีโอแสดงให้เห็นรถคันหนึ่งที่หักเลี้ยวออกจากการควบคุมอย่างช้าๆและชนกับรถคันอื่น ๆ บนท้องถนน ขยะบ้าคลั่งเกิดขึ้นที่นี่ในออสติน ฉันไม่ได้บันทึกสิ่งนี้ แต่มาจากหลายช่วงตึก .. pic.twitter.com/ebbetkKYAZ— Bart Hanson (@BartHanson) 15 กุมภาพันธ์ 2021
This article was written by blackrain79.com contributor Fran Ferlan.
Playing the river optimally is what makes or breaks your winrate.
It’s the biggest money street and you often have to make a decision for your
whole stack. The amount of money in the pot by the river often paralyzes
players, because they are overly focused on the pot size, which affects their
decision making process.
So what should you do versus a big river bet? Well, when you ask a broad
question, you tend to get a broad answer, so here it is: it depends.
There’s a lot of factors to consider here: your opponent type, previous
action, board runout, pot odds, your relative hand strength, just to name a
Not a huge help, so let’s try to break it down in this article.
1. Try to Bluff Catch Versus Loose and Aggressive Players
Let’s start with the type of player we are up against. Most players will
primarily bet for value when they fire off a big river bet, especially at the
The only exception would be loose and aggressive players. This is true for
both regulars and aggrofish. You can generally call wider against aggrofish
than you would against LAG regulars. The looser and more aggressive the
player, the wider you should call them down.
This is an advanced poker strategy that works extremely well in today’s small stakes games. BlackRain79 discusses it in more detail in this video:
So in practice, this means that sometimes you should call them down with hands
you wouldn’t be comfortable calling with otherwise, like top pair weak kicker,
second pair, two pair on a wet board and such.
It’s important to trust your judgment in these situations, otherwise you’re
better off folding earlier if you suspect you’re going to get barrelled and
pushed out of the pot.
However, just because someone is loose and aggressive, doesn’t mean they will
have only bluffs in their range, especially on the river.
The board runout is an important factor when deciding how wide you should
call. Generally speaking, the drier the board, the wider you can bluff
Because your opponent sees the same community cards you see, and if they bet
huge on the river, they’re basically saying that the board doesn’t scare them
and they don’t care what you are holding.
On the other hand, if the river bricks (i.e. a river card doesn’t change
anything significantly, because it fails to complete any straight or flush
draws, for example), your more observant opponents might put you on a busted
draw and try to bluff you out of the pot.
They can also have a busted draw of their own, as decently winning LAGs know
the power of semibluffing on earlier streets, and know a large majority of
their opponents won’t have the heart to call down their triple barrel without
a monster hand.
In this situation, you should look for an opportunity to bluff catch with your
top pair or second pair, for example. Bear in mind that this isn’t something
you should try to do often, as these kinds of situations are more of an
exception than the rule, but who doesn’t love a good hero call from time to
If you’re able to pick off a huge pot with a mediocre hand, it can do wonders
to your bottom line, as most players wouldn’t have the nerve to pull it
It will also make it more difficult to play against you, because you’ll show
that you are able to call down in less than ideal circumstances, and won’t be
Just a disclaimer:
Know that it’s a high-risk, high reward play, and should be attempted only in
specific circumstances, against specific opponents, on specific boards and
against specific previous action.
You should base it on sound information and tells you’ve picked up on, not
just the feeling that this guy is bluffing, I’m gonna call him down with my
Big River Bet Example Hand #1
Effective stack size: 100BB.
You are dealt A♦8♦ in the BB.
A LAG reg open-raises to 3x from the BU.
SB folds, you call.
You check. Villain bets 3BB. You call.
You check. Villain bets 6BB. You call.
You check. Villain bets 16BB.
You should call.
This is a great spot to bluff catch based on our opponent type, previous
action, and the board runout. Let’s break it down.
A loose and aggressive reg open raises from the button. We assume their range
is very wide here, probably close to 50% of all hands. We have a decent
speculative hand. We can even opt to 3-bet light from time to time, but we
decide to flat call.
We flop a gutshot straight draw, and we expect the villain to fire off a c-bet
with pretty much a 100% of their range, which he does.
The turn doesn’t change much for us, except it puts a possible flush draw on
the board. The villain double barrels, but since not much has changed for us
from flop to turn, and are getting about 3:1 odds on a call, we decide to
The river doesn’t complete our gutshot, but we do end up improving to a top
pair. Is it good enough for a call? Let’s look at it from the villain’s
We didn’t give him any reason to assume we are holding an Ace. In fact, we
checked three times, so if they had to put us on a range, they would assume we
have a Tx hand, a busted straight or a flush draw.
Conveniently, that’s a part of their perceived range as well. The river comes
with a scare card, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they tried to buy the pot
Are we going to be good a hundred percent of the time? Of course not, but we
don’t need to be. This is something that BlackRain79 talks about in Modern Small Stakes.
They have a significant amount of bluffs in their range for our call to be
+EV, considering their player type, their open-raising position, our passive
lines, non-coordinated board and so on.
When we take all of that into consideration, we can infer that we can call
As for the aggrofish, aka complete maniacs, you can widen your river calling
ranges considerably. It is also a high risk, high reward play, but these
players are the only ones that will have a significant amount of bluffs on the
Because their ranges are already extremely wide on previous streets, so it’s
fair to assume they will get to the river with all kinds of busted draws,
Ace-high hands, fourth pair etc.
While their aggression can certainly be profitable in the short term, as even
they can occasionally catch a monster hand, they will be the most significant
long term losers.
You can’t outrun math. So when playing against them, you should be making more
hero calls than you would usually be inclined.
Be aware that their maniacal ways are usually short-lived, so you should try
to get them to donate their stacks to you before the next guy.
And you usually won’t have the luxury of waiting around for the monster hand
to try and trap them.
So next time you find yourself facing a huge river bet against them, go with
your gut, take a deep breath and call them down. Your winrate will thank you
Make $500+ Per Month in Low Stakes Poker Games With My Free Poker Cheat Sheet
Are you having trouble consistently beating low stakes poker games online or live? Are you looking to make a consistent part time income playing these games?
That is why I wrote this free little 50 page poker cheat sheet to give you the exact strategies to start consistently making $500 (or more) per month in low stakes poker games right now. These are the exact poker strategies by the way that I used to create some of the highest winnings in online poker history at the lower limits, as a 10+ year poker pro. And I lay them all out for you step by step in this free guide.
Enter your details below and I will send my free poker cheat sheet to your inbox right now.
2. Look for Possible Completed Draws
As far as all the other player types are concerned, like fish who aren’t of
the aggro persuasion (which is most of them) and TAGs, you should be very
careful when calling big river bets. This is especially the case if they donk
bet big into you. (A donk bet is a bet made against the previous streets’
Look for possible completed draws and ask yourself if their previous action
makes sense that way. If the answer is yes, your overpair or top two pair
probably isn’t good enough anymore.
Think of it this way: would you bet big out of position on the river against
someone’s previous incessant aggression without a really strong hand? You
probably wouldn’t. And neither would the majority of the player pool at the
Big River Bet Example Hand #2
Effective stack size: 100BB.
You are dealt A♠Q♠ on the BU.
You open-raise to 3x.
SB folds, a loose passive fish calls in the BB.
Fish checks. You bet 5BB. Fish calls.
Fish checks. You bet 16.5BB. Fish calls.
Fish bets 40BB.
You should fold.
Let’s break down the action street by street.
There’s not much to say about preflop. We’re dealt a great hand on the button,
and we can assume the recreational player will call us down pretty wide in the
We flop top two pair and should start building the pot as soon as possible. We
expect to get called by a bunch of Ax hands, gutshot straight draws, flush
draws, you name it.
The turn doesn’t change much, but it does add a couple of gutshot draws if our
opponent called the flop with hands like JT, J9, or T9, for example.
We’re still miles ahead of villain’s range, so we decide to charge them a
premium for their drawing hands. We can even consider overbettting, but we go
for a pot sized bet.
And we get one of the worst river cards possible. The fish fires off a huge
donk bet. There is nothing left for us to do but bemoan our luck and fold
The Jack on the river completes a number of straight draws and a flush draw.
If we go back to preflop, we should expect this particular opponent to have
practically all suited junk in their range.
Fish love chasing draws, and they love playing suited junk. Nevermind the fact
that the chances of flopping a flush are only 0.8%.
Now, we could argue that it’s a fish, they don’t know what they’re doing, they
could be bluffing. Or they could have any number of two pair hands we’re ahead
of. Fair enough.
But if they did have a two pair hand, for example, wouldn’t they go for a
check-call option, considering such a scary board?
Even fish can see three diamonds on a board. And yes, they could be bluffing,
but there is nothing in their previous history that would suggest that.
You should always be on the lookout for disrupting patterns when playing
If an otherwise weak and timid opponent suddenly starts blasting off big bets,
they didn’t just randomly decide to mix it up a little. They are politely
letting you know they have the nuts.
As a rule of thumb in poker in general, calling should be the last option you
consider. As the old adage goes, if your hand is good enough for a call, it’s
good enough for a raise.
3. Check Your HUD Stats to Make an Informed Decision
But how do you know what type of player you’re up against? Well, the most
accurate way would be to check their VPIP (voluntarily put money in pot), PFR
(preflop raise) and AF (aggression factor) in your poker tracking software HUD.These are statistics which are placed right on your online poker table, beside each of your opponents, which tell you what type of player you are up against. This is highly useful information to have especially in the fast paced, multi-tabling, world of online poker.
These three poker HUD stats alone can give you a pretty good idea of the type of player you’re
facing, and only after a hundred hands or so. Of course, the bigger the sample
size, the better, but you can draw some general conclusions pretty
However, as we all know, most hands don’t get to showdown, and while we can
make some wide generalizations about some player types, it’s better to have
more info than less. If you are using a HUD, you might want to consider adding
stats like WWSF, WTSD, and W$SD to accurately assess your opponent’s postflop
By the way, if you aren’t using a poker HUD yet, BlackRain79 shows you how to set up your HUD in less than 5 minutes in this video:
So, WWSF stands for Won When Saw Flop, and is a percentage of times a player won
the pot after seeing the flop. The lower the WWSF, the weaker the player,
meaning they play aggressively with very strong hands only, and conversely,
the higher the WWSF, the more they bluff and fight for the pot post flop.
Here is a rough estimation of the spectrum.Use These Specific HUD Stats to Make Optimal Decisions Versus a Big River Bet
If their WWSF is less than 42%, they are weak and give up too much post flop. They don’t bluff enough, and if they give you action, especially on the big
money streets (turn and river) they have a very strong hand.
WWSF between 42% and 52% is the average. Of course, the higher the number, the
more often they bluff.
If their WWSF is bigger than 52%, they bluff way too often. You can call them
down widely and use their aggression against them.
WTSD stands for Went to Showdown, and shows the % of times a player, well,
went to showdown.
A player with a WTSD below 20% is an extreme nit, and goes to showdown with
very strong hands only.
A WTSD between about 24% and 27% is the norm for most winning players. Players with a WTSD above 30% are huge calling stations, and you should value
bet them relentlessly.
W$SD or Won Money at Showdown (or WSD) indicates the % of times a player won
the pot after the showdown. It’s inversely proportional to the WTSD, i.e. a
player with a low WTSD will have a big W$SD because they only see the showdown
with very strong hands, and huge calling stations will have a low W$SD because
they call down with a bunch of garbage hands.
Nitty players will have a W$SD of about 60% or more, fishy players about 40%
or less. Solid winning players will therefore be right in the middle with
One very important caveat, these stats require a huge sample size in order to
You will need 500 hands at the bare minimum to make any informed assumptions.
1000 hands is a decent sample size, but they get really accurate only after
5000 hands or so.
Needless to say, the more they tend towards the extremes of the spectrum, the
less hands you need to be sure, and the more you can exploit them by either
overbluffing or betting for value, depending on which side they fall.
If you want to learn much more about all these HUD stats make sure you check out BlackRain79’s popular optimal HUD setup guide.
In order to play the river effectively, you need to take into account a number
of factors, including, but not limited to: the pot odds, your relative hand
strength, board runout, type of opponent you’re up against, previous action
and so on.
You basically have to apply all of your theoretical knowledge at the same
time. While it may seem daunting at first, the more you practice, the more
automatic the process will become, and after a while you’ll be able to put
your opponents on correct ranges, maybe even zero in on their exact hand.
It will certainly take a great deal of practice, because as we know, most
hands don’t even get to showdown, and river spots are so rare and unique that
it’s hard to even try to answer what to do in these spots in a single article.
However, there are some general guidelines you should adhere to:
First of all, big river bets usually indicate a strong made hand, especially
at the micros. Most players will bet for value, and aren’t really inclined to
risk a significant portion of their stack without something to back it up.
The only exception would be loose and aggressive players, and maybe some solid
tight and aggressive players who know what they’re doing, and know that a well
timed aggression can go a long way.
But again, these are quite rare at the micros.
So against LAGs, you should try to bluff catch from time to time if you
believe they have a significant amount of bluffs in their range.
Just bear in mind that it’s a high variance play, so be prepared to take it in
stride when they actually had the nuts all along.
Against aggrofish (aka maniac fish) you should widen your river calling ranges
significantly, and be prepared to call them down with less than ideal
Don’t wait around for a monster hand, because these don’t come along as often,
and try to take their stack before the next guy.
Lastly, if an otherwise weak and timid player starts making huge bets, your
top pair hand probably isn’t good enough anymore.
Look for completed draws and assume they have it. Make a disciplined laydown
and live to fight another day.
One bonus tip, be sure to practice hand history review off the felt. Filter
for the hands that went to showdown, and try to narrow your opponent’s range
street by street.
Talk to yourself out loud and tell yourself all the information you have. This
will sharpen your decision-making skills in-game, and you’ll be able to
accurately assess your opponent’s ranges in no time.
You’ll be able to read souls, make all kinds of huge laydowns and hero calls
like a pro. Just remember, practice makes perfect.
เกมหัวของ Daniel Negan กับ Doug Polk จบลง แต่เขาอยู่ในอันดับที่สองแล้ว Neganunu ถูกตั้งค่าให้ต่อสู้กับสร้อยข้อมือ Piccar แชมป์โลก 15 สมัย Phil Phil Helmut ใน “Top State Duel” ของPokémonตามโพสต์ Twitter จาก Helmuth เมื่อบ่ายวันเสาร์ที่ผ่านมาเฮลมุททวีตว่า: “แดเนียลผู้ยิ่งใหญ่บอกฉันว่า @RealKidPoker ชายที่ถูกล้างสมองเป็นเวลาหลายเดือนกับโค้ชที่ฉันเคารพ” “คุณจะทำอะไรมันจะเป็นความท้าทายที่ยิ่งใหญ่สำหรับฉัน” ในขณะที่มีคำพูดดีๆอยู่ใน Twitter Helmut ก็วิจารณ์เกมของ Negarian กับ Polk ในระหว่างการให้สัมภาษณ์กับPokémonและเริ่มเกม Helmut กล่าวว่า “ฉันเป็น ผิดหวังกับวิธีการเล่นของแดเนียล “ฉันรู้ว่าโค้ชของเขาโค้ชยอดเยี่ยมคุณเห็นไหมฉันคุยกับโค้ชเหล่านี้ประมาณสองชั่วโมงและฉันชอบวิธีที่พวกเขาคิดเกี่ยวกับอินฟินิตี้ [hold’em]. เขายังคงเชื่อว่าเขาต้องเดิมพันกับ Negrean เพื่อชนะและเขาตัดสินใจว่าเขาควรจะต่อต้าน Polk ด้วยวิธีอื่น “ ฉันเดิมพันด้วยความสามารถของดาเนียล” เฮลมุทกล่าว ผมว่าถ้าแดนลองเล่น Doug ด้วยการเล่น GTO ล้วนๆ [game theory optimal] หรือ GTO ระดับถัดไปแล้วฉันคิดว่ามีไฟมากดังนั้นแดเนียลจะสู้กับไฟ และฉันคิดว่าแดเนียลต้องสู้กับแดเนียล “หลังจากการสัมภาษณ์ไม่นานพวกเขาก็ปล่อยเฮลมุทอย่างเป็นทางการในการแข่งขันแบบตัวต่อตัว ศาสตราจารย์ชาวแคนาดากล่าวว่าเขาสามารถเล่นไม้และรูปแบบใดก็ได้ Yo @phil_hellmuth คุณบอกว่าคุณดูเกม “Zero” แต่ดูเหมือนว่าคุณจะมีความคิดเห็นที่รุนแรงเกี่ยวกับเกมนี้ ฉันเล่นเกมออนไลน์สดบนพินใดก็ได้ที่คุณรู้สึกสบายใจ อยากเล่นเป็นผู้ใหญ่? https://t.co/ac9KVpwuaO— Daniel Negreanu (@RealKidPoker) 10 กุมภาพันธ์ 2021 ทวีตดูเหมือนจะกล่าวถึงมือบางประเภทในรูปแบบเกมเงินสด แต่รูปแบบ “แท่งเดิมพันสูง” มีโครงสร้างเป็นแบบสด รูปแบบ N-Go นั้นแตกต่างจากที่ Negreanu ใช้เมื่อหลายเดือนก่อนมาก แต่ดูเหมือนว่าทั้งสองจะเล่นกันอย่างไร้ค่า ในการให้สัมภาษณ์กับ Las Vegas Review-Journal เขาแสดงความสงสัยว่าการแข่งขันกับ Helmut จะเกิดขึ้นจริง “ฉันคิดว่ามันเป็นไก่ที่จะบอกความจริงกับคุณ” เขากล่าว “ ฉันคิดว่าเขากลัว ฉันคิดว่าเขารู้ว่ามันดูแย่ Helmut เล่นรูปแบบนี้เมื่อปีที่แล้วชนะ Antonio Spandian สามเกมติดต่อกันและได้รับรางวัล $ 400,000 ในกระบวนการนี้ .
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.”
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
Online poker tournaments are massive on Sundays and this fact along brings out the game’s best players. Michael Addamo, Timothy Adams, and Justin Bonomo are just three of those stellar names who managed to take down a Sunday major this weekend.
Addamo Takes Down GGPoker Sunday 500 High Rollers $5,250
Michael Addamo enjoyed a super Sunday courtesy of triumphing in the Sunday 500 High Rollers $5,250, a tournament that attracted 113 of the world’s best players to the GGPoker virtual felt.
Addamo’s first bullet didn’t go to plan and he crashed out in 76th place. He re-entered and put used his new stack to full effect.
The likes of Kristen Bicknell, Matthias Eibinger, Elio Fox, Benjamin Rolle, and Anatoly Filatov busted inside the money places but before the star-studded final table.
Austria’s “Filip1” was the final table’s first casualty. Their ninth-place exit awarding a $14,833 prize.
Alex Foxen and David Yan then busted. Yan would go on to take down Sunday High Rollers Bounty King $3,150 for $49,300 later in the evening.
The exits of Michael Zhang, Aleksei Barkov, Pascal Hartmann, and David Peters left Addamo heads-up against Wiktor Malinowski. Addamo rarely loses when he’s heads-up and that was the case again here. Addamo collected $131,187 for his victory while Malinowski banked $99,898 for his runner-up finish.
Defeating Malinowski will go some way to making up for losing a massive $842,000 cash game pot last year.
Sunday 500 High Rollers $5,250 Final Table Results
7David YanNew Zealand$25,579
¥80 Million Gtd Asian Poker League (APL) Hits GGPoker
Adams Takes Down High Rollers Blade Prime $2,625
Timothy Adams’ latest victory came in the High Rollers Blade Prime $2,625, an event that saw 80 players buy in.
All but two of the players who navigated their way to the final table walked away with five-figures hauls. Fedor Holz and Andrii Novak being that duo.
“LeoJose” fell in seventh and was joined on the rail first by Artur Martirosian, then by Urmo Velvelt, Rainer Kempe, and China’s Kevin Pu.
This left Adams, on his one and only bullet, heads-up against Arsneii Malinov. Malinov fell at the final hurdle and scooped $36,565, which left Adams to add the $46,885 top prize to his GGPoker account.
High Rollers Blade Prime $2,625 Final Table Results
Other GGPoker Highlights
Shankar Pillai – first-place in the High Roller MILLION$ for $207,692Gabriel Schroeder – first-place in the GGMasters High Rollers $1,050 for $140,355MonkeyD93 – first-place in the Global MILLION$ for $112,712swedishdream – first-place in the Bounty Hunters HR Main Event $525 for $95,817*Sami Kelopuro – first-place in the High Rollers Sunday Blade Opener $5,250 for $57,374L1mpFold – first-place in the GGMasters $150 for $54,631David Yan – first-place in the Sunday High Rollers Bounty King $3,150 for $49,300*Joseph Cheong – first-place in the Sunday Bounty King $315 for $44,349*Ami Barer – first-place in the High Rollers Blade Mulligan $2,625 for $43,288Michael Zhang – first-place in the High Rollers Blade Opener $2,625 for $39,752Andras Nemeth – first-place in the High Rollers Blade Bounty King PLO $3,150 for $35,513*spera91 – first-place in the High Rollers Marathon $840 for $33,695Joao Caetano – first-place in the Sunday High Rollers Fifty Stack $500 for $31,657Boris Kolev – first-place in the Sunday Forty Stack $400 for $30,214Bruno Botteon – first-place in the Sunday high Rollers Bounty Special $840 for $29,113*Dante Fernandes – first-place in the Bounty Hunters Sunday Special $210 for $25,808*Babyccino – first-place in the Sunday Main Event $200 for $24,254Anton Wigg – first-place in the Sunday High Rollers Fast $525 for $13,780
*includes bounty payments
Update: GGPoker Approved in PA, But Launch Not Imminent
Justin Bonomo Binks the partypoker High Roller Big Game
Justin Bonomo, fresh from his recent Super MILLION$ victory, continued his impressive run of form by taking down the High Roller Big Game at partypoker. Bonomo came out on top of a 127-strong field in the $2,600 buy-in event to get his hands on $79,128.
The final table was brimming with the world’s top poker talent, as you’d expect from such a prestigious tournament.
Tomi Brouk busted in ninth and won $8,739, the tournament’s last four-figure prize. Ognyan Dimov, Roberto Romanello, and Pedro Garagnani were the next players to fall by the wayside. Niklas Astedt and Team partypoker’s Kristen Bicknell followed suit.
Ukraine’s Pavlo Kolinkovskiy’s elimination in third-place, worth $34,935, left Bonomo and Ali Imsirovic heads-up for the title. Bonomo got the job done and secured the $79,128 top prize, leaving Imsirovic to bank $79,128.
High Roller Big Game Final Table Results
7Roberto RomanelloUnited Kingdom$12,398
Jamie O’Connor Takes Down Big Game
Jamie O’Connor turned $530 into $41,417 by winning The Big Game. O’Connor was a guest on Leigh Wiltshire and Des Duffy’s APAT Show while he was grinding this event but chatting didn’t put him off the grind.
O’Connor defeated Rui Da Silva heads-up to lock up the top prize and resign Da Silva to a $28,678 consolation prize.
Two other players saw their bankrolls swell by five-figures. Fourth-place finisher Joel Nystedt scooped $13,158 with Joao Gaspar reeling in a $19,868 prize for his demise in third-place.
The Big Game Final Table Results
1Jamie O’ConnorUnited Kingdom$79,128
2Rui Da SilvaCroatia$28,678
9Jamie NixonUnited Kingdom$3,844
Other Highlights From partypoker
LivviG – first-place in the $320 The 300 for $19,962*BeastFromDaEast – first-place in the $109 Weekender for $17,563*Andreas Puntigam – first-place in the $55 Mini Big Game for $17,155freestylee – first-place in the $111 One Shot for $13,848*youngblood – first-place in the $215 Warrior for $13,450*EZfold55 – first-place in the $55 Gladiator for $12,138*
*includes bounty payments
partypoker MILLIONS Online Schedule Features MEGA High Roller and $5m GTD Main Event
Peter Traply Nets Sunday Super Sonic Top Prize
Peter “Belabasci” Traply triumphed in the PokerStars $215 Sunday Supersonic and banked a cool $20,378. That only tells part of the story, however, because the Sunday Supersonic is a hyper-turbo structured tournament meaning Traply’s victory only took one-hour 13-minutes for an hourly rate of $16,750, which is nice work if you can get it!
Runner-up “mindreader007” and third-place finisher “acesdesigner” were the two other finalists whose $215 swelled to a five-figure score. Second-place weighed in at $14,591 with the third-place finisher collecting $10,448.
$215 Sunday Supersonic Final Table Results
1Peter “Belabasci” TraplyHungary$20,378
5Michiel “utreg” BrummelhuisNetherlands$5,356
6Felipe “ultraviol3nt” OlivieriArgentina$3,835
Dutch Star Wins High Roller Sunday Supersonic
“Daenarys T” from the Netherlands took down the $1,050 edition of the Sunday Supersonic and did so in a mere one hour and five-minutes. This meant their $24,032 prize was worth $22,251 per hour!
There were some awesome players at the six-handed final table, including runner-up Bruno “botteonpoker” Botteon and third-place finisher Benjamin “bencb789” Rolle. The day, however, belonged to former Sunday Million champion Daenarys T.
2Bruno “botteonpoker” BotteonBrazil$18,451
3Benjamin “bencb789” RolleAustria$14,166
4Viktor “papan9_p$” UstimovRussia$10,876
6Andy “wiisssppppaa” TaylorUnited Kingdom$6,410
Other Highlights From PokerStars
13shaun – first-place in the $1,050 Sunday High Roller for $60,576Aleksei “AS Leshiy” Smirnov – first-place in the $215 Bounty Builder for $31,476*RaiseUpBlind – first-place in he $1,050 Sunday Cooldown for $29,468*yuhei33 – first-place in the $109 Bounty Builder for $29,419*Felipe “lipe piv” Boianovsky – first-place in the $215 Bounty Builder for $29,289*babecallme – first-place in the $109 Sunday Cooldown for $27,227*Black88 – first-place in the $215 Sunday Warm-Up for $17,941Artur “marathur1” Martirosian – first-place in the $1,050 Sunday Warm-Up for $17,814planty07/08 – first-place in the $109 Sunday Kickoff for $15,407Chris “ImDaNuts” Oliver – first-place in the Hotter $215 for $13,872*Dominik “Bounatirou” Nitsche – first-place in the $215 Fat Sunday for $11,782Christian “WATnlos” Rudolph – first-place in the $530 Sunday Marathon for $11,116
*includes bounty payments
Get Ready for 107 MicroMillions Events Across Only Four Days!
maestro1908 Grabs the $100,000 Sunday Mega Deep Title at 888poker
The $100,000 Sunday Mega Deep had been hitting its guarantee lately but it reverted to type on February 14 when 892 players bought in to leave 888poker nursing a $10,800 overlay.
“maestro1908” netted the $16,350 top prize after defeating the United Kingdom’s “needabridge” heads-up, leaving the Brit to bank $11,900.
The $30,000 Sunday Challenge PKO performed much better with the 335 entrants ensuring the $30,000 guarantee was beaten by $3,500. “troms18” was the last player standing, a result that saw $6,327 head to their account. Swedish star “VnilaVader” was the tournament’s runner-up; they scooped $3,464 with bounties included.
888poker Giving Away $100,000 in 24/7 Freeroll Festival All This Month
The Stars Group is a majority shareholder in Oddschecker Global Media, the parent company of PokerNews.