Tag Archives: คาสิโน ปอยเปต ออนไลน์
PokerStars has rolled out Tetris + Spin & Go, a temporary takeover of their ultra-popular lottery sit and go game with a new theme and a lucrative new promotion for players.
F5poker first revealed that PokerStars was working on such a promotion back in September 2020. On Monday, it deployed globally on most licenses on the global dot-com pool as well the European shared liquidity network of Spain, France and Portugal.
The Spin and Go lobby in the client has been redesigned with a Tetris aesthetic, as have the tables. The game itself remains unchanged—fast, winner-takes-all sit and gos with a random top prize.
What is new is the promotion on top: Tetris-themed leader boards. While the mechanics are fairly complicated—it involves Line Clears, Levels and Game Scores—it boils down to daily player rankings where cash prizes are given out to the highest volume players.
For players that fall outside the cash prizes, the operator has a $5000 daily prize draw for players that finished in the top 500.
In total, the operator says that over $1.5 million will be paid out in the dot-com market and almost as much—€1 million—in the Southern European market from now until the end of March. This works out at over $33,000 daily in dot-com, and €23,000 in Southern Europe.
It appears to replace the previous long-running Spin & Go 20 and 50 leader boards. This had given away just over $20,000 a week and had run throughout much of 2020.
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.
เผยแพร่เมื่อ: 15 กุมภาพันธ์ 2021, 11:43 น. Last updated: ก.พ. 15, 2021, 11:43 น. ตามคำทำนายของนักพนันทางการเมืองอดีตประธานาธิบดีโดนัลด์ทรัมป์พ้นผิดในวุฒิสภาด้วยข้อหาฟ้องร้องเพียงข้อหาเดียวที่เสนอโดยสภา ด้วยการฟ้องร้องครั้งที่สองที่อยู่เบื้องหลังเขาทรัมป์และครอบครัวของเขากำลังเตรียมที่จะฟื้นอำนาจทางการเมืองอีกครั้ง Lara Trump ได้พบกับ Eric Trump สามีของเธอที่งานการจากไปของพ่อตาเมื่อเดือนที่แล้วที่ Washington, DC เขาอาจจะกลายเป็นผู้นำในตำแหน่งที่ว่างต่อไปในวุฒิสภานอร์ทแคโรไลนา (ภาพ: The New York Times) ทรัมป์ออกจากทำเนียบขาวด้วยเรื่องอื้อฉาวอันเป็นผลมาจากการบุกโจมตีศาลากลางของสหรัฐอเมริกาเมื่อวันที่ 6 มกราคมซึ่งเป็นเหตุการณ์หายนะที่พรรคเดโมแครตอ้างว่าได้รับแรงหนุนจากประธานาธิบดีในขณะนั้น ตอนนี้หลุดพ้นจากคำฟ้องแล้วมีความรู้สึกตื่นเต้นในหมู่ค่ายทรัมป์ “รู้สึกได้รับกำลังใจจากผลการพิจารณาคดีเขาคาดว่าจะเกิดจากการจำศีลด้วยตนเองที่สโมสรของเขาในปาล์มบีชรัฐฟลอริดาและกำลังค้นหาวิธียืนยันอำนาจของเขาอีกครั้ง” จิลล์คอลวินจาก Associated Press เขียน สิ่งนี้อาจเริ่มต้นจาก Lara Trump ภรรยาของลูกคนที่สามของ Trump, Eric Trump นักพนันทางการเมืองเริ่มแสดงความไว้วางใจในอดีตผู้ผลิตรายการโทรทัศน์วัย 38 ปีที่กำลังมองหาที่นั่งในวุฒิสภาผ่านรัฐนอร์ทแคโรไลนาซึ่งเป็นรัฐที่เธอเติบโตมา Lara Trump Odds ในตลาดนอร์ทแคโรไลนาหุ้นพรรครีพับลิกันของพรรครีพับลิกันในนอร์ทแคโรไลนาประจำปี 2020 ถูกเป่าหลังจากที่พ่อตาของเธอพ้นผิด อัตราต่อรองในการวิ่งของเขาเพิ่มขึ้นจาก 36 เซนต์เมื่อสัปดาห์ที่แล้วเป็น 48 เซนต์ในวันนี้ Burr’s (R-NC) ลงมติประณามอดีตประธานาธิบดี Richard Burr เพื่อนของฉันทำให้ Lara Trump เกือบจะเป็นผู้สมัครที่แน่นอนสำหรับที่นั่งวุฒิสภาใน North Carolina เพื่อมาแทนที่เขา “Graham กล่าวในระหว่างการปรากฏตัวใน Fox News Sunday GOP โหวตให้ Burr ประณามทรัมป์โดยเรียกว่า” น่าตกใจ และน่าผิดหวัง” เกรแฮมแสดงการสนับสนุนผู้สมัครรับเลือกตั้งของลาร่าทรัมป์ในนอร์ทแคโรไลนา“ ผู้ชนะที่ยิ่งใหญ่ที่สุดของการพิจารณาคดีฟ้องร้องนี้ฉันคิดว่าคือลาร่าทรัมป์” เกรแฮมกล่าวเสริม“ ถ้ามันดำเนินไป … ฉันจะอยู่ข้างหลังเธอแน่นอนเพราะฉัน คิดว่าเธอเป็นตัวแทนของอนาคตของพรรครีพับลิกัน “เพื่อให้มีคุณสมบัติคนพื้นเมืองนอร์ ธ แคโรไลนาจะต้องมีถิ่นที่อยู่ในรัฐรัฐธรรมนูญของสหรัฐอเมริกากำหนดข้อกำหนดสามข้อสำหรับคุณสมบัติในการมีสิทธิ์เข้าประเทศวุฒิสภา: บุคคลต้องมีอายุอย่างน้อยสามสิบปี อายุเป็นพลเมืองสหรัฐอย่างน้อยเก้าปีและดำรงถิ่นที่อยู่ในรัฐเมื่อถึงเวลาเลือกตั้ง Don Jr. Eyeing Pennsylvania Il ค่ายของทรัมป์ยังคงโต้แย้งว่าเพนซิลเวเนียจัดการเลือกตั้งประธานาธิบดีปี 2020 ที่ไม่สมบูรณ์ การเปลี่ยนแปลงขั้นตอนการลงคะแนนเสียงในระหว่างการระบาดใหญ่ของ COVID-19 นั้นไม่ประสบความสำเร็จในศาลโดยตัวแทนของทรัมป์นี่อาจเป็นเหตุผลว่าทำไมจึงมีเสียงดังก้องอยู่ในกลุ่มคนที่ใกล้ชิดกับครอบครัวทรัมป์มากที่สุดเช่นเดียวกับในเพนซิลเวเนียโดนัลด์ทรัมป์จูเนียร์ อาจนึกถึงการวิ่งที่นั่น ดอนจูเนียร์มีความผูกพันกับรัฐในขณะที่เขาเข้าเรียนที่ Hill School ซึ่งเป็นโรงเรียนประจำเตรียมอุดมศึกษาของวิทยาลัยใน Pottstown ลูกชายคนโตของอดีตประธานาธิบดียังศึกษาที่มหาวิทยาลัยเพนซิลเวเนียในฟิลาเดลเฟียและดอนจูเนียร์กำลังพิจารณาลงสมัครรับเลือกตั้งเป็นวุฒิสมาชิกในเพนซิลเวเนีย วุฒิสมาชิก Pat Toomey (D-Pa) เป็นหนึ่งในวุฒิสภาพรรครีพับลิกันที่ลงมติประณามทรัมป์ เจ้ามือรับแทงในสหราชอาณาจักรมี Don Jr. ลงสมัครรับเลือกตั้งเป็นวุฒิสภาเพนซิลเวเนีย (1/1) นักเดิมพัน PredictIt มีความมั่นใจน้อยกว่ามากเนื่องจากขณะนี้ทรัมป์จูเนียร์ให้โอกาส 15% เท่านั้นในการวิ่ง
Online poker went live in Michigan in January of 2021, and it was only with one operator, PokerStars Michigan. Other licensed companies launched online casinos and sportsbooks, but they held back on the poker segment to begin with.
It was not long before the state showed its online poker potential: PokerStars MI has become the largest regulated online poker room in the States, with the average traffic of 400 players in the very first week.
This development could well have prompted other stakeholders to move their online poker plans up. WSOP.com is one: While the final launch date for WSOP MI is still up in the air, as the company is currently focused more on going live in Pennsylvania before the summer, it might not be too long of a wait.
WSOP is one of the largest and best-known brands in the poker world and the name behind the largest yearly tournament series taking place in Las Vegas and (as of late) online. The company will certainly want to establish a foothold in Michigan.
On this page, we bring answers and predictions for the launch of WSOP.com in Michigan. Some of the information is based off of what we know about the two rooms currently in operation, namely WSOP Nevada and WSOP NJ, and we will make sure to update the information here as we obtain it.
When will WSOP MI go live?
There is no definitive date for the launch of WSOP Michigan. The operator is currently divided between several fronts, putting a lot of effort towards the launch in Pennsylvania. A realistic timeframe would be a few months, but it is possible the operator moves the launch date up and surprises MI players. The operator seems set on launching before the end of 2021.
Do I have to be physically present in the state to access WSOP Michigan?
You need to be within the state borders to play for real money at WSOP MI. This is one feature that all US regulated sites have in common and there is no reason to think that things will be any different when WSOP.com launches in Michigan.
The operator uses geolocation to make sure players adhere to this rule, and trying to bypass it is grounds for having your account closed. Also worth noting is that the minimum age limit to legally play on WSOP.com is 21.
Will WSOP.com Michigan combine player pools with other states?
Creating interstate online poker compacts is currently work in progress, not just for WSOP but for poker operators in the US in general. WSOP.com aims to offer combined player pools at some point, but it is difficult to say when and if this will happen.
Right now, there is an ongoing battle with regards to the Wire Act interpretation and if it should apply to online poker. Things are currently looking good for poker players and operators, and if the trend continues, we will start to see more rooms combining their pools across states.
Since WSOP MI is set to launch later this year, it is not impossible that there will be more clarity on the matter by that time. So, in theory, the room might have combined pools from the get-go, although it is likelier that they will kick off catering to Michigan players only and potentially expanding later.
What kind of a welcome offer will there be for new players?
Looking at what the room offers at New Jersey and Nevada, players from Michigan are probably looking at a 100% welcome bonus up to the maximum of $1000.
Like most poker bonuses, you will not receive the full amount immediately, but you will need to unlock it by playing real money cash games and tournaments and gathering Action Player Points (APPs). The bonus is released as follows:
The initial $10 releases at the rate of $1 for every 10 APPs
You will unlock the next $50 by receiving $5 for every 50 APPs
The rest of the bonus releases at the rate of $10 for every 100 APPs
The timeframe to release the bonus is usually 60 days, so there is plenty of time to do it. Action Player Points are awarded based on the rake generated, as follows:
2 APPs for $1 paid in cash games (based on contributed rake)
2 APPs for every $1 paid in tournament fees
Will there any other rewards offered by WSOP MI?
WSOP Michigan will very likely feature their simple but rather generous Poker Rewards program. Action Player Points that you gather by playing real money games can be used for more than just to unlock bonuses.
These points can be turned into real money when you convert them to WSOP Points. The number of WSOP Points you can get from your APPs depends on your loyalty level:
Bronze: Achieve 200+ APPs in a month and get 4x WSOP Points’ multiplier.
Silver: 750+ monthly points & 10x WSOP Points’ multiplier.
Elite: Gather 1500+ APPs and enjoy 12.5x multiplier.
Champions Club: Based on the yearly number of points. Achieve 20,000 or more and get to the maximum multiplier of 16x.
You can exchange WSOP Points for cash on your account. The process is very simple and you can redeem the points at the rate of $1 for 100 WSOP Points. The minimum number of points you can convert is 1000.
What deposit methods will be available for WSOP Michigan players?
WSOP offers a good variety of deposit options for the players in other states, and it is likely that Michigan players will have access to the same or at least very similar array of deposit methods, which includes:
MasterCard, Visa, and Discover
In-person deposit at the cashier cage
Some of these options have been thoroughly tried and tested by players, and PayPal and ACH seem to be top picks. Of course, in-person deposits are always a good option if you happen to find yourself in the vicinity of the actual property.
Credit and debit cards are always touch-and-go in the US. Despite the fact the sites have licenses to offer online poker games, many banks still block gambling-related transactions by default, so there is no guarantee your card will work with WSOP MI.
Does WSOP have a land-based partner in Michigan?
WSOP still does not have a land-based partner casino in the state of Michigan, which is a crucial step in the process. Before they launch, they will either need to find a partner in the state or wait for interstate compacts to become available.
What cash games will WSOP MI offer?
The most popular game offered at WSOP.com is No Limit Hold’em, with stakes going up to $25/$50. Other available cash game tables include Pot Limit Omaha and Omaha 8, as well as some stud games.
The bulk of action happens at NLHE and PLO tables, though, and this trend is likely to keep at WSOP MI as well. If you prefer other variations, the action is usually scarce and mostly found at lower limits.
Will WSOP.com MI offer BLAST poker tournaments?
WSOP Michigan will likely offer BLAST games. These are four-handed sit and go tournaments featuring the hyper-turbo structure and offering a chance to fight for the prize that can go as high as 10,000x your buy-in.
This is an exciting format, not just because of the jackpot potential, but also because there is a timer set for every game. Once the time runs out, all players are forced to go all in every hand until there is just one player remaining holding all the chips.
Does WSOP offer any form of fast-fold poker?
There are no fast-fold tables of any sort currently available at WSOP.com. This may change by the time WSOP MI is ready to launch, but at this point in time, the room does not offer any quick fold variations.
Is WSOP.com software any good?
While there are better online platforms out there, WSOP.com has done a fine job with the desktop software. The company is not too keen on implementing regular updates, but the fact is that WSOP.com offers a nice design and a good range of options to personalize your playing experience.
There are a few different deck designs on offer and a solid selection of avatars to choose from. The actual play interface is fairly simple but it is clean and easy to use.
It is worth mentioning that WSOP.com and 888 are getting ready to roll out a brand new client called Poker 8. This should be a major improvement on the existing software.
The plan is to roll out Poker 8 in Pennsylvania first and then move to other states. Depending on when WSOP Michigan goes live, players might have the privilege to play on the new platform from day one.
Will I be able to play WSOP Michigan from my phone?
Right now, WSOP.com offers mobile apps for Android and iOS devices, so Michigan players wanting to play from their phones and tablets should experience no problems. The current app does come with certain limitations, though. For example, you can only play one table at any given moment.
This problem, as well as many other smaller issues, should go away with the launch of the Poker 8 platform, as it will cover the mobile segment as well.
Latest News on WSOP MI:
Read more on WSOP MI »
There’s no question that regulated sports betting has been a massive hit in the United States. Every month there’s at least one state that shatters its previous record handle and January 2020 was no exception. With a $384.2 million handle, Indiana broke its previous wagering record of $313.1 million that was set way back in December, 2020. And with the Hoosier State’s love of basketball, bigger numbers could yet be in its future.
January 2020 was a record month in Indiana, but nearly every month of regulated sports betting in the state has earned that accolade. This was actually the fifth consecutive record breaking handle for Indiana’s regulated operators and the good news is likely to keep coming.
There is certainly good news in the January numbers for Indiana state coffers. That $384.2 million translates into about $29.3 million in revenue for the state’s combined sportsbooks. Of that number, approximately $2.8 million will be scooped up by tax collectors.
So how fast has Hoosier sports betting been growing? By way of comparison, January 2020′s handle was a mere $171 million.
Like most newly opened US sports betting markets, Indiana’s bettors are mostly playing off of mobile apps. The biggest operators (from top to bottom) were DraftKings ($122.6 million); FanDuel ($89.2 million); BetMGM ($52.4 million); PointsBet ($13 million); BetRivers ($9 million).
Unlike most of the rest of the United States, Indiana bettors did not favor NFL wagers above all else. In the land depicted in the motion picture Hoosiers, basketball topped the board with $133 million in wagers. NFL football only brought in $77 million, according to a report on LegalSportsReport.com.
And with college hoops entering into its busiest months, Indiana operators are certain to break more records before the winter is done.
The post Indiana regulated sports betting off to hot 2021 start appeared first on .
Posted on: February 15, 2021, 12:12h.
Last updated on: February 15, 2021, 12:12h.
Last year, the real estate sector languished as hotel and office real estate investment trusts (REITs) were punished at the hands of the coronavirus pandemic. Surprisingly, gaming landlords proved sturdy despite multi-month casino closures.
MGM Grand Las Vegas. An asset manager is bullish on owner MGP and other gaming REITs. (Image: Bloomberg)The three publicly traded casino REITs — Gaming & Leisure Properties (NASDAQ:GLPI), MGM Growth Properties (NYSE:MGP) and VICI Properties (NYSE:VICI) — offer a compelling business model and strong dividend yields at a time when interest rates are at historic lows.Unlike hotel REITs, casino REITs typically own properties under a long-term, triple-net master lease structure, leaving most of the financial and operational risk to their tenants — the casino operators,” according to Hoya Capital research. “Owing to this lease structure, rent collection and occupancy rates have remained essentially spotless throughout the pandemic.”Owing to capital markets being open to gaming companies during the darkest days of the pandemic, GLPI, MGP and VICI encountered little difficulty in collecting rent. There were occasions when the real estate companies — thanks to their own sturdy positions — worked with clients on financing, but no foreclosures arrived.With Casino REITs Selectivity MattersWhile GLPI, MGP and VICI operate in the same realm, the companies are not carbon copies of each other. Pennsylvania-based GLPI prefers to maintain a portfolio comprised largely of regional casinos. To that end, it’s looking to unload one of its few Nevada properties — the Tropicana Las Vegas.Conversely, the bulk of MGP’s revenue is derived from the Strip. There, it either completely controls or partially owns the real estate assets of all of MGM Resorts International’s venues except the Bellagio. For its part, VICI depends on Sin City for less than a third of rental income although it owns the property of Caesars Palace.“Selectivity is critical, and we prefer the ‘destination’ casinos and tenant operators with a solid foothold into the online gaming ecosystem,” said Hoya Capital.While the firm views online gaming and sports betting as a potential long-term headwinds for land-based casinos, it sees near- to medium-term benefits because those iGaming and sports wagering will support profitability and tenants’ ability to pay rent.The REITs’ major clients — Caesars Entertainment, MGM and Penn National Gaming — are among the major players in both internet casinos and mobile sports betting.Tradition of Out-PerformanceIn financial markets, history doesn’t always repeat, but it often rhymes. That’s relevant for the likes of GLPI, MGM Growth and VICI because their performances are often correlated and the trio has a history of beating broader REIT benchmarks.“Through the end of 2020, Casino REITs have outperformed the broader REIT index in four of the past five years,” said Hoya Capital. “Since the start of 2015, the casino REIT sector as a whole has produced an annualized total return of 14.5 percent, outperforming the 6.5 percent annualized total return on the Equity REIT Index.”Even with that, GLPI, MGP and VICI are more attractively valued than the broader real estate sector. The casino REITs trade at 13.7x funds from operations (FFO), well below the ratio of 21.1x for the average REIT.