Broncos Sign Deal With FanDuel To Become First NFL Team To Partner With A Sportsbook

The Denver Broncos are the first NFL team to sell an official sportsbook sponsorship. The Broncos and FanDuel announced Monday that the two had struck a deal that would make FanDuel an official sports betting partner of the team.

Last season, the NFL only allowed teams to sign deals with casinos. And for casinos that had sportsbooks, they were not part of the deal. Then in February, the NFL said that teams could start selling the designation and allowed them to start in May.

In order to welcome bettors in the state, FanDuel is offering new users a bevy of promotions, including Broncos at +30 on the point spread for their season opener against the Tennessee Titans (max bet $50) and the over/under of Denver’s 7.5-win total at +1600 (max bet $10). The book is also offering all users Week 1 odds boosts on the Broncos moneyline (-130 to +120) and on rookie wide receiver Jerry Jeudy to score a touchdown (+250 to +400), with a max bet of $50 on both.

Betting in Colorado launched on May 1 with six mobile sportsbooks beginning operations quickly. A total of $25.5 million was bet in the state in the first month.

Other NFL teams expected to sign deals with sportsbooks include the Raiders, who will play their first season in Las Vegas; the New York Jets and New York Giants, who both play in New Jersey; and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Teams can only do deals if sports gambling is legal in their state, so the Dallas Cowboys have to stick with their casino deal with Winstar World Casino in Thackerville, Oklahoma until Texas has sports betting.

Source: judi slot pulsa

English Premier League Odds, Predictions, Picks, Schedule For Matchday 30: Soccer Model Reveals Best Bets

Matchday 30 of the 2019-20 English Premier League season concludes on Monday when Manchester City welcomes Burnley to Ethiad Stadium. Manchester City cruised to an easy 3-0 victory over Arsenal in its first game back from a long layoff caused by the coronavirus pandemic. However, the defending champions will be tested on Monday when they square off against Burnley at 3 p.M. ET. Burnley is unbeaten in its last seven Premier League fixtures, which includes victories over Manchester United and Leicester City. 

The English Premier League odds from William Hill list Manchester City as a massive -850 money line favorite (risk $850 to win $100), while Burnley is going off at +2000. The draw is +800 and the over-under for total goals scored is 3.5. Before you lock in any English Premier League picks or predictions for Manchester City vs. Burnley, see what SportsLine’s proprietary soccer model has to say.

Created by two Norwegians — professional poker player and sports bettor Jonas Gjelstad, and economics and engineering expert Marius Norheim — the model analyzes worldwide betting data and exploits market inefficiencies, helping its followers cash in. Over the last three years, the algorithm is up an eye-popping 13,800 percent.

The model also made some huge calls in the English Premier League on Wednesday, correctly predicting the profitable draw between Aston Villa and Sheffield United (+230), as well as Manchester City’s (-320) victory over Arsenal. Anyone who has followed it is way up. 

Now, the model has set its sights on Monday’s Premier League fixture and revealed its picks for Manchester City vs. Burnley over at SportsLine.Top English Premier League predictions for Monday

The model is leaning under 3.5 goals in Monday’s matchup between Manchester City and Burnley. Manchester City boasts the English Premier League’s most potent scoring attack, having scored 71 goals in 29 matches. Manchester City’s offensive attack is led by forward Sergio Aguero, who’s recorded 16 goals this season. In addition to a potent scoring attack, Manchester City features a dynamic defense that has recorded a shutout in five of its last seven games across all competitions. 

Burnley also features a strong back line, giving up just two goals in its last five fixtures. In their 4-1 defeat against Manchester City earlier this season, Sean Dyche’s side registered two shots on target while maintaining just 24 percent of the possession. In addition, the Clarets have scored just two goals in their last five matches against Manchester City, one of the main reasons the model is leaning towards the under on Monday.How to make English Premier League picks for Monday

The model has also revealed a strong money line pick for Manchester City vs. Burnley. You absolutely need to see it before you lock in your own picks.

So who should you back in the English Premier League on Monday? And where does all the betting value lie? Visit SportsLine now to find out which side of the Manchester City vs. Burnley money line has all the value, all from the proprietary European soccer model that’s up an eye-popping 13,800 percent.

Source: judi deposit pulsa

The Hard Truth Of Poker — And Life: You’re Never ‘Due’ For Good Cards

Maria Konnikova is a New York Times bestselling author and contributor to The New Yorker with a doctorate in psychology. She decided to learn how to play poker to better understand the role of luck in our lives, examining the game through the lens of psychology and human behavior. This excerpt is adapted from her new book, “The Biggest Bluff: How I Learned to Pay Attention, Master Myself, and Win,” which is available June 23.

For many years, my life centered around studying the biases of human decision-making: I was a graduate student in psychology at Columbia, working with that marshmallow-tinted legend, Walter Mischel, to document the foibles of the human mind as people found themselves in situations where risk abounded and uncertainty ran high. Dissertation defended, I thought to myself, that’s that. I’ve got those sorted out. And in the years that followed, I would pride myself on knowing so much about the tools of self-control that would help me distinguish myself from my poor experimental subjects. Placed in a stochastic environment, faced with stress and pressure, I knew how I’d go wrong — and I knew precisely what to do when that happened.

Fast-forward to 2016. I have embarked on my latest book project, which has taken me into foreign territory: the world of No Limit Texas Hold ’em. And here I am, at my first-ever tournament. It’s a charity event. I’ve been practicing for weeks, playing online, running through hands, learning the contours of basic tournament poker strategy.

I get off to a rocky start, almost folding pocket aces, the absolute best hand you can be dealt, because I’m so nervous about messing up and disappointing my coach, Erik Seidel — a feared crusher considered one of the best poker players in the world. He’s the one who finagled this invitation for me in the first place, and I feel certain that I’m going to let him down. But somehow, I’ve managed to survive out of the starting gate, and a few hours in, I’m surprised to find myself starting to experience a new kind of feeling. This isn’t that hard. This is fun. I’m not half-bad.

This moment, this I’m not half-bad making its fleeting way through my brain, is the first time I notice a funny thing start to happen. It’s as if I’ve been cleaved in two. The psychologist part of my brain looks dispassionately on, noting everything the poker part of me is doing wrong. And the poker player doesn’t seem to be able to listen. Here, for instance, the psychologist is screaming a single word: overconfidence. I know that the term “novice” doesn’t even begin to describe me and that my current success is due mostly to luck. But then there’s the other part of me, the part that is most certainly thinking that maybe, just maybe, I have a knack for this. Maybe I’m born to play poker and conquer the world.

The biases I know all about in theory, it turns out, are much tougher to fight in practice. Before, I was working so hard on grasping the fundamentals of basic strategy that I didn’t have the chance to notice. Now that I have some of the more basic concepts down, the shortcomings of my reasoning hit me in the face. After an incredibly lucky straight draw on a hand I had no business playing — the dealer helpfully tells me as much with a “You’ve got to be kidding me” as I turn over my hand and win the pot — I find myself thinking maybe there’s something to the hot hand, the notion that a player is “hot,” or on a roll. Originally, it was taken from professional basketball, from the popular perception that a player with a hot hand, who’d made a few shots, would continue to play better and make more baskets. But does it actually exist — and does believing it exists, even if it doesn’t, somehow make it more real? In basketball, the psychologists Thomas Gilovich, Amos Tversky, and Robert Vallone argued it was a fallacy of reasoning — when they looked at the Boston Celtics and the Philadelphia 76ers, they found no evidence that the hot hand was anything but illusion. But in other contexts, mightn’t it play out differently? I’ve had the conventional thinking drilled into me, yet now I think I’m on a roll. I should bet big. Definitely bet big.

That idea suffers a debilitating blow after a loss with a pair of jacks — a hand that’s actually halfway decent. After a flop that has an ace and a queen on it — both cards that could potentially make any of my multiple opponents a pair higher than mine — I refuse to back down. I’ve had bad cards for the last half an hour. I deserve to win here! I lose over half my chips by refusing to fold — hello, sunk cost fallacy! We’ll be seeing you again, many times. And then, instead of reevaluating, I start to chase the loss: Doesn’t this mean I’m due for a break? I can’t possibly keep losing. It simply isn’t fair. Gambler’s fallacy — the faulty idea that probability has a memory. If you are on a bad streak, you are “due” for a win. And so I continue to bet when I should sit a few hands out.

It’s fascinating how that works, isn’t it? Runs make the human mind uncomfortable. In our heads, probabilities should be normally distributed — that is, play out as described. If a coin is tossed ten times, about five of those should be heads. Of course, that’s not how probability actually works — and even though a hundred heads in a row should rightly make us wonder if we’re playing with a fair coin or stuck in a Stoppardian alternate reality, a run of ten or twenty may well happen. Our discomfort stems from the law of small numbers: We think small samples should mirror large ones, but they don’t, really. The funny thing isn’t our discomfort. That’s understandable. It’s the different flavors that discomfort takes when the runs are in our favor versus not. The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy are actually opposite sides of the exact same coin: positive recency and negative recency. We overreact to chance events, but the exact nature of the event affects our perception in a way it rightly shouldn’t.

We have a mental image of the silly gamblers who think they’re due to hit the magic score, and it’s comforting to think that won’t be us, that we’ll recognize runs for what they are: statistical probabilities. But when it starts happening in reality, we get a bit jittery. “All these squalls to which we have been subjected are signs the weather will soon improve and things will go well for us,” Don Quixote tells his squire, Sancho Panza, in Miguel de Cervantes’s 1605 novel, “because it is not possible for the bad or the good to endure forever, from which it follows that since the bad has lasted so long a time, the good is close at hand.” We humans have wanted chance to be equitable for quite some time. Indeed, when we play a game in which chance doesn’t look like our intuitive view of it, we balk.

Frank Lantz has spent over twenty years designing games. When we meet at his office at NYU, where he currently runs the Game Center, he lets me in on an idiosyncrasy of game design. “In video games where there are random events — things like dice rolls — they often skew the randomness so that it corresponds more closely to people’s incorrect intuition,” he says. “If you flip heads twice in a row, you’re less likely to flip heads the third time. We know this isn’t actually true, but it feels like it should be true, because we have this weird intuition about large numbers and how randomness works.” The resulting games actually accommodate that wrongness so that people don’t feel like the setup is “rigged” or “unfair.” “So they actually make it so that you’re less likely to flip heads the third time,” he says. “They jigger the probabilities.”

For a long time, Lantz was a serious poker player. And one of the reasons he loves the game is that the probabilities are what they are: they don’t accommodate. Instead, they force you to confront the wrongness of your intuitions if you are to succeed. “Part of what I get out of a game is being confronted with reality in a way that is not accommodating to my incorrect preconceptions,” he says. The best games are the ones that challenge our misperceptions, rather than pandering to them in order to hook players.

Poker pushes you out of your illusions, beyond your incorrect comfort zone — if, that is, you want to win. “Poker wasn’t designed by a game designer in the modern sense,” Lantz points out. “And it’s actually bad game design according to modern-day conceptions of how video games are designed. But I think it’s better game design because it doesn’t pander.” If you want to be a good player, you must acknowledge that you’re not “due” — for good cards, good karma, good health, money, love, or whatever else it is. Probability has amnesia: Each future outcome is completely independent of the past. But we persist in thinking that its memory is not only there but personal to us. We’ll be rewarded, eventually, if we’re only patient. It’s only fair.

But here’s the all-too-human element: We’re just fine with runs when they are in our favor. Hence the hot hand. When we’re winning, we don’t think we’re due for a change in the least. If the run is on our side, we’re thrilled to let it continue indefinitely. We think the bad streaks are overdue to end yesterday, but no one wants the good to end.

Why do smart people persist in these sorts of patterns? As with so many biases, it turns out that there may be a positive element to these illusions — an element that’s closely tied to the very thing I’m most interested in, our conceptions about luck. There’s an idea in psychology, first introduced by Julian Rotter in 1966, called the locus of control. When something happens in the external environment, is it due to our own actions (skill) or some outside factor (chance)? People who have an internal locus of control tend to think that they affect outcomes, often more than they actually do, whereas people who have an external locus of control think that what they do doesn’t matter too much; events will be what they will be. Typically, an internal locus will lead to greater success: People who think they control events are mentally healthier and tend to take more control over their fate, so to speak. Meanwhile, people with an external locus are more prone to depression and, when it comes to work, a more lackadaisical attitude.

Sometimes, though, as in the case of probabilities, an external locus is the correct response: Nothing you do matters to the deck. The cards will fall how they may. But if we’re used to our internal locus, which has served us well to get us to the table to begin with, we may mistakenly think that our actions will influence the outcomes, and that probability does care about us, personally. That we’re due to be in a certain part of the distribution, because our aces have already been cracked twice today. They can’t possibly fall yet again. We’ll forget what historian Edward Gibbon warned about as far back as 1794, that “the laws of probability, so true in general, [are] so fallacious in particular” — a lesson history teaches particularly well. And while probabilities do even out in the long term, in the short term, who the hell knows. Anything is possible. I may even final-table this charity thing.

One thing is for sure: Unless I cure my distaste for bad runs and the sense of exuberance that envelops me during the good ones, I am going to lose a lot of money. And maybe if I lose it for long enough, I’ll eventually stop thinking that the cards owe me anything at all — whether that’s continued success or an end to a streak of bad runouts. Or that’s the hope. Otherwise I’ll be one broke poker player.

Source: bandar agen judi bola

The Sports-Betting Boom Is Better For Others Than Penn National Gaming Stock

What’s next for Penn National Gaming (NASDAQ:PENN) stock? Shares have skyrocketed in recent weeks. With casinos reopening after the novel coronavirus shutdowns, investors are betting on a quick rebound. But, who’s to say we’ll see a V-shaped recovery at the gaming tables?

Casino stocks offer high risk, but high potential returns. Yet, Penn National now trades where it was pre-outbreak. Even as there are reasons why shares aren’t such a solid bet.

Firstly, the company mostly leases the real estate under its casinos. This may have been a smart financial engineering move. But it leaves them fewer liquidity options relative to peers.

Secondly, shares trade at a premium to stronger rivals like Las Vegas Sands (NYSE:LVS) and MGM Resorts (NYSE:MGM). This could make them better plays as casino stocks recover, as might VanEck Vectors Gaming ETF (NASDAQ:BJK), which holds all four names in its 42-stock exchange-traded fund portfolio.

Also, it’s questionable whether casino revenues will bounce back to normal right away. Given the industry’s high fixed costs, even a 20% decline in revenue could mean bad news.

In short, it may be better to skip out on this “too hot to touch” regional casino play. Let’s dive in, and see why PENN stock isn’t your “best bet.”Penn National Post-Pandemic

Can Penn National survive the coronavirus? When the pandemic first hit America, Wall Street’s answer was a resounding “no” as shares fell from above $39 in February to as low as $3.75 in March. Yet, with its casinos reopening, shares have rebounded ten-fold, to prices just above $37.50 per share.

Will shares continue to climb? That’s debatable. On one hand, initial results indicate strong demand. On the other hand, most states are imposing strict social distancing guidelines. This could mean things won’t return to 100% for quite some time.

But, there’s another big risk specific to PENN stock. The company leases, not owns, most of its properties. In fact, the company was a pioneer in the casino REIT (real estate investment trust) trend.

In 2013, the company spun off most of its real estate as the first casino REIT, Gaming and Leisure Properties (NASDAQ:GLPI). This transaction allowed them to realize the underlying value of its property. But while this boosted valuation, it left them exposed to heavy lease liabilities.

As our own Matt McCall wrote back in April, Penn National carries $8.5 billion in lease liabilities on its balance sheet. In 2020 alone, the company must make $900 million in lease payments. This wouldn’t be a problem if their casinos were generating cash flow. But, what happens if casinos fail to see a V-shaped recovery? It’s easy to see how this company could fall short of Wall Street’s sky-high expectations.

Yet, enthusiasm over the company’s moves into sports wagering have sent shares to a highly frothy valuation. With this in mind, things don’t look so hot from a risk/return perspective.Sports Betting Catalyst More Than Priced Into Shares

The recent rally in PENN Stock has made shares richly priced. The company’s enterprise value/EBITDA (EV/EBITDA) ratio now stands at 15.9. That’s a premium to the EBITDA multiples of Las Vegas Sands (12.6) and MGM (14.3).

Why have shares reached such a premium valuation? Chalk it up to the company’s sports betting catalyst. As I wrote May 29, the company’s investment in Barstool Sports could help boost the prospects for their budding sportsbook operations.

By partnering with Barstool, the company can market directly to podcasting network’s sports-obsessed, millennial-aged fan base. In short, a viable means to grab market share from first movers DraftKings (NASDAQ:DKNG) and Fanduel (OTCMKTS:PDYPY).

I agree this makes for a valid bull case for Penn National stock. Yet, this catalyst is more than priced into shares. Despite the pandemic closing its facilities for two months, this casino stock today has just about retraced its 52-week high.

In other words, the easy money’s already been made with PENN stock. Buying today out of pure FOMO may not be the best move. If tangible results in the next quarter or two don’t match up with today’s expectations, shares could fall back to lower levels.PENN Stock Is Not Your ‘Best Bet’

Casino reopenings, along with excitement over the company’s sports betting catalyst, have led investors to bid up this gaming company’s shares as of late. Should you join in, as the stock hits past highs?

Not so fast! PENN stock has more than priced-in its multiple catalysts. If you want to wager on a rebound, consider other casino stocks out there. But skip this one for now.

Thomas Niel, contributor to InvestorPlace, has written single-stock analysis since 2016. As of this writing, Thomas Niel did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities.

Source: judi poker online

Legal Perspective: You’re (Probably) Breaking The Law Playing Online Poker In The USA

Maurice “Mac” VerStandig is the managing partner of the VerStandig Law Firm, LLC, and focuses his practice on representing poker players, advantage gamblers, and other industry professionals in all manner of legal situations. He can be reached at 301-444-4600 or [email protected]

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints, and official policies of PokerNews.Com.

There is not, in fact, one weird trick to having the government pay your mortgage; there is no one vegetable all gut doctors recommend be eaten daily; and there is most certainly not some prescient fail-safe stock insight from the lone man who predicted the Great Recession, the collapse of the USSR, and Appalachian State’s upset of Michigan.

Nor, for that matter, is there one weird trick that makes the online poker games raided by the Department of Justice in 2011 magically legal today.

With COVID-19 came the closure of every licensed live poker room in the United States.

Some are now flirting with reopening, and while this is surely not an apt forum for the dispensation of medical advice, such setups strike many as unduly risky, while their shorthanded layouts strike others as strategically unpalatable.

Thus, online poker has experienced a marked and rapid renaissance, with nascent mobile poker apps enjoying surges in traffic, offshore websites becoming predictable topics du jour for Poker Twitter, and even the World Series of Poker – our community’s mainstay summer camp destination forced into sabbatical – upping its online offerings.

Yet few of these options are actually legal, let alone reasonably protected from illicit mischief. And for many, those scarce lawful outposts are beyond the reach of respective state lines.The Clearly Legal Options

Let’s start, though, with safe havens: WSOP.Com, Borgatapoker.Com, and other licensed poker sites in Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware are safe, regulated, secure gaming outlets.

Do we all periodically bemoan their mishaps? Sure. Is the pro-to-rec player ratio often undesirable? Absolutely. But chasing a Circuit ring online is lawful and generally secure.

A few other operators in the United States do tow the legal line.

This column is not an endorsement of any site or group of sites, but suffice it to posit at least one big-name poker operator has a domestic operation riffing off various states’ sweepstakes laws, and if that platform is available in your place of residence, you should be good to go.

It is normally easy to figure out which sites fall into this category – they tend to be the ones accepting credit cards, offering domestic mailing addresses, and inundating users with geofence checks.

Mac VerStandig

Poker lawyer Mac VerStandig playing at the WSOP. The Gray Area

There is another lawful online poker option for some – but not all – American residents: unraked cyber “home” games.

In certain states, playing an unraked poker game for money is kosher. And if both you and your respective adversaries are all positioned in these states, you should be in the clear so long as no one is charging to run the game.

The problem, of course, is 50 states have 50 different laws, and not all are black and white on this point.

If staying on the right side of the law is important to you (and it ought to be), contact a lawyer before assuming the sanctity of your cyber club game. (I’ll skip the shameless self-plug; plenty of attorneys less familiar with gaming laws than myself can give guidance on this point. Just make sure you’re working with an actual attorney and not an out-of-work barista who took a few classes on ancient Greek law while chasing a philosophy degree in college.)The Problem Areas

One of the frustrating urban legends borne of Black Friday is that playing online poker is perfectly legal; it is merely site operators and banks handling monetary transfers that are running afoul of the law. This is, in many cases, completely untrue.

“Every state has its own laws. And they range from obliquely prohibitive to occasionally permissive.”

Yes, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (here) – the ill-conceived federal statute that beget Black Friday – does limit much of its application to financial intermediaries. But that is not the only gaming-centric law in America by a longshot.

Every state has its own laws. And they range from obliquely prohibitive to occasionally permissive. D

o you live in Virginia? Section 18.2-326 of the state’s code makes it a class 3 misdemeanor to play in a raked poker game. Whether the game is online, in an underground casino, or in your pal’s basement matters not – if there is a rake or an administration fee, and you post a wager while sitting in the Commonwealth, you’re breaking the law.

How about Minnesota? Section 609.755 of the state’s statutory scheme renders it illegal to “make a bet.”

Do you call Utah home? Section 76-10-1102 of the local criminal code makes it a class B misdemeanor to “participate in gambling… including any Internet or online gambling.”

To be sure, these are not the only states that make it illegal to play in an unlicensed card game – plenty of others fall in line. And while some do seem to exempt participants from anti-gaming laws, that does not mean gaming winnings are not subject to forfeiture, your telling a buddy about a game will not give rise to a charge of promoting gambling, or an overzealous prosecutor will not one day theorize that participants are part of a conspiracy to put on an illegal poker game.

Oh, and if you are breaking a state anti-gaming law, you are also in hot water with the feds: Section 1955(d) of Title 18 of the United States Code makes clear that all money used in games illegal under state law can be seized by your cranky Uncle Sam.But it’s a Game of Skill

Poker is a game of skill – no argument here. And, yes, numerous states do have statutory schemes that seem to differentiate games of skill from games of chance and, ergo, place skill-based ventures beyond the reach of some anti-gaming laws.

Oddly enough, this is why it is often OK to wager $3 against a giant teddy bear while a carnival barker insults your spouse’s unibrow. But do not rely on this distinction; it has fallen out of favor with numerous courts in recent years, and too many judges cannot look past the randomness that permits donks to scoop pots when a three-outer comes swimming up the river.

Moreover, some states are express that it matters not if the game is one of skill, chance, or antebellum French literary prowess: if you are staking money, you are violating the law.What’s the Realistic Outcome?

There has not been a notable online poker raid in the United States since Black Friday. Does that mean prosecutors stopped caring? Maybe. Does that mean we’re due? Maybe.

But here’s the thing: you aren’t going to know a bust is coming until it happens – neither the FBI nor its state counterparts tend to post their to-do lists on Facebook.

“Illegal games lack the sort of judicial security upon which we all have grown accustomed to relying.”

If there is a bust, does it seem likely large swaths of players will be serving prison sentences for playing $20 tournaments from their bedrooms? No.

But there is also no guarantee or assurance on this front – prosecutors can be a fickle group, circumstances vary wildly, and if it turns out a few people in that tournament were under surveillance for unrelated criminal conduct, you could end up in a lot hotter of water than you might think simply by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Moreover, illegal games lack the sort of judicial security upon which we all have grown accustomed to relying.

If a legal casino impounds your bankroll, you have legal recourse. If an online operator freezes your account and ghosts your customer service messages, you are largely on your own.

There was a time when poker was generally illegal and justice was meted out with ropes drawn from trees. As a community, we have come a long way from those Wild West days, and candidly, most of us are not nearly cut out to defend our honor in a duel.

The poker players of today tend to be better schooled in the ways of ketosis than marksmanship.

By playing online, you probably are not risking the integrity of your kneecaps. But you also are not being afforded the judicial safeguards that have pulled our community out of days of yore and into the modern era. And that, in many ways, is a bigger gamble than the draws we are all accustomed to chasing.

Source: bandar agen judi bola