Pada saluran yang indah ini kita akan sedikit berbagi menurut anda seperti apa buku petunjuk bermain judi bandarq yang benar dan aman khususnya untuk anda yang sedang pemula, bermain judi bandarq itu tidak semudah yang anda bayangkan hanya dengan menyembunyikan taruhan maka anda bakal menang begitu saja, terdapat beberapa hal penting yang harus anda pelajari beserta baik agar bisa bermain dengan profesional. Berikut merupakan panduan sederhana bermain pertaruhan bandarq. Simak baik-baik ulasannya di bawah ini.
# Langkah pendaftaran
Langkah pertama yang harus anda lakukan adalah dengan mencari distributor judi online terlebih lewat yaitu agen judi domino online yang ada pada internet, gunakan cara yang sudah kami tuliskan pada website ini untuk memperoleh agen judi domino online yang terpercaya. Setelah kamu menemukan agen judi yang bsia dipercaya silahkan lakukan pendaftaran terlebih dahulu, pati semua form dengan betul dan valid terlebih untuk isian pada nomor perkiraan hingga kontak yang dikau miliki, kemudian setelah tersebut silahkan login dengan account yang sudah anda buat tadi, lakukan transfer deposit sesuai dengan jumlah minimal maupun maksimal yang dikasih oleh situs. Setelah tersebut silahkan lanjut pada tahap berikutnya.
# Tahap pengenalan permainan judi bandarq
Kemudian tahap kedua adalah tahap pengenalan judi domino online, pertama-tama anda pahami dulu apa itu tiket judi domino online, kartu judi ini biasa disebut dengan permainan judi gaple atau dadu bernomor kalau di daerah anda. Di setiap permainan judi kartu domino dilakukan 6-8 orang di satu meja dengan nilai taruhan yang beragam, mulai dari dari 2000 rupiah terlintas ratusan bahkan jutaan yen. Permainan ini menggunakan relevansi 52 kartu acak yang masing-masing player akan jadi secara acak, tujuan dari permainan ini adalah player yang mendapatkan kombinasi poin paling besar maka dialah yang akan menjadi pemenangnya.
# Tahap pengenalan sebutan dalam permainan judi bandarq
Kemudian tahap berikutnya member akan sedikit mengulas kurang lebih pengertian dari istilah yang digunakan dalam permainan betting domino, pertama adalah pengenalan di meja sendiri. Ada istilah check, raise, fold, call, hingga all tersebut. pengertian check sendiri menjajal kartu artinya tidak berbuat taruhan, Raise menaikkan taruhan lebih tinggi, fold bukan mengikuti permainan dan mempersembahkan kartu ke bandar, all in melakukan taruhan semata dana yang kita punya dan untuk call swasembada adalah memanggil taruhan pantas dengan jumlah taruhan sebelumnya. Kemudian pembahasan mengenai tiket spesial, dalam permainan tersebut ada 4 kartu spesial yang bisa anda miliki, jika anda bisa memperoleh salah satu dari 4 kartu spesial ini bisa dipastikan anda menang. Slip spesial mulai dari slip 99/qiu, kartu murni kecil/besar, kartu kembar/balak dan slip 6 dewa.
# Tara bermain judi domino online
Tahap pertama anda bakal duduk berjumlah 8 orang-orang, pembagian kartu seperti suksesi jam, pada pembagian pertama anda hanya akan nampi 3 kartu, analisa tiket anda apakah nantinya dapat berkombinasi bagus atau bukan, jangan terkecoh dengan slip bagus sebelum kartu ke empat muncul. Lakukan judi bola sesuai dengan keyakinan serta keputusan anda, setelah tersebut kartu ke empat bakal muncul, jika kartu kamu bagus misalnya 99/qq tidak sungkan untuk all in.
Nah itulah cara permainan judi domino yang simple dan mudah untuk para pemain pemula
45 responses to “Buku petunjuk Sederhana Memainkan Judi Bandarq Paling Mudah”
Here’s Matt Ridley giving a TedTalk. Excellent stuff.
Hi Pointman, excellent clip, many thanks for posting.
Hi Green Sand. Always a pleasure to share a good thing.
Unfortunately there is no way to castrate “bad ideas”.
Careful guys, TED is well known as a hotbed of liberal ideas. It’s one of Al Gore’s stages. (I actually met Gore personally at a TED conference.)
Here’s an article on Ridley…
I think you guys are misinterpreting what he’s saying. He’s not saying “don’t worry about it, it’s not happening.” He is saying that human’s have a unique capacity to ADDRESS issues and crises that are presented to us.
Note the title of the article: Matt Ridley: ‘We can overcome disease, poverty and climate change’
He’s not saying climate change is a hoax. The opposite. He’s saying we can overcome climate change.
Even a non-Malthusian can err.
Oh. I fell into the Orwellian trap of the warmists. For a moment, i read “Climate Change” as “Global Warming”, like the Orwellian warmists want. So, let’s re-read Rob literally. Read what the words mean, not what the Orwellian warmists want them to mean.
“Note the title of the article: Matt Ridley: ‘We can overcome disease, poverty and climate change’
He’s not saying climate change is a hoax. The opposite. He’s saying we can overcome climate change.”
The climate is by definition always changing (it’s the 30 year average of weather). Can we overcome changes in the climate? Yes. Insulation, A/C, better housing, and we’re all set. Cheap energy is always a necessity.
So i happily agree with Mr. Ridley. Changes in the climate are real, and we can overcome them. We’ve been doing that for ages.
I suggest you read a little more of what Ridley writes on this topic.
And FYI, it was the Bush admin that wanted to change the term from global warming to climate change, because it sounded less threatening to the public.
That doesn’t make much of a difference. See above – i was saying “warmists”, not “liberals”.
Oh i see -because Bush wasn’t signing Kyoto, he’s a kind of “denier” for you… Ok… but then, the question arises, why didn’t the Honorable Climatologists protest against this confusing choice of words, and called it Global Waming again after Bush left office? Obviously, they like “Climate Change” very much…
Dirk… Global warming and climate change are essentially two sides of the same coin. Global warming specifically refers to the rise in average global temperature. It’s a specific term. Climate change refers to what results from global warming. People colloquially use the two terms interchangeably but they each actually have specific meaning.
Nothing has changed about these terms in 100 years.
Rob is right. It’s the “skeptics” who have tried to change the name.
I think it’s a very well written book that provides a balanced view of the climate discussion.
The criticism is unfounded but if you take a closer look at the background of the critics and their position on AGW everything is clear.
I totally disagree with the statement that the book is a copy of WUWT.
I also think it deserves an english, german and spanish translation.
I have read a few months ago an interview with Marcel in the Volkskrant, till that date an AGW propagandist newspaper. Presently, the editors talk less and less about AGW, as if their belief is eroding. Marcel is a nice guy, but I found him a bit soft. May be politics. His book may be more suited for the general public and not for a hard-liner like me. I’ve just read on Lubos Motl’s site that there is something eroding at the highest political levels. Will AGW collapse silently or with a lot of noise? Will there be a ‘bijltjesdag’? It is a Dutch word for revenge right after WWII. Translated literally, ‘day of the little axes’.
Sorry Mindert… The evidence for AGW is growing stronger all the time.
If you mean with that, the AGW scientists continue to produce papers about the results of model runs, you’re surely right.
I think the belief is shrinking every day too …
And as the temperature plummets.
Wow! You’re right! The temperature has almost plunged all the way down to the 30 year rising trend line.
As the temperature plummets by rising 0.09°C over the past decade, according to UAH.
I wonder how long Pierre is going to keep repeating this “temperatures are plunging” myth. I’ve already had to correct him 3 times. Each time he admits I’m correct, then a day or two later, repeats the same myth.
And then they take offense at the term ‘denier’.
Not true. Ocean heat content peaked in 2003. Surface temps have been flat to down since 1998. In Nature.com, Trenberth of the IPCC said:
“So here is my prediction: the uncertainty in AR5’s climate predictions and projections will be much greater than in previous IPCC reports”
This means that the IPCC now has much less confidence in their predictions and projections than in previous years. Modeling the earth’s huge, incredibly complex, poorly understood, chaotic climate system is way beyond our current capabilities. The effect of clouds and biotics on our climate is poorly understood and won’t be well understood anytime soon. Trenberth’s statement above is just saying what is obvious, that the IPCC GCMs are not able to accurately model climate and confidence in their predictions has actually declined in recent years as we understand better what we don’t know.
The direct impact of doubling CO2 is 1 degree C. CO2 level is currently at 390 ppm and is going up 2 ppm per year. At these rates it will take about 2 centuries to raise temps by 1 degree C! This direct impact may be increased or decreased by feedbacks but nobody knows the signs of these feedback, let alone the magnitude.
Politically, in the USA, global warming alarmism is in a death spiral. Obama said not a word about global warming in the annual state of the union speech and actually got rid of his global warming staff person before the speech (btw, she won’t be replaced). She may have been trying to avoid being forced to testify in House investigations of various global warming chicaneries.
Increasing the cost of energy to fight global warming is economic and political suicide. In the USA, we’ve persuaded/forced the Republican party to adopt the skeptic perspective and overwhelmingly won the last election.
The scientific and political peak of global warming alarmism has peaked and is now ebbing.
Steve Koch said… “The direct impact of doubling CO2 is 1 degree C. CO2 level is currently at 390 ppm and is going up 2 ppm per year. At these rates it will take about 2 centuries to raise temps by 1 degree C! ”
The direct impact of CO2 alone is 1C for doubling CO2. Correct. If the story were only about CO2 we’d have no problem. Once again, I point people to the relative radiative forcings.
Sorry man, the science is just wee bit more complex than you’re letting onto.
Not only is Steve ignoring feedbacks and climate sensitivity, but he’s also ignoring the fact that CO2 emissions and concentrations are accelerating. The only way we’re going to keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations anywhere near a linear increase as countries like China and India continue to develop is to dramatically cut our emissions.
Hello Steve. You’re quite right. The politicians have walked away from Global Warming. If the mid-terms taught professional politicians anything, it was that not only was being pro-GW an electoral liability but also that being publically anti-GW picked up a lot of votes.
For any political movement like GW, that’s the death knell.
You guys are like the sports team who starts celebrating their win at the half-time.
Rob, wring metaphor – we’re like investors who expect a bear market. We’re over the peak of a cycle.
If Crok actually correct and he has why is he publishing it as a book, rather than as a peer-reviewed article? Why is his initial “slapdown” also an unreferenced un-peer reviewed article?
Once again, this is not the way ‘science’ is done. Either submit it to peer review (and show us the rejection letter) or don’t claim that it disproves anything, since it doesn’t.
Edwin, you know as well as we that the climate science peer review system is completely dominated by The Team; and all journals they don’t have under control they discount as junk anyway, so what difference does it make. Climate science is as monolitic as the USSR.
Dirk… The peer review system is dominated by – sorry – science. It’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, filtering out what is clearly bad science.
Don’t forget now, Lindzen has been published. Spencer, Christy… most of your legitimate gang have been published. All the really bad stuff has been rejected by the top level journals because they have reputations to protect. Get over it.
No. The peer review process was filtering out science that disproved the AGW theory. It was obvious from all the climategate e-mails. The publication of Mann’s HS and the story behind says it all. There was a lot more wrongdoing on top of that. The peer-review process had been totally corrupted. And rather than protecting their reputations, the journals have ruined them.
(see all the crooks at the 2:20 mark)
Pierre… No, what you read in the emails was the process at work.
What you avoid recognizing is that there were people trying to push BAD science through peer review over at Climate Research. What was the result? Most of the editorial staff resigned because of the Soon and Baliunas paper in question.
Even then, the paper STILL got through and it was considered in the IPCC report. What you read in the emails were just scientists getting frustrated with the outside influence trying to corrupt the scientific process.
You should look into the Climategate e-mails, methinks.
Dirk… Those climategate emails HAVE been looked into by several different independent groups and each have found nothing wrong. They each made suggestions that the sharing of data should be made more open but outside of that no one did anything wrong.
The inquiries have not looked at the e-mails at all. Also, read my words: *YOU* should look into the e-mails; you might learn something. What the whitewashing comitees do is irrelevant.
Dirk… I’ve looked into the emails as well. I’ve read plenty of them. The fact that you guys basically only found one out of context email (Mike’s nature trick) out of over 2000 emails over a 10 year period says a little something.
If there were the big conspiracy that you guys claim you’d have found plenty more than that. And even the “that” that you did find was a discussion that was already widely discussed in the scientific literature.
I mean, are you guys really that desperate?
I mean, honestly… Climategate is the biggest NON-story to ever hit the news stands in all of human history.
Why is it that warming is considered evidence of AGW?
Rob Honeycutt, the IPCC glorified the holy hot spot that doesn’t exist in the tropical troposphere.
We’re told the stratosphere is cooling, but that is not true either.
Would you give us examples from the “basic physics” that would explain those two failed tenets of AGW. Oh, and please don’t say the ‘hot spot’ isn’t.
Warming isn’t evidence of AGW, it’s consistent with AGW.
The IPCC did not “glorify” the hot spot. WTF does that even mean? And the hot spot may very well be there – the data isn’t good enough to say either way.
The stratosphere is cooling. As are the higher layers of the atmosphere.
The hot spot isn’t an anthropogenic signature. It’s a signature of any surface warming.
Got any more myths you’d like debunked?
The Honorable Climatologists went to great lengths to find the hot spot; they need it to show consistency of their models.
e.g. Santer et. al.
And of course, they try to dismiss all data that shows something different than their models. A futile exercize it will be in the end. “The hot spot may very well be there.” One can hope. 😉
Dirk… Did you not understand what Dana said. If there is no hotspot there is no warming, whatever the source. The hotspot is not a signature of AGW, it is a signature of warming, period. As far as I’ve seen here so far, no one believes there has been no warming over the past 30 years.
For there to be no hotspot that would mean that Spencer, Christy and Lindzen – and even Singer – are all wrong because they all readily admit that there has been warming.
People who need a catastrophe in their view of the future can always produce the science to support it. The next human disaster will not be caused by global warming. But keep believing it if that’s your fancy.
Stop counting your chickens, AGWer Obama is still pushing his CO2 agenda. He is attempting to create a few false illusions to mask his unchanged strategy to control energy production and consumption:
Well, Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, is one of Obama’s economical advisors now. If i were Jeff, i knew what i would tell the president… buy some more wind turbines, they’re bon marché! (Disclosure: I bought GE stock a year ago. I did not anticipate that! Sometimes the gravy train is good to me.)
Right away, buyers should know that Cialdini has produced a less-expensive version of this book. “Influence: Science and Practice” is designed as a textbook for classroom instruction. So, it has things like chapter summaries and questions that can be assigned as homework. However, the other book “Influence: the psychology of persuasion,” is designed for a more general audience. The content is basically the same, but it omits the classroom-oriented layout. It’s also cheaper. If you are a student who is buying textbooks online, this is probably what you (or rather, your professors) want. If not, get the other one.
Both books focus on persuasive tactics. This is not a theoretical work trying to lay out a strategy of communication, like “Getting to Yes.” This is a toolkit, designed to give the reader a selection of tools for specific circumstances. That is not to say that Cialdini lacks an understanding of more strategic thinking, just that it isn’t the focus here.
The underlying theory is that people tend to be hardwired to respond to certain stimuli in predictable ways. The book tells you what those stimuli are, that is, how to push people’s buttons. And it does a very good job, which is why Cialdini has demand for two versions of the same book.
I’m not going to list all of the tactics because the table of contents does that and, because they’re detailed, they’re difficult to understand without reading the book. But, they all have some basis in science and their effectiveness is empirically demonstrable, so you can trust that they work. The best part of this book, for me, was becoming more conscious of how others, including politicians, advertisers, and bosses, try to manipulate me. Cialdini deserves respect just for opening people’s eyes, but he goes a step further by explaining ways to deal with the constant manipulation that is inherent in human communication.
The only problems I see are that the textbook version (this one) has a better index in the editions I compared, so it makes a better reference tool and that the book is written from an American cultural perspective. That’s fine, as most of his audience is American, but, and this is my M.A. in Int’l Relations talking, I wonder how well some of these tactics would be recieved by people from other cultural backgrounds. In particular, notions of authority (which constitute a chapter) vary widely. Just a heads up. This is still a “must read” for people who want to know how to persuade or protect themselves against other’s persuasion.