Tips Bermain Judi Kartu DominoQQ Untuk Memperoleh Kemenangan

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Tips Bermain Judi Kartu Bandarq Untuk Memperoleh Kemenangan
T
idak heran jika banyak sekali pemain judi yang lebih memilih permainan judi Bandarq sebagai salah satu jenis permainan judi paling favorit hingga saat ini, alasan yang paling mendasari tidak lain adalah permainan ini mudah untuk dimainkan dan kesempatan untuk mendapatkan kemenangan antara satu pemain dengan pemain lainnya cukup adil. Tidak semua pemain judi benar-benar bisa menikmati permainan ini dengan baik. Ada banyak hal yang perlu anda ketahui dan pelajari sebelum benar-benar mendapatkan kemenangan dari permainan judi satu ini. berikut ini kami akan sedikit mengulas informasi yang berhubungan dengan kelebihan bermain judi BandarQ dibandingkan dengan permainan judi lainnya, simak ulasannya dibawah ini.
# Permainan lebih simple dan menyenangkan
Hal pertama yang membuat permainan ini menarik banyak penjudi online adalah karena permainan ini dibuat secara simple sehingga semua pemain bisa mempelajarinya dengan cukup cepat, terlebih lagi untuk permainan ini lebih menguntungkan dengan banyak kemenangan, sangat senang jika seorang pemain bisa mendapatkan kartu spesial yang ada dipermainan judi kartu Bandarq ini, terlebih semua pemain juga mendapatkan peluang dan kesempatan yang sama.
# Hadiah jackpot yang cukup menarik
Berbeda dengan permainan Bandarq dan jenis permainan kartu lainnya, anda bisa mendapatkan hadiah tambahan atau biasa dalam dunia perjudian disebut dengan istilah jackpot, permainan judi online kartu Bandarq ini cukup untuk memberikan kesempatan kepada anda menjadi orang kaya dalam waktu sejam saja, jackpot dengan nilai paling tinggi 6 jutaan pastinya bisa anda dapatkan dengan cukup mudah. Perlu anda ketahui sebelumnya bahwa dalam permainan judi Bandarq ini dikenal dengan istilah kartu spesial, masing-masing kartu spesial memiliki hadiah sesuai dengan tingkat kesulitan untuk mendapatkannya. Mislanya kartu spesial yang paling sulit didapatkan adalah kartu spesial 6 dewa yang mana ketika anda mendapatkan kartu ini maka hadiah langsung bisa anda dapatkan adalah 6 jutaan lebih. Lumayan bukan ?
# Penggunaan fitur yang menarik dan mudah dijalankan
Kemudian kelebihan yang paling menarik banyak pemain judi online tidak lain adalah penggunaan fitur yang canggih dan mudah untuk dijalankan, saat ini dalam menjalankan permainan judi tidak perlu lagi menggunakan cara yang sulit, cukup dengan menggunakan aplikasi Bandarq yang tersedia di dalam situs maka anda bisa bermain judi online dengan cukup mudah, pastikan bahwa handphone anda sudah support dengan instalisasi aplikasi dari internet. dengan begitu anda akan cukup nyaman untuk bermain judi secara online baik di kantor maupun di rumah dengan aplikasi mobile.
# Lebih banyak pemain lebih banyak kemenangan
Kemudian yang terakhir kelebihan dari permainan judi Bandarq sendiri adalah banyaknya pemain juga menjadi tanda kemenangan yang besar untuk anda, bagaimana tidak ? ketika anda mendapatkan kartu bagus maka mau tidak mau semua player harus membayar kekalahan mereka sesuai dengan jumlah taruhan yang anda pasang, bisa dipastikan anda akan menang dalam jumlah besar, kita ambil contoh seperti ini, anda bermain di meja large dengan blind kecil pertama adalah 100 ribu, permain berjumlah 8 orang maka jumlah ante di meja 800 ribu, anda memiliki kartu bagus dan melakukan raise menjadi 200 ribu, semua pemain mengikuti jumlah ante yang ada dimeja menjadi 2.400.000, ternyata kombinasi kartu anda bagus, kemenangan besar pasti menjadi milik anda bukan ?
Nah itulah beberapa cara jika anda ingin mendapatkan kemenangan dalam bermain judi bandar ceme online domino bet di internet, semoga informasi ini nantinya bisa sedikit memberikan wawasan terkait dengan permainan judi yang ada di internet. Terimakasih sudah berkunjung.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

45 responses to “Tips Bermain Judi Kartu DominoQQ Untuk Memperoleh Kemenangan”

  1. Pointman

    Here’s Matt Ridley giving a TedTalk. Excellent stuff.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLHh9E5ilZ4

    Pointman

    1. Green Sand

      Hi Pointman, excellent clip, many thanks for posting.

      1. Pointman

        Hi Green Sand. Always a pleasure to share a good thing.

        Pointman

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      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.)

    3. Rob Honeycutt

      Here’s an article on Ridley…
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/may/24/matt-ridley-rational-optimist

      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.

      1. DirkH

        Even a non-Malthusian can err.

        1. DirkH

          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.

          1. Rob Honeycutt

            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.

          2. DirkH

            That doesn’t make much of a difference. See above – i was saying “warmists”, not “liberals”.

          3. DirkH

            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…

          4. Rob Honeycutt

            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.

          5. Dana

            Rob is right. It’s the “skeptics” who have tried to change the name.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/whats-in-a-name.html

  2. R. de Haan

    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.

    Who know’s.

  3. Mindert Eiting

    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’.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Sorry Mindert… The evidence for AGW is growing stronger all the time.

      1. DirkH

        If you mean with that, the AGW scientists continue to produce papers about the results of model runs, you’re surely right.

      2. Pointman

        I think the belief is shrinking every day too …

        Pointman

      3. Steve Koch

        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.

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          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.

          http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html

          Sorry man, the science is just wee bit more complex than you’re letting onto.

          1. Dana

            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.

        2. Pointman

          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.

          Pointman

          1. Rob Honeycutt

            You guys are like the sports team who starts celebrating their win at the half-time.

            Just wait.

          2. DirkH

            Rob, wring metaphor – we’re like investors who expect a bear market. We’re over the peak of a cycle.

  4. Edwin Adlerman

    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.

    1. DirkH

      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.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        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.

        1. DirkH

          You should look into the Climategate e-mails, methinks.

          1. Rob Honeycutt

            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.

          2. DirkH

            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.

          3. Rob Honeycutt

            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?

          4. Rob Honeycutt

            I mean, honestly… Climategate is the biggest NON-story to ever hit the news stands in all of human history.

  5. slimething

    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.

    1. Dana

      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.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

      The hot spot isn’t an anthropogenic signature. It’s a signature of any surface warming.

      Got any more myths you’d like debunked?

      1. DirkH

        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.
        https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

        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. 😉

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          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.

  6. Paddy

    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:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703893104576108501552298070.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    1. DirkH

      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.)

  7. J. Hoelscher

    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.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close