Estancia cops arrest gun-wielding man

first_imgAn improvised 12-gauge shotgun loaded with several live bullets was confiscated from 31-year-old Lancer Limboy, a police report showed. ILOILO City – Police arrested a man for illegal possession of firearm in Barangay Sta. Ana, Estancia, Iloilo. Prior to his arrest, Limboy – resident of the village – allegedly threatened his neighbors with his gun. Concerned citizens reported the suspect to the police, which resulted to his apprehension around 11:10 p.m. on Aug. 1.center_img The suspect was detained in the lockup cell of the Estancia police station, facing charges for violation of Republic Act 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act will be filed against him./PNlast_img read more

Week 11 NFL DFS Picks: Best value players, sleepers for FanDuel, DraftKings daily fantasy football lineups

first_imgThis seems scary, but you can get some serious salary relief by rostering this defense that has allowed 16 and 12 points, respectively, in its past two games (against the Jets and Colts). It’s worth mentioning that the Dolphins picked off three passes in Indy, and Josh Allen isn’t exactly someone who is known to take care of the football.New Orleans Saints at Buccaneers (DraftKings $2,900 | FanDuel $4,800)Speaking of not taking care of the football, rostering any defense against turnover-prone Jameis Winston is never a bad idea due to the potential for a pick-six or scoop-and-score. Even if this game shoots out, the Saints could realistically have a defensive touchdown. NFL DFS Picks Week 11: QB sleepers, valuesKyle Allen, Panthers vs. Falcons (DraftKings $5,300 | FanDuel $7,200)The Falcons inexplicably shut down the elite Saints offense last week, which will keep the public off of Allen in this matchup. However, Atlanta has allowed 260.8 passing yards per game (25th) and 2.1 passing touchdowns per game (28th), which sets up the Panthers quarterback in a pretty solid spot with some dangerous weapons for him to utilize. Ryan Fitzpatrick, Dolphins vs. Bills (DraftKings $5,100 | FanDuel $7,100)At this point in his career, you know what you’re going to get out of Fitzpatrick. He was just named Miami’s starting quarterback for the remainder of the season after guiding the rebuilding team to two straight victories and has thrown the ball 35, 34, 36 and 33 times, respectively, over his past four contests. He went 23-for-35 for 282 yards, a touchdown and an interception against the Bills earlier this season and has a decent chance to improve upon that performance in Miami. WEEK 11 DFS LINEUPS:Y! cash | Y! GPP | DK cash | DK GPP |  FD cash | FD GPPRyan Finley, Bengals at Raiders (DraftKings $5,000 | FanDuel $6,300)Let’s not beat around the bush: Finley’s NFL debut last week was ugly. He went 16-for-30 for 167 yards, a touchdown and an interception in a 49-13 loss to the Ravens. On the plus side, Finley should be able to rebound against Oakland’s defense since he will most likely play from behind and the Raiders have surrendered 283.2 passing yards per game this season (third worst). At his price tag across the industry, he’s worth considering. WEEK 11 NON-PPR RANKINGS:Quarterback | Running back | Wide receiver | Tight end | D/ST  | KickerWeek 11 DraftKings, FanDuel Picks: RB sleepers, valuesJosh Jacobs, Raiders vs. Bengals (DraftKings $6,900 | FanDuel $8,000)You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or an NFL coach to know what the Raiders will plan to do on offense against the Bengals. Cincinnati has been mindblowingly awful against the run this season (league-high 173 rushing yards per game allowed). The next-worst team, Kansas City, has allowed 24.9 fewer rushing yards per contest than them. That means Jacobs will get touches early and often, and since he’s one of the few workhorse backs in the league, could see upwards of 30 touches if the Raiders get out to a lead. Brian Hill, Falcons at Panthers (DraftKings $4,800 | FanDuel $5,900)With Devonta Freeman slated to miss this game due to a foot injury, Hill becomes a logical option due to the volume he saw against the Saints last week (20 carries for 61 yards, one catch for 10 yards and a touchdown). The Panthers have struggled to contain the run and rank 29th, surrendering 136.7 rushing yards per contest. Derrius Guice, Redskins vs. Jets (DraftKings $4,700 | FanDuel $4,700)Since rookie Dwayne Haskins has already been confirmed as the starting quarterback for the rest of the season, it makes sense for the Redskins (1-8) to give Guice an extended look at running back instead of giving veteran Adrian Peterson the bulk of the carries. As seen in brief spurts, Guice can be explosive, which makes him interesting, even against a formidable Jets rush defense. MORE WEEK 11:Waiver wire | FAAB planner | Trade values |  Snap counts | Fantasy playoff SOSFanDuel, DraftKings Picks Week 11: WR sleepers, valuesTre’Quan Smith, Saints at Buccaneers (DraftKings $3,800 | FanDuel $4,900)Michael Thomas will likely be the chalkiest wideout on the slate, and he’s a phenomenal play. However, he’s expensive across the industry and it makes sense to consider other pieces of New Orleans’ passing offense against the porous Bucs defense. Tampa Bay has allowed an NFL-worst 298.9 passing yards per game, which means Drew Brees and company will most likely go off in this matchup, especially after they put up nine points against the Falcons last week. Smith had just one catch for 13 yards in his return from injury against Atlanta and could see an additional workload against the pass-funnel Bucs defense. Marquise Brown, Ravens vs. Texans (DraftKings $5,600 | FanDuel $5,600)Brown has been a steady deep threat for Lamar Jackson and is coming off of a four-catch, 80-yard performance that included a touchdown last week. If you think the Texans can hang with the Ravens, Brown’s role is solidified, and his connection with Jackson is clear. While the rookie has only 28 just passes this season, his 16.2 yards per catch shows off his explosiveness. MORE WEEK 11 DFS: Values | Stacks  | Lineup BuilderJamison Crowder, Jets at Redskins (DraftKings $5,700 | FanDuel $6,500)Over the past two weeks, Crowder has posted solid stat lines as Sam Darnold’s top target (9-83-1 at Miami, 5-81-1 vs. the Giants). While he’s been a steady source of cheap fantasy points across the industry, the way in which he’s accumulated those stats has been frustrating. Darnold tends to target Crowder early and often, but then he tends to disappear in the second half. Expect Crowder to continue his strong recent play in an exploitable matchup against the Redskins, and if he can put together a full game of production, he could break the slate.WEEK 11 PPR RANKINGS: Running back |  Wide receiver  |  Tight endWeek 11 NFL DFS Picks: TE sleepers, valuesO.J. Howard, Buccaneers vs. Saints (DraftKings $3,600 | FanDuel $5,300)Although the “tight ends against Arizona” storyline is always fun to mention, Howard saw a season-high seven targets and finally found the end zone against the Cardinals last week. In what could be a shootout against the Saints, expect Jameis Winston to look his way as he attempts to build off of his Week 10 performance.Mike Gesicki, Dolphins vs. Bills (DraftKings $3,500 | FanDuel $5,100)Gesicki let down everyone that rostered him last week, catching three-of-six targets for 28 yards against the Colts. Since Miami’s receiving corps is depleted and DeVante Parker (who saw 10 targets last week) will likely have to deal with Bills corner Tre’Davious White on the outside, Gesicki is a strong tournament option at lower presumed ownership than in Week 10.BetQL , RotoQL’s sister product, simplifies the research process for sports bettors by equipping them with real-time line movements, value bets of the day and meaningful team trends.  Check it out here !Week 11 NFL DFS values: D/ST sleepersMiami Dolphins vs. Bills (DraftKings $2,500 | FanDuel $3,600) There’s going to be some extreme chalk on the Week 11 NFL DFS main slate. Lamar Jackson and Drew Brees are two of the most expensive quarterbacks across the industry and both have slate-breaking potential (Jackson is matchup-proof and Brees will take aim at the vulnerable Buccaneers secondary). Christian McCaffrey and Michael Thomas will also likely be high-priced chalk options in FanDuel and DraftKings contests. If you want to jam in one, two, or three of the aforementioned superstars, you’re going to need to identify some sleepers to support your lineup picks around them. Below are some of the daily fantasy football value options that stand out.But before we break down top Week 11 value plays, please note that the picks and analysis below is provided by the industry-leading DFS experts at  RotoQL  Find out why 100,000 DFS players trust RotoQL to build lineups.  Optimize, find value plays, and increase your chances of cashing today ! last_img read more

Simple tweak could nearly double the amount you give to charity

first_img Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) But that reasoning is based on the assumption that people make their decisions like Star Trek’s supremely rational Vulcans. “Mr. Spock [donates] just because he cares about the outcome for the child,” Gneezy says, but this assumption is “a mistake” because it ignores the main motivation for giving: “It makes us feel good.” Anything that reduces that good feeling will lower the likelihood of a donation. And one of the biggest turnoffs is the perception that donations are being leeched by an organization, which economists call overhead aversion.A charity can’t make its overhead costs completely disappear, but there is a way to make it appear to be zero from the perspective of an individual donor: First convince a big donor to cover the charity’s overhead costs, and then everyone else can be told that 100% of their donations will go directly to the mission. Based on the psychology of decision-making, Gneezy reasoned, that should boost donations by eliminating people’s overhead aversion.Gneezy and colleagues started with a laboratory experiment. They recruited 449 undergraduate students and gave each of them a choice of donating $100 to one of two real but little-known charities: Kids Korps USA, “a nonprofit organization that engages young people in volunteerism and teaches them about leadership and civic responsibility,” or charity: water, “a nonprofit organization that brings clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations.”The donation information provided to help the subjects make their decisions varied. In some cases, a donation to one charity was part of a fund drive where the donation would be matched by a committed donor, either in a 1-1 ratio or a 3-1 ratio. In other cases, the donation would just be added to a “seed fund” that was already committed. And to test the overhead aversion hypothesis, sometimes a donation to a charity would come with the promise that 100% of the money would go to the cause, because the overhead was already covered by another donor.Removing the overhead made a big difference. When subjects were told that all of their donation would go directly to the cause, they were 80% more likely to donate to a charity compared with the same charity with a seed fund, and 94% more likely compared with matching donations, the team reports this week in Science. Surprisingly, the rate of donation was the same when the donations were matched either 1-to-1 or 3-to-1.Then the team did a real-world experiment. Last year, an unnamed educational charity mailed out a request for donations to 40,000 people divided evenly into four treatment groups: overhead-free, matching funds, seed fund, and a control group with no special terms. They were asked to give any amount they could, but were encouraged to give between $20 and $100. Sure enough, removing overhead boosted total donations 64%, yielding $13,220 compared with $8040 from the control group.”This is a very clever study with obvious real-world implications,” says Daniel Oppenheimer, a psychologist at UC Los Angeles. Overhead aversion has long been known to be powerful, he says, even causing “people to prefer to give to charities with lower overhead that help fewer people than charities with higher overhead that actually do more good.” But a practical challenge will be to find donors willing to cover the overhead, because “large donors don’t like overhead any more than other donors.”So should all charities try to switch to this strategy? Some who study charitable giving hope not. “Overheads are already a bad way to assess a charity,” says Toby Ord, a philosopher at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the co-founder of the evidence-based charity ranker Giving What We Can. “So this takes a bad metric and either nullifies it or exploits it, depending on how you look at it.” Rather than using a “trick” to make a donor think they are more efficient, Ord says, charities should focus on improving their efficacy.But Gneezy contends that no one is being tricked. Even knowing that overhead should not be an important factor in a donation decision, “I feel the same as our subjects do. … What I find nice about our solution is that it is a simple change in the name of the gift that makes us so happy about it—even when we are fully aware of this. It’s not a ‘trick’ or ‘nudge’ or ‘irrational’—it is a different feeling that we get from our donations.” A representative from a charitable organization stops you on the sidewalk and asks for $100 to feed people starving in the developing world. And a large donor has agreed to match your donation. Still, you hesitate, because you wonder how much of that money will be sucked up by the salary of the charity’s CEO or the costs of yet more fundraising. “Don’t worry,” the rep tells you, “all of those overhead costs are paid for by another donor: So 100% of your money will help the hungry.” It may seem to be nothing more than an accounting trick—after all, the charity’s budget and operation hasn’t changed—but you will now be almost twice as likely to donate and willing to give 75% more money, according to a new study. It is yet more evidence that classic economic theory is wrong about how people make decisions.There’s no such thing as a free lunch, even for charities. Even the most efficient organization must use at least a tiny portion of its income to cover administration costs. For example, the American Red Cross spends 10% of its $3 billion in revenue on administration and fundraising. Its nonmission spending has been controversial, but other charities have even larger overheads. To improve the health of mothers and babies, for example, March of Dimes spends 33% of its $200 million budget on administration and fundraising. Should people only donate their money to charities with the lowest overhead ratios?According to current theory, “basing donation decisions on overhead is wrong,” says Uri Gneezy, an economist at the Rady School of Management at the University of California (UC), San Diego. Some charitable missions may simply be more expensive to administer. And if a particular mission—taking care of the poor children in your city—is what you really care about, then you should base your decision on efficacy, not efficiency.center_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrylast_img read more