Winter 08

Running.
Share
Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 1:02pm | Edit Note | Delete
A few years ago I hit my running peak. I managed to run 26km on one of my long runs, which is the equivalent of a half marathon. Shortly after that run I hurt my leg moving some furniture, and it was difficult to get back into the running program. I had to start at square one and square one sucks. Every time that I did start again the injury came back too, so I eventually made the difficult decision to give up the idea of running and switch to weights to stay in shape. But I've always missed running. I've tried to start again a few times but I'd lost all of my conditioning and starting at square one (run 1 minute, walk 1 minute) was really demoralizing. It took everything I had to do 20 minutes on the treadmill, and I couldn't seem to convince myself to get back out onto the roads,
This year of brutal physical work outdoors has had a tremendous side effect for me however. My legs are the strongest they've ever been since my running days, and I'm in great shape as far as cardio is concerned. When I got back into the gym after the year had finished I found that I'd lost some of my strength when it came to lifting weights, but I was doing 45 minutes on the treadmill at 2km/hr more than my usual pace almost effortlessly. The first thing that occurred to me is that I can probably jump back in to my running routine. So for the past 2 weeks I've been easing back into it. Today concludes the end of the second week. I'm not ready to run any marathons, or 10ks or 5ks for that matter, but I've got a good base to work with. This week I started with run 3 minutes walk 1 minute, repeat 6 times every session, 3 times a week. Today was was my final run of the week, and so far I'm still injury free. I think that I could probably start with a full 20 minute run right now, but I really don't want to mess up again by going for too much too soon. I'm going to hold at run 3 walk 1 for next week as well, then I'll start moving towards longer runs again.
Today was fantastic. It was everything that I love about running. I left the chaos of my house and in 3 minutes I was at the Mendel heading for the Meewassin Trail. It snowed last night, but by the time I made my run the sun had melted it off of the roads and sidewalks. There was still enough on the grass and in the shadows to make for a beautiful and picturesque day, and the pavement was just wet enough to amplify the sunlight and create an extra bright day. It's Remembrance Day and the streets and sidewalks were deserted except for other runners. We'd pass each other on the trail with a nod and a genuine smile, in absolute silence except for the sound of our breathing and our footsteps on the path. There is a real peace that comes with running, an in the moment kind of simultaneous awareness and detachment. You're acutely aware of your form and your breathing and the path in front of you, and at once you do your best to detach the pain and natural resistance that your body places upon you when you exert yourself. It's a very zen state. Anyway the run was tremendous, and I came home feeling lighter, calmer, faster, stronger and more balanced than when I'd left. I can hardly wait for my next run.
Add a comment


Flatland Grinder: Using the Force Part Deux
Share
Friday, November 9, 2007 at 1:26pm | Delete
So in the last post I was talking about an excess of information often complicating and clouding otherwise simple decisions. Often times, this excess of information results in it's possessor developing a false sense of confidence in a judgement call due to the sheer volume of the knowledge. "I have so much data indicating that 'x' is true that it's virtually impossible for 'y' to have any degree of truth." This idea really resonated with my poker experience, particularly when it comes to using tracking software. You may recall a post I made on Hudbots, and the indispenability of playing with PAHUD. I'm revisiting that idea somewhat these days. PAHUD is certainly a useful tool, and it produces a staggering amount of data. But there are some cases where using and relying on PAHUD can be even more harmful than playing without it. I played a hand yesterday that will illustrate this point beautifully. First of all, it's imperative to identify that there were several factors that went into the gross misinterpretation of this hand. I generally play about 6 tables at a time. In this hand I was playing 8 tables, which was a bit of a stretch for me. I wasn't paying quite as much attention as I should have been, but I was counting on PAHUD to help me make decisions that would otherwise be based on a combination of observation and intuition. It's also important to realize that I would have made a perfect read on my opponents had I been paying attention and using accurate info. However my information was inaccurate, a fact that I didn't realize until the hand was over. I was in the big blind for this hand. But I was distracted, and I didn't notice that I was. I was dealt jqo, a hand that I will usually muck to a raise. However when it came time to act in this hand I was distracted by some activity in the house. I'd called a raise with jqo, and what's worse, I didn't realize I had. When the flop came down jq6 I was operating under the impression that it was an unraised pot. This assumption was to be the basis of a series of information based mistakes that cost me a lot of money. I raised my top pair and was immediately reraised by the guy behind me (Lars). Looking at his hudstats I concluded that he wouldn't be in an unraised pot with a decent hand. I put him on a flush draw based on his aggression numbers and i reraised. The guy behind him (Dejection) rereraised all in. Instantly my gut instinct screamed "He has a set". However I took a moment to think about it and I looked at his stats. This player was playing in only 6% of pots, and he was raising almost 5% of those. In order for him to have a set he would have to have either jj, qq, or 66. 66 was outside of his hand range. It's a hand that he just wouldn't play period and I easily eliminated the possibility of a set of 6s. I quickly ruled out jj or qq. This player was certainly playing those hands, but with a pfr almost equal to his vpip, he would be guaranteed to raise them. He had to have one of the 1% or so of hands that he wasn't raising. I put him on aq, or possibly kq with a flush draw, with the very unlikely prospect that he might have the same hand. An all in raise with a flush draw and 2 callers isn't a bad play at all, especially if he had equity from catching top pair as well. I recall thinking that "If there'd been a raise preflop this would be an easy fold." I was 8 tabling, and shouting back and forth with a family member upstairs. I took the few seconds I had to consider this hand to look at stats, sticking with my assumptions about preflop action. After Dejection's all in raise I called and so did Lars for his remaining few chips. This fit with my initial assessment that Lars was on a flush draw. He was a fairly solid player, and getting 2-1 on the flop for his draw, the all in move was a good play. Well needless to say 6% had pocket jack for a set, leaving me just the 2 remaining queens for outs. I missed them, Lars missed his draw and Dejection stacked us both. Without HUDbot this hand would have been an easy fold. I had to consciously over ride my intuition on this hand with a barrage of data and even then it just 'felt' wrong. My goal for the next few weeks is going to be to count on my instincts more than my software. I don't plan to abandon the software altogether, but I need to integrate it in a more cooperative fashion with my gut. Here's the hand history, and for those of you that concern yourself with such things, the stats on my opponents. 007Lars Vpip 21.88 (Voluntarily put in pot) Pfr 6.25 (Pre-Flop Raise) Af 2.00 (Aggression Factor) Dejection Vpip 10.29 Pfr 6.01 Af 14.00 (absolutely huge aggression factor) Seat 1: dejection ($24.50 in chips)
Seat 2: tmobjerg ($12.65 in chips)
Seat 3: martind02 ($28.50 in chips)
Seat 4: Stingray3x ($28.75 in chips)
Seat 6: happy yorik ($31.35 in chips)
Seat 7: L3st3rMurphy [ QH,JS ] ($35.65 in chips)
Seat 8: Cantrim ($23.00 in chips)
Seat 9: 007Lars ($21.05 in chips)
Seat 10: Wormie911 ($13.20 in chips)
ANTES/BLINDS
L3st3rMurphy posts blind ($0.25), Cantrim posts blind ($0.25). PRE-FLOP
007Lars bets $1, Wormie911 folds, dejection calls $1, tmobjerg folds, martind02 folds, Stingray3x folds, happy yorik folds, L3st3rMurphy calls $0.75, Cantrim folds. FLOP [board cards JD,QD,6S ]
L3st3rMurphy bets $3, 007Lars bets $12.25, dejection bets $23.50 and is all-in, L3st3rMurphy calls $20.50, 007Lars calls $7.80 and is all-in. TURN [board cards JD,QD,6S,9C ] RIVER [board cards JD,QD,6S,9C,KH ] SHOWDOWN
dejection shows [ JC,JH ]
L3st3rMurphy shows [ QH,JS ]
007Lars shows [ AD,KD ]
dejection wins $68.80. SUMMARY
Dealer: happy yorik
Pot: $70.30, (including rake: $1.50)
dejection bets $24.50, collects $68.80, net $44.30
tmobjerg loses $0
martind02 loses $0
Stingray3x loses $0
happy yorik loses $0
L3st3rMurphy loses $24.50
Cantrim loses $0.25
007Lars loses $21.05
Wormie911 loses $0
Add a comment | View original post


"I Watched A Snail Crawl Along the Edge of a Straight Razor"
Share
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 8:29pm | Edit Note | Delete
Film buffs will recognize the above line as a quote from Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. He's of course a madman, and on the surface he's talking about a dream he had, but in reality he's talking about walking the tightrope between good and evil, the razor's edge between good and evil. "This is my dream, this is my nightmare" he goes on to say (or something like that). Well I too have watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. And that razor is the thin line between employed and unemployed. Those of you that know me and know me well are familiar with my intense distaste for labor and work in general. I'm more about the moment. My EI claim is currently processing as I have just been laid off from my job. But there is a Catch 22. In order to collect EI, I must be looking for full time work. Well I'm a pretty good looking guy, I'm a smart guy and I'm a darn good interviewee. I've got a lot going for me. In short, it's a little tricky to stay unemployed. Fortunately for me I'm a habitual fuck up and a bit of a nut job. I figure that all I have to do is be completely open and honest with any and all prospective employers. For example, one job that I recently applied for stipulated in their ad that 'a good driving record is a mandatory requirement as the representative will be required to travel." So I wrote up a striking and impressive cover letter detailing that without question I had every quality they were seeking in abundance, even excess. However I included the caveat that my driving record was terrible and that I had recently been turned down for a similar position based on it. I actually went as far as to mention "I have a heavy foot". Well wouldn't you fucking know it, I passed the phone interview. Then today I passed the face to face interview. This despite arriving several minutes late. When he asked me what I'd learned about the company in the several days that I'd had to prepare I said "Well I've been really busy and haven't had a chance to look into any of that." Still passed! Thank God for the online personality and psychological assessment they're going to send me next. There's no way in Hell I can pass that! I was even 100% honest with all of my employment dates (trust me it raises huge warning flags in even the most obtuse). I kept waiting for him to ask what I'd been doing for the last 3 years that I've been unemployed so that I could happily blurt out 'Gambling!', but he seemed to sense that going there wasn't going to be pretty and he left it alone. Damn him!
I've also been asking for about 15k/year more than these sorts of jobs generally pay, so at least if I do wind up accidentally getting hired it will be worth it. I'll be taking the online assessment tomorrow. Wish me luck (bad luck that is).
Add a comment | 2 comments
Updated about 10 months ago


Flatland Grinder: Using the Force.
Share
Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 10:01pm | Delete
I'm still working on that book 'Blink', and I'm really enjoying it. As I suspected I'm finding a lot of insights that translate well to poker. Last night I read a section about the Cook County Hospital in Chicago. A few decades back this hospital was a nightmare. They were overwhelmed with patients on a daily basis. By far one of the most resource intensive groups of such patients were suspected heart patients. When someone came in complaining of chest pain, the hospital took it quite seriously, as well they should. In order to diagnose with any certainty that a patient was having a bona fide heart attack, the hospital would subject them to test after test, often keeping the patient in one of the precious few hospital beds for 3 days or more. Then a new administrator came into the chaos, and desperate to somehow free up beds he took it upon himself to streamline the procedure for heart attacks. He created a questionnaire that isolated a number of risk factors, and gave the attending physicians a wealth of information to go on. Things like diet, lifestyle, history, etc. It turned out however that having more information actually produced more misdiagnoses. The administrator then recalled a physician who had met with some controversy over a system of quickly diagnosing heart attacks using an algorithm, a basic mathematic equation based on a very narrow set of factors. No one had been willing to test the system in a live environment however. The administrator took the chance. Ther results were amazing. The algorithm separated real cardiac events from false alarms a staggering 95% of the time. Doctors gathering volumes of information such as ecgs, histories, lifestyle etc were able to produce at best a 70% success rate. But there was an interesting side effect to all of this. Even though the Doctors had results that were increasingly inaccurate in relation to the volume of info gained, their confidence in their decisions increased proportionately. The more they thought they knew, the more positive they were in their assessments. With the algorithm they had a sick and doubtful feeling because of it's utter simplicity. They felt that they needed to know more. The algorithm in essence sliced through all the potential misinformation to produce a result based on the only genuine factors worth considering. The author believes that our sense of intuition works in much the same way, thin-slicing the data at a rapid pace and calculating only the factors that matter. So why is this a poker write up? I was telling my friend J2 this story and at about this point he jumped in and said just like PAHUD. And that is exactly why this is a poker write up, but it's going to have to be a 2 part entry, because I'm getting damn tired. More on this tomorrow, with a humiliating hand example to help iillustrate.
Add a comment | View original post

Serious note for a change.
Share
Monday, November 5, 2007 at 10:06pm | Edit Note | Delete
Remembrance Day is coming up, and in my family it has been a tremendously important holiday. My parents lived in Britain during the 2nd World War, and they lost nearly every living male relative that was old enough to fight in combat. In addition to this, both of them served in the Armed Forces. My Dad fought in the Korean War, and is currently the President of the Korea Veteran's Association as well as president of the Nutana Branch of the Canadian Legion. Perhaps this is why Remembrance Day carries a little more weight for me than it does for others. Of particular concern is the fact that it's estimated approximately 1500 veterans of the second world war are dying each day in North America. These veterans represent a living history, and a history that forced us to call upon them in horrors few could comprehend. An example would be the battle for Hurtgen Forest in October of 1944. Virtually unheard of, this was and is to this day the longest single battle American Forces ever fought in. It began in the wet cold of Oct. 5 1944. Soldiers never trained for forest combat wandered into the heavily defended woods. There was a perpetual covering of dense fog throughout the small, approximately 50 miles of thick woods. Soldiers could barely see their own comrades, never mind the heavily entrenched and seasoned veterans of the German Forces. The battle began on Oct. 5. By March 16th Allied Forces had gained 3000 yards. 3km of nearly 75 sq km of forest. Casualties were heavy. For that scant piece of territory 4500 men lost their lives. I encourage you to look up this battle for an idea of the sacrifices made by our grandfathers. By December 12 when the battle finished, 24,000 battle casualties (killed in direct fighting) and 9000 non-battle casualties were reported (non-battle being frostbite, trenchfoot exhaustion). A battle for one small town in the forest claimed over 6000 lives, 2000 more than died at Omaha Beach on D-day.
In many cases these veterans are old men and sick men today. Many of them lived and continue to live lives of quiet desperation after the war, forever tortured by the memory of the atrocities they suffered through. The Poppy Fund goes towards helping these men that risked their very lives for the things we cherish today. It secures housing, medical care, and other needs for the veterans of today, and the veterans of tomorrow. So drop a buck and wear a poppy if you can. Not just for the veterans of the last century either, but for the veterans of today as well. Keep in mind that politicians start wars, not soldiers. In many cases soldiers are people that wanted nothing more than a secure job and the chance to serve their country. When their country signs on for an action, they are contracted to go whether they agree with the action or not. Supporting our troops and wishing them well does not mean you support wars. Please remember that veterans of both yesterday and today are where they are only because their countries have sent them. Give the politicians your disrespect if you disagree, but wish the soldier's a quick and safe return and show them you care.
Add a comment | 1 comment

The Dog That Solved the Kennedy Assassination.
Share
Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 7:09pm | Edit Note | Delete
A guy is driving around the back woods of Tennessee and he sees a sign in front of a broken down shanty-style house: “Talking Dog For Sale.”

He rings the bell and the owner appears and tells him the dog is in the backyard. The guy goes into the backyard and sees a nice looking Labrador retriever sitting there.

“You talk?” he asks.

“Yep,” the Lab replies.

After the guy recovers from the shock of hearing a talking dog, he says, “So, what’s your story?”

The Lab looks up and says, “Well, I discovered that I could talk when I was pretty young. I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA. They asked me if I was interested in solving the Kennedy assassination. I asked if it was Jack or Bobby. They said Jack. The CIA doesn’t really care who killed Bobby. Go figure.”

“Anyway, in no time at all they had me jetting all over the country and all over the world, sitting in rooms with CIA and KGB spies, anti-Castro Cubans, pro-Castro Cubans, all kinds of mafia types and even Castro himself, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping. Unlike the Warren Commission’s relatively short investigation, they had me doing this for, oh, I would say, almost three years. I uncovered some pretty amazing stuff. It’s all classified and I’m not at liberty to disclose any of it, but thanks to Congress passing the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, all the information will be coming forth in the year 2017.”

“But I gotta tell ya, all that jetting around and investigating stuff really tired me out, and I knew I wasn’t getting any younger so I decided to settle down. I signed up for a job at the airport to do some undercover security, wandering near suspicious characters and listening in.”

“I uncovered lots of stuff doing that and I was awarded a batch of medals. Eventually I got married, had a mess of puppies, and now I’m just retired.”

The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants for the dog.

“Ten dollars,” the man says.

“Ten dollars? This dog is amazing! Why on earth are you selling him so cheap?”

The owner answers "Because he's a damned liar! He never did any of that stuff. And the only things he knows about the Kennedy Assassination are what he's read in books."

(I love talking animal jokes)
Add a comment | 2 comments


Flatland Grinder: Rapid Cognition
Share
Friday, November 2, 2007 at 12:05am | Delete
I've read an awful lot of books on poker. I would say that all of them have been worth the read. Currently I'm reading a book however that has very little to do with the subject of poker. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it wasn't written with poker in mind. The book in question is Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. The focus of this work is the subject of intuition, which the authour at times refers to as rapid cognition or thin slicing. I've read books on the sense of intuition before, and I enjoy reading them because it increases my trust in the often irrational gut instincts I feel in moments of snap decision making. Unfortunately I'm prone to over-analyze my gut instincts quite frequently, and using logic and reason I direct myself in a direction counter to my intuition, usually with negative results. So one task that I've set myself is to develop this sense of intuition or rapid cognition, or rather develop an increased level of trust in the decisions I make at the gut level. I like the term rapid cognition better than intuition. It seems to be a more accurate descriptor of what's really happening; a sub-conscious decision making process based on prior experience and knowledge then stripped of any pros/cons weighting system. Here is why I find it so important. I play approximately 240 hands of poker per hour (conservative estimate). That boils down to 4 hands of poker per minute. With 4 rounds of betting per hand, that means that I'm seeing 16 rounds of betting per minute, or one win/lose decision every 4 seconds. Most of the time there's quite a bit of math involved, but I've gotten to the point where the clear cut decisions require almost no thought. I've experienced the majority of easy decisions so many times that there is no longer any decision making required, the action is clear and automatic. However there are moments where a hand requires a great deal more thought, the odds and probabilities need to be weighed, the skill level of the opponent, what he thinks I think he thinks I think he has and that sort of thing. That's a lot of thinking when you'll be making another decision in 4 seconds and there's a timer running down on you. Most of the time my gut tells me what to do and I do it. Like Magnum P.I.'s 'little voice'. The problem is that I don't completely trust my gut yet. Even after all the times my rational analysis has fucked me when my gut was right all along. Hence the book. To believe my gut, I need to believe that it's believable, and that means teaching my rational analytical self that there is a higher form of analysis at work on the subconscious level. But I'm rambling again. Remind me not to post after midnight, I get goofy.
Add a comment | View original post


Flatland Grinder: A Whole Lot of Advanced Theory in One Hand.
Share
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 11:30am | Delete
Here's the straight vs. set hand that I wanted to post. This hand illustrates a lot of basic principles for winning poker. I have AKo in middle position and it's folded around to me so I open with a standard 4xbb raise and get one caller. PRE-FLOP
funkyjazz1 folds, zariluka folds, MazMatt folds, L3st3rMurphy bets $1, kakkapussi folds, spitalnap folds, happy yorik folds, Schmeltis folds, agassi781 calls $0.75. FLOP [board cards 7D,3S,JH ]
agassi781 checks, L3st3rMurphy bets $2, agassi781 calls $2. I completely miss the flop, but checking is giving my opponent the pot in this situation. I showed strength before the flop, and as I've been playing a tight game there is no reason for my opponent to suspect that I'm not still strong on the flop. The Jack doesn't help me, but there is a damn good chance that it didn't help him either. The chances that I'm ahead with ace high here, combined with the chance that I might still hit my hand and the chance of my opponent folding really calls for a continuation bet here. With one opponent I'm pretty sure I'll take the pot at least half the time with a c-bet, so I slightly underbet the pot. Long term this will generally be a plus ev play. It also enables me to hopefully pick up a free card on the turn when my opponent checks to me with the expectation that I'll bet again. TURN [board cards 7D,3S,JH,10H ]
agassi781 checks, L3st3rMurphy checks. My opponent called my c-bet. This opens up several considerations for me on the turn. My first consideration is that he has something and will most likely call if I fire the second barrel. There are now 2 Broadway cards on the board, and since an opponent calling a preflop raise generally has either high cards or a pair, the chances are quite good that I'm beat here. There is however a slim chance that I may hit my Ace or King for a vulnerable top pair, and also a slim chance that I'll make my inside straight draw on the river. My opponent checks to me as anticipated. If my opponent does have something, another c-bet by me risks a check raise from him, and I won't get to see the river. I choose to check and peek at the river. RIVER [board cards 7D,3S,JH,10H,QH ]
agassi781 bets $6.25, L3st3rMurphy calls $6.25. The river brings out a third heart completing a flush if my opponent was on such a draw. It also makes me the top straight. He makes a pot size bet into me, giving me 2-1 on my call. This sets me to thinking. It's possible that he has the flush but not likely. His smooth call on the flop and subsequent check on the turn were more indicative of a straight draw or pocket pair. I also consider the possibility that he made a smaller straight on the turn and was going for the check raise. The bet seems to large for the nut flush. Generally poker players abide by the weak when strong, strong when weak rule. Having run through this thought process I put him on a semi-bluff...he has something, but it's not the flush and I'm pretty sure I'm ahead. I'm not sure enough however to make a reraise and get stacked on the outside chance that he does have the flush, so I just call. SHOWDOWN
agassi781 shows [ 10S,10D ]
L3st3rMurphy shows [ KD,AS ]
L3st3rMurphy wins $17.85. My opponent hit his set on the turn. His play is riddled with mistakes. His call on the flop was weak. He had 2 choices there if he wanted to make it work, either raise or fold, and I personally would be inclined to fold in his position. The overcard is not good, and the possibility of more overcards coming is just to much of a threat to continue. If he suspected me of having nothing, the better play would have been to raise and drive me out on the flop rather than let me draw on him. On the turn he hits his set and FPS (fancy play syndrome) gets a hold of him. He decides to go for the slowplay on a board showing straight draws, flush draws, and the slim possibility that I might have top pair and hit a set. Any size bet here would have won him the pot. When the river hits all his nightmares come true. The straight is made, the flush is made, he knows the chances are very good that he's behind. His max bet here had for me the smell of desperation, of a defensive bet. If he was as strong as he was representing, he would certainly have made a more enticing bet so as not to scare me out of the pot. It seemed instead that he was trying to push me out, and my intuition said call. These are the exact sort of opponents that you want to be up against. They play their monsters slow and weak allowing you to draw out on them time and time again, and when they are weak they throw money at you. Fun hand. SUMMARY
Dealer: happy yorik
Pot: $18.75, (including rake: $0.90)
Schmeltis loses $0.25
agassi781 loses $9.25
funkyjazz1 loses $0
zariluka loses $0
MazMatt loses $0
L3st3rMurphy bets $9.25, collects $17.85, net $8.60
kakkapussi loses $0
spitalnap loses $0
happy yorik loses $0
Add a comment | View original post


Flatland Grinder: Session 1
Share
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 10:51am | Delete
First off, I don't intend to make a blog entry for every session, but I felt that today's session was significant as it's my first day back at the 25pl game at Ongame. I'd set a goal for myself to play at least 250 hands and play them well for this session. I wound up playing 321 hands, and I did play them well, so I'm quite satisfied. My time at the tables was 1:38 and I had an earn for the session of approx. $40, so I'm content with that. I've started playing with about half the required bankroll for these limits, so all initial gains are highly welcomed. I played 4 tables to hit my 300+ hands which is really encouraging. My target for the month is a minimum of 20,000 hands, and with a plan of 4x1.5 hour sessions, 5 days a week, I should be able to exceed that number quite well. By my initial calculations it appeared that I'd be struggling to make 1000 hands per day, but if I can maintain this pace at 5 tables, I should be able to hit 1500 hands per day, or 30000 hands per month. Depending on traffic I may even be able to push 6 tables. This is great news not only for my bottom line, but for bonus whoring as well. My current site has a loyalty program that should allow me to clear an additional $700-1000 every month on top of my earn rate. All in all, I'm quite happy to be back at the tables. I'll post some interesting hand histories as they come up. Today's big wins were the usual aa vs kk and straight vs set variety. Actually, I may post the straight vs set hand in a future post to illustrate a point in a future post.
Add a comment | View original post