DGAF is a mid stakes player

I don't raise a 1/3 or 1/4th PSB on the turn because a lot of times if people are betting $100 or w/e they are doing it with a huge hand because $100 is a lot of money.

I'm late to the party, and apologize if this is repetitive, but I really disagree with some of the points here.

TLDR: Selective showing causes only tiny changes in their perception of us, but the cases you describe can have a more powerful teaching effect. You're gaining .001BB EV by tweaking your image, but losing .01 BB EV by outlining your play for them.

First, I think you're overestimating your opponents' propensity to be manipulated, and underestimating the first piece of advice you gave (realize that you'll be viewed as a skilled player).

When you show a hand like AA, but don't show later, they know the AA show was to manipulate them, and they reflexively suspect that this time your play was not the 100% standard play--which is an accurate assessment.

This happens almost every time I play, but a hand from this weekend should illustrate. On the river the board has run out 9727Q. A guy bets and another guy raises pretty big. First guy folds and the raiser shows a nine. Everyone at the table, including the most clueless player there, asks, "Was your kicker a 9 or a 7?" He finally sheepishly shows 99. Moral of the story: Selective showing isn't fooling anyone.

This weekend I flopped a straight after calling with 64s OTB after a small raise and three calls (two big stacks). When I raised, the PFR agonized and folded, then said, "I just gave you $250, show one time!" My refusal to show (given the image I wanted to project, I didn't want them to know how wide my calling range was) would have been transparent if I was showing hands 'for free' earlier.

I sometimes do something like this, but I will never show the A8. I'll show 73 OTB and say, "I'll let you guys chop." And maybe next time I have AK I'll show if they fold, to reinforce a solid range, but I think something like A8 is too weak to show. After (mayyyyyybe) showing one solid hand, the rest of the time I either say, "sorry can't fold this one," or I say nothing at all and raise. If they say, "No chop?" I give an apologetic smile and that's it.

I think showing something as "weak" as A8 reveals that your earlier speech about letting them chop was BS. It may have the opposite effect in that their disappointment at not being able to chop is more acute. You've given them chopping blue balls and they won't soon forget it.

This part I strongly disagree with. It's probably true that you're lowering your FE a bit, which is what you want, so in that sense it works. But I think the worse outcome is that you're teaching these players that aggression with a combo draw is a good move; it's what the pro at the table does.

There are two players I've played a lot with that used to always min-raise post-flop. Now they raise 3x. I don't think they've learned about pot odds recently, they just see all the solid players raising 3x-ish, so they do it, too.

Granted, you'll hit your draw often enough that you'll show it down a few times, but by voluntarily showing almost every time you have a big draw and raise it, you're making the lesson more obvious. And teaching a borderline player to be more aggro with his big draws is worse than a small tweak to your FE.

Another problem is that you're giving information to everyone, not just this guy. Maybe you want to increase or decrease FE with this guy, so you show to affect that. But the quiet guy who just sat down at the other end of the table, who instantly pegged you as somewhat competent at a minimum, but he's not sure if you're TPP, TAP, TAA (tag), sLAG, or what, now has some very important information about your play. That can be disastrous, and you didn't make him earn that information.

You're ten times the poker player I'll ever be, but honestly, I think this is just bad behavior on your part, and shouldn't be in a topic trying to help ABC players get to the next level of play.

Showing cards is something I won't ever do. I guess that's just the phil ivey in me. Most of the poster in this post are going crazy derailing the thread because of the showing for profit entry. Plenty of other factors in this thread that goes beyond ABC poker. Ill agree showing cards in only standard spots is meh. Most of the time when I see a guy betting and nobody calls I can pinpoint his holding without him showing.

@mpethy please comeback and post in your thread, plenty of guy's hear who really love this discussion of ABCD poker. Its actually improved my train of thought. ABC poker just doesn't get the results most people want.

mpethy; i've had to deal with massive tilt problems, and i can tell you that adopting Mum Poker as a M.O. for me has helped more than just about anything.
If you can't talk poker>>> you can't steam about the last hand(s)>>>you wont tilt as bad, as long.
talking poker during the game just promotes backwards hind-sight thinking (tilt) among other bad things.
not to mention that it displays no killer instinct.

Mum Poker just goes along with all the Tommy Angelo stuff that only helps your tilt situation.

oh, and if no one answered the Bart Hanson question earlier... here you go...
did live poker strat podcasts on Poker Road (Cash Plays), and then on Deuces Cracked (Deuce Plays). now, his new podcast is by paid for subscription, $9 a month (great value)

http://www.podcast-directory.co.uk/p...03/page-3.html

Stampler, lets get one thing straight, ok?

I said in the chat thread that I have never seen any evidence that OTHER people talking poker at the table causes the table to play more +EV poker. I'm agnostic on the issue. It may cause people to play +EV more, and I simply haven't noticed. That's possible.

What I never said is that I talk poker at the table. With very very very rare exceptions, I do not.

OK? So can you please, for the love of all that is holy, stop beating up on me for something I don't ****ing do?

TIA

If anything you get into the head of a person's thoughts. I talk poker at the table now. People just tell you their strategy. So I decided to try it at 1/3. Thought a couple of guy's were pretty good, its my first time at a unknown casino.


So I'm playing and I noticed he would raise my limps everytime. So I asked him "Are you raising my limps everytime?". He says "I have aces I have to raise, I don't play the player I play my hand". So I exploited it, and bluffed him otr anytime backdoor draws hit or TPTK was no good.

I was chatting it up with anyone that looked comfortable. Come to think about it they were regs. I started asking them all kind of questions. Their was a andrew lichtenberger looking type dude. Found out he used to play 200nl/400/600nl. I wouldn't find this stuff out if I didn't talk. So I'm sorry stampler poker talk +EV. I'm not talking about give your strategy away. You got to get in your opponents head. I'm the guy who always says "show" and most people show. But I never show my bluffs "I always got the nuts no bluffs in my game"

I think that people like us on 2+2 don't get that we can level people. Everytime this 200nl/400nl online player made a bad play. "I say I could never lay that down those are coolers". I was leveling and he is a better player then me.

He tried to bluff me and the play didn't make sense I snapped with an underpair to the board.

Poker talk +EV.

Deuce:

Coming out of retirement to answer some of your points because you made a particularly well thought out response that doesn't deserve to be ignored.

I'm pretty sure I disagree with this, but I think we can agree that there is no effective way to quantify the +EV or -EV of showing.

Again, I respectfully disagree. The act of showing the AA type hands is accompanied by some table talk--"you're supposed to stack off," blah blah. It looks much less like a strategic show then a little light hearted frustration that I couldn't get any action with a good hand.

That show is pretty silly, and the showing one card thing is so obviously a strategic show (and usually a poor one) that I do think it is usually a bad move. During my last session, I saw my first ever one card show that I thought was slick.



Heh, I chose A8 because it is at the top of a stealing range, and nobody would ever expect you to fold a decent ace to allow a chop.

The last time I shipped a draw was in a 3 way pot. I check/shipped from the SB as a semi-bluff squeeze after the pre flop raiser led the flop and was called by the button. I got there, so I had to show anyway, ldo, and the button says to me, "You did that on a draw?"

I go, "yes, ma'am, I did."

She says, "and people really pay you to teach them how to play poker?"

So i don't buy into the claim that showing a technically correct play teaches the worse players at the table how to play better. Maaaaybe every once in a blue moon you will have a player who both recognizes that you are a good player and has consciously decided to try to learn from you and who will draw the correct conclusions. But it is far more likely that even if a player is trying to learn how to improve his game from your play will draw incorrect conclusions, simply because the differences between a good play and a bad play can be really subtle.

I consider the fact that I am giving info to everybody to be the point of the exercise. The one or two decent players at the table getting free information is not a disaster.

Two last points:

1. I acknowledged at the outset that it is 100% fine to never show. I have no problem with that strategy. What I can tell you is that I firmly believe that showing cards in a friendly, not a douchebag manner, does not look like you are trying to manipulate people. Accompanied by the right table talk, it just looks like you're friendly. And it sometimes induces players to play more like the way I want them to. It's definitely not a panacea, and it's definitely not a huge addition to a win rate. Image doesn't count for all that much in live games, anyway, since most people are mostly playing their cards. image matters only at the margins, so all you are doing is tweaking the margin of the margin a little bit.

edit to add: 2. I forgot the second point while writing the first

I doubt I have the edge you credit me with here, but thanks. Look, I sometimes show hands because I want to put a guy on tilt. I said it wasn't pretty in the OP on the subject. I have no problem with you considering it bad behavior. Would you rather I only post things that make me look good?

Thanks for a well reasoned disagreement.

most 1/2 villains are way too dumb/unobservant to exploit you when you expose your hand.

to them, you fall into one of 2 categories: a nit or a loose cannon.

i cant tell you how many times ive shown a bluff early in a session and got called down light for the rest of the night. they will never adjust. i dont suggest showing nutty hands. just bluffs.

obv, against good players showing is virtually always a bad idea.

Argument from authority is not a logical fallacy. It is garden variety inductive reasoning.

Position A is correct because person B holds it, is an example of such an incorrectly framed argument.

Correctly framed, it looks more like this:

person a says b. Person a is an expert on b. there is broad consensus among experts that b is true. Therefore, b.

It's inductive, in the sense that the conclusion only has statistical certainty, rather than logical certainty.

But appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy; improperly framed it results in the logical fallacy called a non sequitur, in which the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

(Taught rhetoric to my pre-law students at university for several years and picked up way too much trivia like this).

Touche

+1

This applies at 2/5 as well. I show bluffs a lot, and I think if definitely makes most players play worse against me. For most average to bad players, anything that makes them try to adjust, either looser or tighter is for the good, because they will adjust badly.

I'm much more likely to show a real bluff or a semi bluff with mid pair than a draw semi bluff though. And I don't show all my bluffs, just sometimes.

And I never, never, ever show a bluff shove with overs.

My view on showing cards; Full ring, I barely ever do it. (If someone asks me to show I say $5. I've made at least $50 doing this lol. Probably more tbh). I also don't mind telling someone sitting next to me what I had(I lie a lot too) just to be friendly. Being "friendly" is massively +EV. That's where table talk comes in. If my table is laughing it up and having a good time I'll join in, crack jokes, etc. If it's quiet I'll pop one headphone in and try to get some friendly banter going on, if not then just jam out.

I show cards all day when we're short handed. Just to get the action flowing. I'll raise all kinds of stuff in LP double and triple barrel. I go from LAG to super-ultra-deluxe card showing lag when it's 6 or less handed. Since I know I'm going to be better than every other player at the table and I'm playing position showing all kinds of bluffs/lp steals/ and the occasional nuts definitely outweighs what little "information" they can infer from me showing my cards.
If someone is capable of 3b light then obv I'm not going to show.

Regarding c-betting:

Knowing when to double barrel your flop c-bet on the turn is important, and, frankly, one of the harder parts of post flop play. Sabr42, who is a MUCH better player than I am, recently posted in the chat thread about a hand that he played that illustrates an important spot to double barrel: when you pick up equity on the turn:


So look at the way he played the hand. Sabr42 knows that one of the main leaks that live low limit players have is that they defend their blinds with a range that is simultaneously too wide and poorly constructed. He knows that the guy is going to be calling preflop with all sorts of hands that can flop ****ty top pairs.


On the flop, Sabr had air, but on a board that hits his perceived range pretty well. So c-betting is a good play against a wide weak range that usually caught, at most, a small piece of this board. He gets called, so it's reasonable to assume that the villain did, in fact, catch a piece of this board. But again, most players only caught a small piece most of the time.

On the turn, Sabr42 picks up an OESD. Now, two things. First, the SB's range to call preflop and then call the c-bet is mostly:

1. Strong hands--good kings that have tpgk and better, maybe a set of fives of the guy is particularly bad (it's bad to call Sabr42 there with 55).
2. weak kings
3. queens
4. straight draws that given Sabr's holding, are actually combo draws.

Look at all the stuff a double barrel folds out in the hands of most players--some of category 2, and most if not all of categories 3 and 4.

So a double barrel has a reasonable amount of FE.

Second, if called, Sabr42 is going to make his straight 16% of the time or so. So a decent fraction of the time the guy folds to the turn bet, some of the rest of the time Sabr42 will luckbox his straight on the river, the guy will never put him on it, and will want to pay off on the river with a fairly high frequency (now that he has called twice, it's safe to put him on the top of his range).

This was a very well-played and well analyzed hand by Sabr42. It's spots like this that we should be looking for to double barrel.

It can come up in a wide variety of situations. One of the best things that you can do is what you have started to do--look on the flop at how often you can pick up equity on the turn, and c-bet those flops in close decisions. For example, let's say we are OOP against two players with AK

The flop comes down J86 This situation is not good, but it's not hopeless. We'll pick up equity to a straight on any Q or T, ad we'll pick up a made hand on an ace or a king, so if we c-bet, we will improve slightly 16% of the time, and we'll bink a hand 12% of the time. so 28% of the time or so, we'd improve. That's good, but it's not great, and absent a read, I'd probably just go ahead and c/f, especially since clubs sort of suck against some players.

But change the board just slightly so that the 6 is the 6. That means that almost 20% of the time we bet and get called, the turn will be a that gave us a nut flush draw. Now our hand improves on any Q, any T, any K, any A and any . If I am doing the math in my head correctly, that means that we will improve an additional 16% of the time, so that now if we c-bet, we're looking at picking up equity 44% of the time. To me, this is enough justification for me to take my chances with the flop c-bet. If we bink an interesting card such as the Q or the T, we also have a semi-bluffing opportunity to represent the club flush. Obviously you want to be careful repping any club that falls, as the club draw will comprise a significant portion of any caller's range. So if you are in against a flush miner, you'd probably not want to do it.

I definitely think you're on the right track, and I'd encourage you to do things like follow Sabr42's posts and look for similar spots he posts.

sorry, just trying to contribute, and actually help. (enjoy the free DC live poker podcasts)
so, if i what i'm saying doesnt apply to you, it shouldnt bother you.
it's easy to rattle your cage, huh?
its just the soap box that i'm on, which is my perogative.
if you take what i'm saying as personal, or some kinda affront, you are mistaken, and its really on you.
i used to talk poker at the table, and found that
1] i get better action
2] the game is better
3] i tilt less, and steam less
when I I don't, and I adopted Mum Poker.

in fact, when i find myself wanting to break Mum poker, its a reliable indicator that i'm on B- or C game (or worse), that's all.

I posted that without seeing what a cluster#*$& this thread had become in the last 80 posts. Thanks for taking the time. OK I'll concede this point. After thinking about it, the silly one-card show I mentioned is nothing like what you're talking about. Bad counter-example.

I could be wrong, but I think they do... at least here in SoCal. (Note: here we have a rake, not a % drop. The rake is $4 + $1 for BBJ and it's all taken on the flop, if there is one. So in the 2/3 game I play, if the blinds limp in, they deal the flop and take out $5 of the $6 pot. With $1 in the pot, it's not worth going to war over, and it will often get checked and the monster $1 pot is pushed.) Maybe because of that, players here are religious about chopping.

Tangential chopping story: It folds around to BTN who asks me and SB if we want to chop. SB shows me QT and I show him my J9 and say, "we almost made a straight-flush." Button quickly grabs his cards off the felt and flips them up: AK. WTF.

So it might be a Cali thing, but people take their chopping very seriously here. I see AK/AQ open-folded from the BTN so often it doesn't even surprise me anymore.

I'm not worried about teaching the worst players how to play. I'm a little worried that the mediocre ones learn a little faster. It's probably a moot point because someone who is trying to learn will eventually learn, so it's not like you're taking a fish and making him a shark overnight.

And your last point is a good one. There are a number of good players I play with semi-frequently and I'm not sure if some of their moves are huge leaks or great subtle plays that are way over my head.


You did stress in your OP that it's showing combined with very effective table talk. I guess I'll just ad the caveat that it's not a matter of rehearsing some lines and reciting them while you show. I think there may be a degree of talent in reading and coercing people that you've honed as a trial lawyer, that from the rest of us might come off as smarmy if we don't work at it.

It was a bit of Internet hyperbole. No way do you have 10X my skill; 6-7X, tops.

Bobby Hoff was definitely a great player, but to call him the Wilt Chamberlain of NL Hold 'Em is a little extreme. In terms of old-time players, Doyle Brunson easily has him beat. Doyle was probably better at NLHE when Hoff was in his prime and certainly has been able to play at a high level for much longer.

Lol

So for a year before gradschool I was that low stakes grinder making a small living. And I earned a reputation in this city. A pretty big one. I have a good friend who is a bartender, hell my homegame was 4way at his house for .25/.5 or .1/.2 when he and his roomie were broke. We played for blood against eachother, drank, and had a blast (I'd have days where I'd win 700 then go play .1/.2 there for fun)

Anyways, my bartender friend decides he's going to try the casino game one day, and tells a buddy of his at work. The response: "and watch out for the big guy with the hat. He talks a million miles per hour and plays crazy, but he'll take your money." I have no idea who told him this, but apparently people used to be warned before they walk in the room about me. So in a smaller city, like STL, being the guy who felts every fish in town when the come to play does earn you a reputation... Thankfully, that reputation usually helps me b/c it makes them fold 1 pair hands against me all the time

...

I dont see an lol here. having played with them both, admittedly 10x more with hoff, neither had any problem beating the game at the highest levels. Hoff was more aggressive, he played like doyle wrote in SS, doyle i think had had a lot of runbad after SS and became super TAG (STAG) but beating a smart, patient STAG is pretty much impossible.

Mpethy, plz don't abandon this thread. So much potential should not be ruined just because a couple posters who where having bad days spent them talking past each other.

Yeah agreed.

A shame this thread got trolled but there's some good discussion still. Should just ignore a lot of the posts.

Mpethy, please continue. I want to see your post about BTN stealing.

I appreciate the support, guys. By coincidence, I was involved in another interesting strategy discussion over in micro full ring earlier today in this thread about playing AQ OOP in a 3 bet pot. The original poster in that thread had made the amusing claim that "initiative does not exist," and I had responded that it does.

I recalled from my military studies that not only does initiative exist, it has long been recognized as one of the principles of successful warfare. So I responded by saying:


So I posted that in the thread, and, because I have always been interested in things military, and since it had been years since I read the army field manual on Operations (I read and reread and reread it like a christian fundamentalist reads the Bible when I was in the army), I went right back to reading it today.

As I continued reading, I saw obvious parallels between the principles of warfare and successful poker strategy. Meanwhile, the OP of the thread over in micro full ring had posted asserting that poker has nothing to do with warfare.

The fact that both endeavors are types of conflict made me inherently suspicious, and I set out to see how many of the principles of warfare apply directly to poker. It seems that eight of the nine relate directly, and I posted to that effect over in that thread:

Based on the above principles of warfare, I am constructing a list of Principles of Poker. The eight I have right now are eight of the nine war-fighting principles translated into poker principles:

The Principles of Poker:

1. Plan your hand
2. Play Aggressively
3. Bet Big for Value
4. Risk the Minimum Necessary to Accomplish Goals other than Value betting
5. Prefer Playing in Position
6. Conserve Your Chips
7. Use Deception to Mask Your Hand Strength
8. Play Your Hand's Strength

This was an interesting exercise for me. I don't think I gained any particular insights into playing poker, except for principle number 6. I'll talk specifically about that in a minute, because it is an interesting principle that I think has cool implications for the way we think about the things we do.

So, like I said, I don't think I learned much about poker in translating the principles of warfare into principles of poker. The most interesting thing to me is that it could be done, and that they translate really, really well. In fact, they require almost no translation.

There are a few things about the principles that I want to point out:

1. Some of the principles contradict each other. In the army's principles, "mass" and "economy of force" are contradictory. I cheated a little in translating these principles, by calling mass "Bet Big for Value" and "economy of force" "risk the minimum to accomplish goals other than value betting." I specified that, in poker, economy of force has no place in value betting--if we are ahead, there is no reason to bet any smaller than the biggest bet the villain will call. In the army, that's not true. The army may need to be doing two or more things at once--so it makes sense for a commander to only use the minimum combat power necessary to achieve enough mass to get the job done--any leftover mass can be assigned to other missions.

Successful poker requires that we achieve a correct balance between these sometimes competing principles. If we always make a big value bet (Mass/Bet big for value) and we always bet small when we are weak or drawing (economy of force/risk the minimum when not value betting) then we will be violating the principle of surprise/use deception.

So successful poker requires the judicious violation of these principles, every bit as much as it requires the judicious application of these principles.

I am in the middle of reading Shelby Foote's massive 3000 page book, The Civil War: A Narrative. Just an hour or so drive up the road from where I used to live in Virginia was the civil war battlefield of Chancellorsville (actually, pretty much the whole drive from my house to Chancellorsville was a succession of battlefields). Chancellorsville was the scene of Robert E, Lee's greatest victory over Union forces (well, maybe Fredericksburg, just another hour up the road, was a more crushing defeat). To achieve this victory, Lee split his force in the face of the Union forces, which was a MASSIVE violation of the "unity of command" principle that doesn't translate well into a poker principle. He left one part of his force on the defensive, and took the bulk of it, under command of Stonewall Jackson, and maneuvered it a dozen or so miles to strike the Union flank. During that movement, neither element was able to support the other, and Lee was running the risk of having them defeated one after another by the superior Union force.

But Lee was a good enough military thinker to not only know that he was violating the principle of unity of command, but to also know that he was faced with a rare situation in which it was correct to do so.

If Lee had posted his plan for his flanking attack on the Union force on 2+2, the standard response would have been: "What the **** are you doing? This is fancy play syndrome at its worst. You have a strong defensive position at the top of the hills--just let them attack your strength. You're a ****** who should still be playing in the microwars, lol."

So the first lesson that I think we can draw from the fact that the principles of poker are contradictory, is that non-standard plays should be standard. Not that we should be doing them more often than we make the standard play, just that success requires knowing how and when to balance competing interests such as "Bet big when value betting" and "risk the minimum when not value betting."

2. The second thing I want to mention about the principles of poker is principle 6, "Conserve Your Chips." because it means some things that are obvious, but it also means some things that are less obvious.

Recall that "Conserve Your Chips" is a translation of the "Security" principle of warfare. When the Army uses the term "security," it means a lot of different things. It means protecting your flanks from surprise attacks, it means protecting your plans from falling into the hands of the enemy, and it means policing the apparent civilians in your rear area to protect against the terrorists/partisans/irregulars/guerrillas that may be hidden among them.

Basically, the idea is to keep your troops alive and reasonably safe from other threats so they will be around to be used in the decisive battle. It's not only a tragedy if an IED kills those two guys in the supply truck tooling around your rear area supply bases--it's a waste of resources, both the soldiers and the truck and whatever was in the truck.

So we have introduced two new concepts that i also think apply to poker: the idea of the decisive battle, and the idea that some operations are conducted solely for the purpose of insuring that you have enough troops on hand to fight the decisive battle when it comes.

Right? I mean, how does the army protect that supply truck driver from being blown up by an IED? the answer is that it employs other troops to protect that truck driver. Military policemen police the rear area, combat engineers and bomb disposal experts are out searching the streets for signs of IEDs and civil affairs soldiers are working with civilian authorities to determine what the local politics are, and who the troublemakers might be.

So the army has no difficulty with putting some soldiers at risk for the purpose of protecting other soldiers. It calls doing so "force protection operations," which seem to be a subset of what it calls "sustaining operations." In fact, the army has no problem putting soldiers at risk to acquire information or to deny information to the enemy. But again, the purpose of all these activities is to make sure the commander has enough soldiers on hand and equipped to fight the decisive battle.

I translated this as "conserve your chips." So part of the mission of a successful poker player is to avoid needlessly squandering chips. But there is more to it than simply playing tight. Just as an example, the IED of poker is the blinds. They are not a serious threat to your force--no IED ever won a battle. But they are a source of steady attrition that the successful player needs to guard against.

That's where button stealing comes in. In poker, you're forced to expose one and a half of your soldiers to being blown up every orbit. It's right there in the rules. What you have to do is to conduct sustaining operations to keep this steady attrition from reducing the number of chips you have available for the decisive battle, which normally occurs when you have AA, raise, and get 3 bet, lol. There are two types of sustaining operations that are designed, or should be designed, to offset the IED attrition of the blinds: blind defense plays and button steals.

The blind defense play is force protection--you post a blind, somebody raises, and now you have to think about whether you can, and how you should, best defend that chip that is now at risk of being blown up.

The button steal is a sustaining operation, where you should be looking to acquire replacements for the casualties inflicted in previous orbits.

Like I said at the outset, I'm not sure I learned anything new in applying the principles of warfare to poker. Certainly nothing I have said here is an independent theoretical justification for making any particular play. To me, this was simply a new and fascinating way of looking at poker as a form of conflict similar enough to real conflict that the principles of real conflict seem to readily translate into effective principles of poker.

I am actually thinking of this as a potentially valuable way to organize our poker knowledge, rather than as an addition to it. In fact, it has motivated me to start writing PM 3-0: "Poker Manual 3-0: Operations," in which I write about poker using the principles as an organizing framework.

Tomorrow (actually today) is my anniversary, so I'm not sure I will be able to start on button stealing until Saturday. But we don't have plans until the evening, so I may get it done during the day.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LLSNL Gold. awesome post