Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2015, 03:51 PM   #8626
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I think you're overestimating the amount of times a good shortstacker will enter pots, either with legitimate holdings or loosen their range slightly for slightly positive squeeze spots. Just being there with there stack isn't really a handicap if they're playing a 12/9 style.

By competent I mean a player who is at least break-even in the game they are playing in. That's the definition I'd use anyway. So at the casino, I'm saying ~2 people on average at my tables are competent. In the home games, this jumps to ~6, as the whales make the game run.

RP, shortstacking is bad in the essence that working a job that pays $10 an hour when you have a doctors degree is bad economics. You're losing opportunity cost the majority of the time. Are there situations where players can win more by buying in for 20-50 bb than 100-200? Sure, but I think these situations are pretty rare in general and not worth discussing for the majority of players. I think it's worth it to learn how to play a bunch of different games and stack sizes. It's fun and usually comes in handy eventually. But most players don't have the time to devote dozens or hundreds of hours to learning something that will come up once every few months if at all.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:51 PM   #8627
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
If you have leaks playing deep, are not comfortable making decisions for $1000+ on any given street there is an argument for buying in short, but a better argument for just not sitting at 2/5 or higher imo.
If a player can make $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short or $100/hr at 5/10 playing short he should instead play 1/2 or 1/3 full stacked when he isn't good at playing deep stacked poker and the attainable winrate at those levels is under $50/hr? Doesn't compute.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:53 PM   #8628
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverLosesAtPoker View Post
If a player can make $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short or $100/hr at 5/10 playing short he should instead play 1/2 or 1/3 full stacked when he isn't good at playing deep stacked poker and the attainable winrate at those levels is under $50/hr? Doesn't compute.
Ya, I definitely don't agree with that opinion either.

I'll happily short stack 5/10 because I wouldn't care about what people think of me.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:57 PM   #8629
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Neverlose, you've posted some hypothetical winrates itt over the past day that are basically impossible.
I would love to see someone attain $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:58 PM   #8630
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I think you're overestimating the amount of times a good shortstacker will enter pots, either with legitimate holdings or loosen their range slightly for slightly positive squeeze spots. Just being there with there stack isn't really a handicap if they're playing a 12/9 style.
You are still just evaluating short stackers from your POV, not theirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
RP, shortstacking is bad in the essence that working a job that pays $10 an hour when you have a doctors degree is bad economics.
You're absolutely correct, except that it's not the correct analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
You're losing opportunity cost the majority of the time. Are there situations where players can win more by buying in for 20-50 bb than 100-200? Sure, but I think these situations are pretty rare in general and not worth discussing for the majority of players.
Let's hear it. You already seem convinced that short stacking is always bad, so maybe you haven't really thought about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I think it's worth it to learn how to play a bunch of different games and stack sizes. It's fun and usually comes in handy eventually. But most players don't have the time to devote dozens or hundreds of hours to learning something that will come up once every few months if at all.
In your argument, you like to dance around your positions.

At times you speak from a POV of "best" players, then at other times, you're speaking from a POV of "most" players.

If I strive to be the best, I'll take the time to figure out why shortstacking is good or bad.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:58 PM   #8631
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

BTW, I don't know the attainable winrate of playing a pure short stack game because it's simply not possible in the games I play in. ie you have to buyin for 50bbs minimum, and if you win you will play some full stack poker. However, I do know that you should make a lot more buying in for $300 at 2/5 than at 1/3 and you should make more at 5/10 buying in at $500 than 2/5 (all else being equal...ie equal opponent skill levels).
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:00 PM   #8632
Snowball2
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Snowball2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,640
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverLosesAtPoker View Post
If a player can make $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short or $100/hr at 5/10 playing short he should instead play 1/2 or 1/3 full stacked when he isn't good at playing deep stacked poker and the attainable winrate at those levels is under $50/hr? Doesn't compute.
Your argument is flawed because you are relying on the premise of "making $50/hr at 2/5 & $100/hr at 5/T while short stacking" being true.
Snowball2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:01 PM   #8633
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverLosesAtPoker View Post
However, I do know that you should make a lot more buying in for $300 at 2/5 than at 1/3 and you should make more at 5/10 buying in at $500 than 2/5 (all else being equal...ie equal opponent skill levels).
It should be easy to figure that out.

For one, a fixed amount of rake (which is the case in most casinos) is much lower relatively speaking in higher stake than lower.

Second, if you're a skilled player, winning 8bb at 1/3 translates to $24. Winning at 5bb in 2/5 is already higher.

List goes on.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:02 PM   #8634
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball2 View Post
Your argument is flawed because you are relying on the premise of "making $50/hr at 2/5 & $100/hr at 5/T while short stacking" being true.
Come on, you can pick up on the exaggeration of what is generally a true statement. Let's save the nitpicking for strategy posts, like me!
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:02 PM   #8635
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
Neverlose, you've posted some hypothetical winrates itt over the past day that are basically impossible.
I would love to see someone attain $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short.
Apples and oranges comparison probably. I've not experienced the tough 2/5 games you are talking about. Those lineups sound more like tough 5/10 games to me. If there are 4 other grinders at a table, I'm probably not sitting at the table even if I'm the best player.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:05 PM   #8636
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

RP, shortstacking is great when you can
a)play multiple tables
b)rathole successfully
c)put in a ton of volume

I had a day where I shortstacked PLO600 online last year and made $11k in a day. It was fun, but not something that is analogous for live play.

You seem to confuse me painting something as "bad" when I'm saying it's not optimal. I know how to play a shortstack. I've done it online before and when I started playing live I wasn't confident always buying in for 200+bb as I am now.

You guys realize the bb/100 for shortstackers is much, much less for a reason, right? I haven't looked at stats for about two years now, but generally online the BEST shortstackers were making less then 1/4 bb/100 then a good player buying in for 100bb. This is no different live. Even with the best game selection, $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short just isn't feasible.

Last edited by aoFrantic; 01-13-2015 at 04:10 PM.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:11 PM   #8637
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I may have understated that. I consider any 2/5 game with more than 2 other winning players to be an undesirable game. The normal makeup for the 5/10 games I play in is 3 good grinders, 3 competent nits, and 3 rec fish/whales. That makeup may vary slightly to something like 4 grinders, 3 nits, and 2 rec fish and that's ok, but I'm certainly not sitting at a table full of winning regs.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:15 PM   #8638
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
It should be easy to figure that out.

For one, a fixed amount of rake (which is the case in most casinos) is much lower relatively speaking in higher stake than lower.

Second, if you're a skilled player, winning 8bb at 1/3 translates to $24. Winning at 5bb in 2/5 is already higher.

List goes on.
You aren't mentioning that you are increasing your variance a ton by playing what you two are describing as an active shortstacking game that is taking advantage of many "good" situations and certainly not a 9/7 game.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:16 PM   #8639
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
RP, shortstacking is great when you can
a)play multiple tables
b)rathole successfully
c)put in a ton of volume

I had a day where I shortstacked PLO600 online last year and made $11k in a day. It was fun, but not something that is analogous for live play.
I get it and I think most get it as well. Again, no disagreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
You seem to confuse me painting something as "bad" when I'm saying it's not optimal.
No, I assumed you were saying that it is of lower EV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
You guys realize the bb/100 for shortstackers is much, much less for a reason, right?
I get the obvious reasons, but what are less obvious reasons to why short stacking is bad?

From what you said earlier to be bad, those reasons actually end up being good IMO:

1. You are not threatening.
2. You are definitely not labeled as a good player, because apparently good players never buy in short.

Do these labels matter online?

In live, I would think that if people underestimate my ability because of my image, I can easily take advantage of easy double-ups 50bb a pop.

Think of the flip side.

Would you allow yourself to put in 50bb light pre or flop against a deep and good player? Probably not, because you are concerned of turn and river with a lot of money behind.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:17 PM   #8640
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
You aren't mentioning that you are increasing your variance a ton by playing what you two are describing as an active shortstacking game that is taking advantage of many "good" situations and certainly not a 9/7 game.
I am not because variance is not really something any of us understand anyway.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:19 PM   #8641
bm303
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,977
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
RP, shortstacking is great when you can
a)play multiple tables
b)rathole successfully
c)put in a ton of volume

I had a day where I shortstacked PLO600 online last year and made $11k in a day. It was fun, but not something that is analogous for live play.

You seem to confuse me painting something as "bad" when I'm saying it's not optimal. I know how to play a shortstack. I've done it online before and when I started playing live I wasn't confident always buying in for 200+bb as I am now.

You guys realize the bb/100 for shortstackers is much, much less for a reason, right? I haven't looked at stats for about two years now, but generally online the BEST shortstackers were making less then 1/4 bb/100 then a good player buying in for 100bb. This is no different live. Even with the best game selection, $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short just isn't feasible.
The one thing I would like to add is that the preflop raising size makes short stacking live better than online. It's not unusual to have 50%+ of your stack in the pot before the action even gets to you, where you can then just shove your premiums or 3bet and jam 99% of flops if the SPR is appropriate. This does not happen online where the standard open is 2-3BB. Live it is 5-7BB depending on the table which means bigger bloated preflop pots which is exactly what a SS wants.

I now am fairly confident that buying in short is the best route, learning the table dynamics whilst playing a robot short stacked strategy, and then topping off in a few orbits when you are comfortable or when you double up. I never will rathole 1/2 anymore because there's almost always a few fish at the table and I see no reason to go shortstack some random nit table when I can just play deeper against a whale. I do think ratholing 2/5 would be profitable, however, if some rooms allowed less than a 40BB buyin. Probably somewhere in the $20-25/hr range would be a goal winrate. Possibly more.
bm303 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:27 PM   #8642
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I generally only think buying in short and observing table dynamics is correct if you're not a regular in a room. I think just by observing the types of players/stack sizes you can get a good feel before playing a hand, and if you're a regular you will know most players anyway. Yes, you have the potential for better spots because the raise sizes are bigger, but you're seeing so many fewer hands it doesn't even out in my opinion. Unless you really like squeezing the middle to bottom of your range and getting it in every single time with AJ type hands.
The rest I agree with BM.

RP, you're on this weird tangents with the labeling of players. I'm not "labeling" a player as good or bad solely on what they buy in for, but I also haven't run into any good players who routinely buy in short because it is less optimal. I was mostly exclusively talking about the 2/5 and 5/10 games I play in which are generally 4-5 pros, 2-3 rec players who are decent until either a bottle or a buyin are emptied, and 1-2 whales. Everyone knows everyone, there are no labels to be had.

I'd expect your average winrate to be in the range BM posted if you were to shortstack 2/5, but a good player can definitely make $20 at 1/2 and have 1/3 the STD. Just take a proper shot imo.

Last edited by aoFrantic; 01-13-2015 at 04:36 PM.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:42 PM   #8643
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
RP, you're on this weird tangents with the labeling of players. I'm not "labeling" a player as good or bad solely on what they buy in for, but I also haven't run into any good players who routinely buy in short because it is less optimal.
No I didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
From what you said earlier to be bad, those reasons actually end up being good IMO:

1. You are not threatening.
2. You are definitely not labeled as a good player, because apparently good players never buy in short.
You did post this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
No competent deep stack pro I know is ever buying in short to our games
If you don't know any competent deep stack pros buying in short, isn't it true that if a player buys in short, you wouldn't think he's a competent deep stack pro?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I was mostly exclusively talking about the 2/5 and 5/10 games I play in which are generally 4-5 pros, 2-3 rec players who are decent until either a bottle or a buyin are emptied, and 1-2 whales. Everyone knows everyone, there are no labels to be had.
So your argument that short stacking is bad is that you have never seen competent deep stack pro buying short, and that you never actually play with anyone that you don't already know?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:50 PM   #8644
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
You aren't mentioning that you are increasing your variance a ton by playing what you two are describing as an active shortstacking game that is taking advantage of many "good" situations and certainly not a 9/7 game.
I don't know how to quantify it but sure you are taking a lot of risks by playing this style. Moreso at 5/10 where players are much more likely to call your ships thus putting you in a lot of 60%/40% 70/30 50/50 spots. You will certainly be in more 80/20 spots than 20/80 but sometimes you will shove into hands that have you crushed but regardless a lot of variance there.

At lower levels though there are a lot of spots where you will simply get folds with the variance being the few times your opponents call you (whether it's because you run into the top of their range or they just don't want to fold for whatever reason).

In absolute terms your variance isn't necessarily much higher for the level you are playing though. You are never gonna lose any big coolers...if you do, losing a 20bb stack really isn't that big of a deal in absolute terms.

At 2/5 $1500 (which I would use as a stop loss) will get you five 60bb buyins or six 50bb buyins or twelve 25bb buyins so if you get stacked 3 times you still have plenty of money to work with. If you get stacked 3 times with a 100bb buyin then you are down $1500. If you have enough buyins you're eventually gonna run hot if you're riding the short stack variance train then you just hit and run
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:51 PM   #8645
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,503
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

No, I'm saying the pro is being very dumb and/or broke if they're buying in short. In the games I play in, the whales buy in for 200bb. They aren't that good at holdem, and sometimes play PLO where they genuinely don't know how to play. If you are a professional poker player playing 2/5 and a whale who is there to spew $2-5k tonight is sitting with $1k, buying in for $250 is a bad idea for a professional poker player.

My live play is largely in a smaller sized city. We aren't a large poker community, there aren't many tourists and the ratio of pros to bad regs or fish is absolutely terrible, to be honest. I know everyone who is going to sit in these games, yes.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 04:59 PM   #8646
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I don't get why we need to buy in short to "wait and observe the table dynamic". We can just play fewer hands or more cautiously. We're giving up the chance to get into an obvious big pot situation by buying in short. Raises in front and AA? Time to win the minimum. Small pp in MP? Goodbye set-mining odds.

Just buy in full and try not to punt off light in the first orbit.
Angrist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 05:00 PM   #8647
GatorXP
old hand
 
GatorXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Out of the Theater
Posts: 1,792
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
- high rake
- capping your advantage
- and what to do when you double...hmm..

"Buying in short initially" should be distinguished from "short stacking"

I can't see any benefit to centering your live poker strategy around short stacking.
This is a great point Bip

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums
GatorXP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 05:12 PM   #8648
bm303
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,977
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
I don't get why we need to buy in short to "wait and observe the table dynamic". We can just play fewer hands or more cautiously. We're giving up the chance to get into an obvious big pot situation by buying in short. Raises in front and AA? Time to win the minimum. Small pp in MP? Goodbye set-mining odds.

Just buy in full and try not to punt off light in the first orbit.
I agree you are giving up value. I heard this tip from Tommy Angelo on one of Bart hansons podcasts, tried it and have found it suits my game better than buying in full vs unknowns.

Probably because I'm new to poker I just feel more comfortable this way.
bm303 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 05:20 PM   #8649
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
No, I'm saying the pro is being very dumb and/or broke if they're buying in short. In the games I play in, the whales buy in for 200bb. They aren't that good at holdem, and sometimes play PLO where they genuinely don't know how to play. If you are a professional poker player playing 2/5 and a whale who is there to spew $2-5k tonight is sitting with $1k, buying in for $250 is a bad idea for a professional poker player.
Speaking of high variance, this is pretty high varianceif you have one whale dropping $3-5k, that money is not going to be evenly distributed. More than likely 2 or 3 regs will get it all and everyone else will be SOL. Not saying it's a bad game or anything wrong with it but compare that to a table of 8 passive fish each expected to lose between $300 and $1000, which is generally like printing money each and every time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
My live play is largely in a smaller sized city. We aren't a large poker community, there aren't many tourists and the ratio of pros to bad regs or fish is absolutely terrible, to be honest. I know everyone who is going to sit in these games, yes.
Where I play you can generally expect double digit 2/5 tables running on the weekend and three to four 5/10+ games running. One of the negatives about playing a deep stacked 2/5 where I play is that in order to change tables you must drop back down to $500. Considering table dynamics change quite a bit this is a major negative. Imagine you are in a game deep stacked $2500+ and the whale leaves...now what? If the whale changes tables and you want to follow him you have to go back down to $500. Ditto if your game gets bad. Contrast with buying in short where you can buy-in for $300, double up, change to a better table, buy-in for $300, double up, change to a better table rinse repeat.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 05:28 PM   #8650
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
I don't get why we need to buy in short to "wait and observe the table dynamic".
Agree completely from a theoretical standpoint. You are definitely leaving value on the table. That being said, imagine you are a decent winning or breakeven player with leaks. Perhaps you have a weak mental game and just have days where you play bad (or perhaps you just don't know if you are a winning player at a particular table). If that is the case you can buyin short which decreases your risk exposure. After a period of time you can decide that you have confidence that you are playing good poker today and the table dynamics are quite suitable for you to have a winning session so at that point you go ahead and top off your stack.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive