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 10-05-2016, 01:14 PM   #16376
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I certainly end up playing pretty damn tight till I double up and no, it's not a lot of fun
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 01:28 PM   #16377
cuserounder
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
cuserounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Coast
Posts: 8,201
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
And I think the biggest misconception - focusing on variance as a property of all ins. Variance is a part of every hand (including folding UTG for $0). Preflop and Flops probably influence variance more than all in results.
This is key. There are so many types of variance. One of the biggest, that most overlook, is flop texture. Your opponent limps AJ, you iso AT on the button, he calls and you go heads up to the flop. He has you crushed, but you're going to win this pot the majority of the time if he plays fit or fold post-flop. However, the flop texture is the variance. If this scenario plays out five times in a session, and he keeps flopping a pair, you're "running bad," even though he had the better hand each time.

On the flip side, if every flop comes down K53r and he check-folds, you ran good but most players just think, "Oh man, I'm killing it today!" Nope, you're catching good c-bet boards!

Quote:
Originally Posted by meale View Post
Err my sims were using a sd of 70 which is perfectly reasonable for 9-10 handed live FR if you play a tighter strat.
I'm very lag, but this seems unreasonably low regardless. Mine is 95bb/hr. This does include a handful of PLO sessions, so it's a little lower in NLHE. Probably 80-85bb/hr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
The reason this trips up tons of players is that:

- minimizing risk-of-ruin for short term (say anything from 1 to 100 hours) can actually be to play a weak and losing strategy.. however, if the strat is losing, it will end with ruin 100% of the time in the long run.

- minimizing risk-of-ruin for long term (hundreds+ hours) is to maximize win rate.. but this strat might actually have higher risk of ruin on a small initial bankroll.

NOTE: this doesn't mean "play low variance until I have a roll" - because you won't ever get that roll. Poker start-up involves risk. Don't try to dodge the risk. (unless recreation is your goal - then get a job and lose slow)

It takes a long time for winning results to clearly diverge from ~break-even results. This is thanks to how big an influence variance has.

A big edge is the only thing that will keep you in the game for thousands of hours.. especially if you withdraw from your roll.


It is the great long con of LLSNL - the slow noisy bleed captures so many people. It is why small stakes buy in cap games are so healthy and will continue to be healthy. So many people trying to extend their time and so few trying to win.
Lots of wisdom in that post, but I'll disagree with one thing a little bit. Depending on the type of game, your bankroll, your winrate, etc, there can be lower variance styles of play that still have a great winrate.

Consider a couple examples.

Player A doesn't pass up any edges. If he's risking 100bb on a river bluff that is +EV by 1bb, he'll do it. He's not afraid to play huge pots with moderate hands and draws, as long as it's slightly +EV. He wins 10bb/hr.

Player B passes up those edges and plays a TAG style, he doesn't make huge bluffs or hero calls, and he tends to play his draws and moderate hands more conservatively. He doesn't get paid off as huge when he makes monsters, but he tries to avoid huge swings. He wins 7 bb/hr.

I believe, although I'll defer if you have a good case here, but I believe it's possible player B has a lower risk of ruin on a shorter bankroll. Now, of course, if you're taking a player who has a high end of 5-7bb/hr, and they're trying to further reduce variance, I'd agree with you that they will have a hard time growing their bankroll before the creep of rake, tips and negative variance take them out of the game.

Also, the type of game matters. Like, let's say both Player A and Player B have a 200bb shot taking roll for the next stake up. There's a wild, crazy game with a huge action player who is straddling every hand and getting it in light. Player A may have a higher winrate in that game, but Player B has a lower ROR on his shot-taking. At least, that's my opinion based on a small sample of personal experience and doing some serious thinking on the topic and a few calculations on ROR calculators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Standard deviation scales by the square root of time, not linearly. If your SD is 100BB/hour and you play 25 hands per hour, then when you convert to BB/100 that is four times as long, so multiply by sqrt(4) to get 200BB/100.

For SD:
BB/h*sqrt(100/(hands/h)) = BB/100

For the record, my live SD is about 110 BB/h, which equates to around 200 BB/100 if getting 30 hands/h.
Thanks, it's been a long time since AP Stats.
cuserounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 01:29 PM   #16378
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

This has been very helpful. I'm confident now that I need to get to a point I'm comfortable buying in for the table maximum. I'll increase it gradually over my next few sessions an extra 30-40bb at a time.

I guess playing tight and conservative with a deeper stack isn't really going to greatly increase the risk of losing big but it hugely increases my potential upside. I can just think about making riskier moves for now and start using them later.

I'll check back in in a few weeks and let you know how it went. I promise I won't hold any of you responsible if I post a big loss deep stacked

Good luck all and thanks for your thoughts.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 01:37 PM   #16379
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I'd be wary of playing 200bb stack poker, as it isn't nearly as straightforward / easy as 80bb poker. I've come to the realization over the years that deepstack is really out of my wheelhouse, and a situation where I actually feel I might be the one at a disadvantage at a lot of tables (opponent dependent of course). If I recall, Duke posted some interesting thoughts on it a while back (perhaps do a search); I don't think it's the holy grail some like to make it out to be (at least for those not well prepared for it).

GcluelessdeepstacknoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 01:48 PM   #16380
nicname
grinder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big 12
Posts: 627
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
I'd be wary of playing 200bb stack poker, as it isn't nearly as straightforward / easy as 80bb poker. I've come to the realization over the years that deepstack is really out of my wheelhouse, and a situation where I actually feel I might be the one at a disadvantage at a lot of tables (opponent dependent of course). If I recall, Duke posted some interesting thoughts on it a while back (perhaps do a search); I don't think it's the holy grail some like to make it out to be (at least for those not well prepared for it).

GcluelessdeepstacknoobG
It's never an issue where I play, but I always figured if I were playing a 200bb max or uncapped game I'd buy in for 100bb and play my normal game. I'd only top up if I was pretty sure I could outplay a deepstack I had position on.

I'd also just move tables of the game was playing far too large for my 100bb stack. ie deepstacks basically playing one another starting out at 10 or more bbs per hand, which I've run into before.
nicname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 01:49 PM   #16381
Ragequit99
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2,575
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

^ noted GG. I'll play a while at 100bb before increasing much beyond that. One step at a time. My biggest issue is vs bluffy players when deep. Easy to make big calling or folding errors.
Ragequit99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 02:13 PM   #16382
nicname
grinder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big 12
Posts: 627
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder View Post
Player A doesn't pass up any edges. If he's risking 100bb on a river bluff that is +EV by 1bb, he'll do it. He's not afraid to play huge pots with moderate hands and draws, as long as it's slightly +EV. He wins 10bb/hr.

Player B passes up those edges and plays a TAG style, he doesn't make huge bluffs or hero calls, and he tends to play his draws and moderate hands more conservatively. He doesn't get paid off as huge when he makes monsters, but he tries to avoid huge swings. He wins 7 bb/hr.

I believe, although I'll defer if you have a good case here, but I believe it's possible player B has a lower risk of ruin on a shorter bankroll. Now, of course, if you're taking a player who has a high end of 5-7bb/hr, and they're trying to further reduce variance, I'd agree with you that they will have a hard time growing their bankroll before the creep of rake, tips and negative variance take them out of the game.
Agreed, and this doesn't take into account a common leak among "good" players at low stakes. Too many player overestimate their own skill level while underestimating their opponents.

It would be great if we were all super-studs who could be reliably confident in our assessment of super thin EV plays. The reality is that often players will be making the wrong decision in these situations.

It's doesn't have to be that a player it taking these spots, it's that he/she believes they are making the correct play when in fact they are not. It's easier to be right when the margin of error is greater.
nicname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 02:53 PM   #16383
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
I'd be wary of playing 200bb stack poker, as it isn't nearly as straightforward / easy as 80bb poker. I've come to the realization over the years that deepstack is really out of my wheelhouse, and a situation where I actually feel I might be the one at a disadvantage at a lot of tables (opponent dependent of course). If I recall, Duke posted some interesting thoughts on it a while back (perhaps do a search); I don't think it's the holy grail some like to make it out to be (at least for those not well prepared for it).

GcluelessdeepstacknoobG
Jeez I don't even consider it playing poker until I am >200 BB's. The time between buying in and getting to >200 BB's is always the nut low of the session for me.
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 02:56 PM   #16384
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Some people's nut low is other people's wheelhouse.

GsolongasyouareawareofwhereyourwheelhouseisG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 03:06 PM   #16385
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

There's plenty of poker that can be played under 200bbs. There is plenty of poker that can be played under 100bbs. Just waiting for hands isn't optimal, regardless of stack size.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 03:27 PM   #16386
VolumeKing
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 729
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
How can variance mean how far you currently are from your true win rate when people are always talking about how you can almost never know your true win rate?
Variance is exactly how BGP said it earlier. It's how much you vary from your expected winrate. Higher winrate is less variance for a lot of reasons. climbing out of a downswing winning 10bbs an hournwill happen much faster than if you win 4bbs an hr, for example.
VolumeKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 03:48 PM   #16387
cuserounder
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
cuserounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Coast
Posts: 8,201
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by VolumeKing View Post
Variance is exactly how BGP said it earlier. It's how much you vary from your expected winrate. Higher winrate is less variance for a lot of reasons. climbing out of a downswing winning 10bbs an hournwill happen much faster than if you win 4bbs an hr, for example.
Bolded is wrong. Read the last page or two.

Higher winrate makes you less susceptible to variance causing a long downswing. It does not mean less variance. It does not mean less negative variance, either.

If you make 10 bb/hr and suffer a long stretch of running 8 bb/hr below your winrate, you are still showing a small profit. If someone else wins 6 bb/hr and runs 8 bb/hr below their winrate, they are losing money. Both players experienced the same amount of variance.

Variance (standard deviation in bb/hr or bb/100 ) can be high or low for different players at different winrates, depending upon skill and playing style.

I likely have both higher variance and a higher winrate than a lot of winning players at small stakes NL.
cuserounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 04:28 PM   #16388
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder View Post
Bolded is wrong. Read the last page or two.

Higher winrate makes you less susceptible to variance causing a long downswing. It does not mean less variance. It does not mean less negative variance, either.

If you make 10 bb/hr and suffer a long stretch of running 8 bb/hr below your winrate, you are still showing a small profit. If someone else wins 6 bb/hr and runs 8 bb/hr below their winrate, they are losing money. Both players experienced the same amount of variance.

Variance (standard deviation in bb/hr or bb/100 ) can be high or low for different players at different winrates, depending upon skill and playing style.

I likely have both higher variance and a higher winrate than a lot of winning players at small stakes NL.
He's using "variance" to mean the outcome of that equation that includes the mean value (winrate) and the standard deviation. Which is reduced if the mean goes up.

You're thinking of the standard deviation as the "variance", which is (somewhat) independent of winrate. If anything I'd expect a higher winrate to have more thin edges and larger standard deviations. So that's also more in line with what many people are thinking of when they use the term (myself included).
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 04:36 PM   #16389
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

A guy who takes thin edges is also a guy who gets paid a lot, which should lessen his variance. To me it seems impossible to quantify the width of possible variance and the extent to which various playing styles affect it. Spending all that energy trying to reduce or master something which by its nature represents the "luck" factor in poker seems to me insane. Focus on being the best possible player and making the most EV+ move each and every time. The rest will sort itself out.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 04:58 PM   #16390
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Thin edges also *lose* a lot of those pots. Which increases the "up and down" volatility of his results on a hand by hand basis, even if it's more profitable overall.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 05:05 PM   #16391
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,515
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
Thin edges also *lose* a lot of those pots. Which increases the "up and down" volatility of his results on a hand by hand basis, even if it's more profitable overall.
That's not what I mean. When you take a thin-edged spot with a marginal hand, the value part of your range gets paid more than a guy who plays conservatively and doesn't push the thin edge.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 05:10 PM   #16392
Bluegrassplayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bluegrassplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: China
Posts: 36,549
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
A guy who takes thin edges is also a guy who gets paid a lot, which should lessen his variance. To me it seems impossible to quantify the width of possible variance and the extent to which various playing styles affect it. Spending all that energy trying to reduce or master something which by its nature represents the "luck" factor in poker seems to me insane. Focus on being the best possible player and making the most EV+ move each and every time. The rest will sort itself out.



Anyways the reason people confuse variance and downswings is because the practical application is in its effect on downswings. Having a higher winrate will reduce the chance of a significant downswing.

Last edited by Bluegrassplayer; 10-05-2016 at 05:38 PM.
Bluegrassplayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 05:16 PM   #16393
Bluegrassplayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bluegrassplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: China
Posts: 36,549
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Ragequit: I didn't necessarily mean you should be buying in 200bbs. (Although if you are able to and play better than the field that'd be the most +ev, and with the game you've described 200bbs is not really that deep.) I meant that you should buy in for whatever gives you the best chance to win. You've made it sound like you're sacrificing some edge in order to have more buy ins. I'd figure out what amount gives you the largest edge and buy in for that amount. If you want to eventually work towards being most profitable at 200bbs then that's a great goal, and a good middle step to playing 2/5.
Bluegrassplayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 06:24 PM   #16394
cAmmAndo
The Situation
 
cAmmAndo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 4,712
*** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder View Post



Player A doesn't pass up any edges. If he's risking 100bb on a river bluff that is +EV by 1bb, he'll do it. He's not afraid to play huge pots with moderate hands and draws, as long as it's slightly +EV. He wins 10bb/hr.



Player B passes up those edges and plays a TAG style, he doesn't make huge bluffs or hero calls, and he tends to play his draws and moderate hands more conservatively. He doesn't get paid off as huge when he makes monsters, but he tries to avoid huge swings. He wins 7 bb/hr.



Cuse, I agree about razor thin spots but Tbh when I see or talk to guys trying to employ lo variance strat I mostly see them avoiding big pots with non-nut hands or unmade hands not thin edges. In fact I see them do all kinds of thin stuff in small pots.

Leaving aside the thin edge question for a moment, let's talk about playing draws aggressively vs passively. The aggressive player (note I didn't say loose or tight) who recognizes board texture and his and his opponents range can seize fold equity that the passive player cannot. So he's playing a larger pot with higher total equity where the passive player is playing a smaller pot with less total equity.

Edit to correct: more correctly he's playing the equivalent pot with greater total equity and a larger pot with the equivalent equity (not to mention likely greater implied value).

The "lo variance style" knife cuts both ways.

Just as a spewey aggro (and I'm speaking from experience lol) can overestimate his fold equity, passive players frequently overestimate their implied odds when drawing. They finally get there, bet and villain folds and they only collect on the direct odds which often are by definition "thin" without the implied value.

For someone trying to build a roll the best chance they can give themselves is to improve game selection ime. And by that I mean learn what lineups and game conditions their predominate playing style, the one they are most comfortable playing, fares best against and seek those games out while minimizing exposure to less favorable conditions.

As they become rolled more soundly they can worry less about game selecting and improve/expand areas of their game that they are less comfortable with but which will increase their expectation in those less favorable lineups/game conditions.

Just my $.02

cA****likeabirdandeatlikeanelephantAm

Last edited by cAmmAndo; 10-05-2016 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Auto correctness
cAmmAndo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 08:20 PM   #16395
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,603
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

So this is probably obvious, but for those missing the mental connection: basically every hand has variance.

If we GII pre with AA vs. a random hand, we're like 85% to win. So if we lose, we hit the **** out of variance. If we win, that's just the expected result, right? Wrong. The expected result is to win 85% of the pot. That will obv never happen, so even if we get the most likely result, we've hit positive variance (discrepancy from EV) of 15%.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 08:41 PM   #16396
cuserounder
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
cuserounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Coast
Posts: 8,201
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by cAmmAndo View Post
Cuse, I agree about razor thin spots but Tbh when I see or talk to guys trying to employ lo variance strat I mostly see them avoiding big pots with non-nut hands or unmade hands not thin edges. In fact I see them do all kinds of thin stuff in small pots.

Leaving aside the thin edge question for a moment, let's talk about playing draws aggressively vs passively. The aggressive player (note I didn't say loose or tight) who recognizes board texture and his and his opponents range can seize fold equity that the passive player cannot. So he's playing a larger pot with higher total equity where the passive player is playing a smaller pot with less total equity.

Edit to correct: more correctly he's playing the equivalent pot with greater total equity and a larger pot with the equivalent equity (not to mention likely greater implied value).

The "lo variance style" knife cuts both ways.

Just as a spewey aggro (and I'm speaking from experience lol) can overestimate his fold equity, passive players frequently overestimate their implied odds when drawing. They finally get there, bet and villain folds and they only collect on the direct odds which often are by definition "thin" without the implied value.

For someone trying to build a roll the best chance they can give themselves is to improve game selection ime. And by that I mean learn what lineups and game conditions their predominate playing style, the one they are most comfortable playing, fares best against and seek those games out while minimizing exposure to less favorable conditions.

As they become rolled more soundly they can worry less about game selecting and improve/expand areas of their game that they are less comfortable with but which will increase their expectation in those less favorable lineups/game conditions.

Just my $.02

cA****likeabirdandeatlikeanelephantAm
I totally agree that a lot of people miss huge equity spots by trying to be low variance (a great example is failing to build a pot with a nut flush draw against someone who has tons of non nut draws in their range). I was basing it on someone making the best adjustments, whereas a ton of people will make the wrong ones.

As for your roll building advice it also cuts both ways. There's the side you suggest of game selecting to fit your playing style, but then when you learn to play other styles to beat other types of games, the stakes will be higher if/when you take your lumps. So there's a trade off either way.
cuserounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 09:40 PM   #16397
cAmmAndo
The Situation
 
cAmmAndo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 4,712
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

^^^^^^
We are in agreement.
cAmmAndo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 10:52 PM   #16398
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Can anyone help me here? I'm trying to compare two games, Australia vs London.

Australia (Treasury)
10% rake capped at $15 for a $2/$5 game
London (Hippodrome)
5% rake capped at £10 for a $2/$5 game

Can anyone run any calcs here to work out any of the below stats?
- rake paid per hour
- rake paid in 2,500 hours
- what impact this has on potential winrates assuming both games are average skill level

Cheers
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 10:54 PM   #16399
bip!
Slow Pony
 
bip!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: not on urban dictionary...
Posts: 13,669
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Wish someone could teach me how to know I have 51% or 55% or 47.23471% equity in a pot Winrates, bankrolls, and finances. Poker would be so easy my WR would be everychipOnTheTable / hour.

My complaint about these "avoid thin spots" strats is give-me-a-break that anyone has that precise and accurate opponents' ranges figured. (And if anyone could, they are well well beyond building a roll). If someone is "cutting out thin spots" I would lay good money they aren't passing on ~0EV spots, they are passing on +EV spots and misrecognizing them as "thin". In reality, good poker is going after perceived by solid +EV spots, but being imperfect we end up in some ~0EV or even -EV spots sometimes. You can't just "cut these out of your game".

The other problem is overlooking pot odds and making huge EV mistakes because a spot "is risky" - like calling $100 off with 30% equity but getting 3:1. Folding is just bad.. regardless of your "roll strat". If you can't chase EV, then you will also be very easy to play against.
bip! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2016, 10:55 PM   #16400
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,603
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Can anyone help me here? I'm trying to compare two games, Australia vs London.
Need to know average pot size (or at least % of times rake is maxed) to be able to answer that, I would think.
Garick 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 12:58 PM.


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