Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Books and Publications Discussion and reviews of books, videos, and magazines. Sponsored by TwoPlusTwoStore.com.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2017, 04:12 PM   #1601
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dookeybaby View Post
Hi Matthew,

I am looking at the samples at the end of the book and have a question about the continuation betting frequency. The book discussed that your betting frequency on a later street is dependent on the prior street's bet sizing, but the samples doesn't seem to take that into account. It assumes all streets are bet for 75% pot, then doesn't this mean that a later street should be bet 70% of the time? The continuation percentage seemed arbitrary in these samples.

Thank you.
Only true if you're betting with a perfectly polarized range. Real poker is much more complicated.

The biggest take home message from those examples is how much more aggressively you can beat earlier streets than later streets.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 04:18 AM   #1602
Doc-Magic
stranger
 
Doc-Magic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 11
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hi Matthew,

In the section, Deciding wich street to value bet OTF :

For me, when you're betting marginal strenght hands OTF when it's vulnerable to being outdraw by the c/f range of your opponent seems good but how do you balance it ? Since
our line bet/check/check is very vulnerable to overbet because we have only bluff catchers
Doc-Magic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 09:17 AM   #1603
Doc-Magic
stranger
 
Doc-Magic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 11
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Me Again !

When we defend against flop bets in 3bet pots by raising i've done some math to see what's the % of value we need to raise (raise 12,5bb to 25bb into 50bb), let me know if i'm wrong (assuming we are betting all in OTT for 0,75 PSB).

%value raise = (1-Pot odds given OTF)(1-Pot odds given OTT)
= (1- 0,1667)(1-0,3)
= 0,583

That's seems reasonable since ranges gets more polar, but my main question is about Which Bluffs to chose ?
In the example you given : We open CO and call the SB 3bet. Flop: Qs8s5d

I'm taking 6s7s and 9sTs but hesitate between AK and 8s9s since AK blocks strongest hands in my opponent's range (AA,KK) and can hit a A,or K, sometimes a backdoor.

THANKS
Doc-Magic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2017, 10:27 AM   #1604
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc-Magic View Post
Hi Matthew,

In the section, Deciding wich street to value bet OTF :

For me, when you're betting marginal strenght hands OTF when it's vulnerable to being outdraw by the c/f range of your opponent seems good but how do you balance it ? Since
our line bet/check/check is very vulnerable to overbet because we have only bluff catchers
You bet with your good hands too.

It's hard to justify checking back a strong hand on a wet board. So if you bet on a Tc 8s 6s flop (in position) and check back on a 2c turn, you're going to have a hard time facing bets on a 3d river. Villain usually should be willing to overbet you with some of his range here.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2017, 06:38 PM   #1605
greenbeans
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 7
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

I have a question on a specific area of the book (pg 61), I can't seem to make sense of.

Assumptions facing a button raise are:
SB - 3 Bets 16%, Calls 8%
BB - 3 Bets 14%, Calls 20%

Book states button open will be called 21.7% based on:
0.217 = (0.08)(0.86) + (0.20)(0.74)

I know in the errors section the 0.74 should be 0.76 (or vice versa) but even with this, I'm a little confused.

Are we counting the scenario where both BB and SB calls? Either way it doesn't seem to make sense.

Case 1 (assume 1 caller)
(%SB calls)(%BB folds) + (%BB calls)(% SB folds)
0.2 = 0.08 * 0.66 + 0.2 * 0.74

Case 2 (assume 2 callers possible)
(%SB calls)(%BB doesn't 3 bet) + (%BB calls)(% SB doesn't 3 bet)
0.237 = 0.08 * 0.86 + 0.2 * 0.84

It would be appreciated if someone can point out where I've gone wrong in my reasoning.
greenbeans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2017, 01:22 PM   #1606
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbeans View Post
I have a question on a specific area of the book (pg 61), I can't seem to make sense of.

Assumptions facing a button raise are:
SB - 3 Bets 16%, Calls 8%
BB - 3 Bets 14%, Calls 20%

Book states button open will be called 21.7% based on:
0.217 = (0.08)(0.86) + (0.20)(0.74)

I know in the errors section the 0.74 should be 0.76 (or vice versa) but even with this, I'm a little confused.

Are we counting the scenario where both BB and SB calls? Either way it doesn't seem to make sense.

Case 1 (assume 1 caller)
(%SB calls)(%BB folds) + (%BB calls)(% SB folds)
0.2 = 0.08 * 0.66 + 0.2 * 0.74

Case 2 (assume 2 callers possible)
(%SB calls)(%BB doesn't 3 bet) + (%BB calls)(% SB doesn't 3 bet)
0.237 = 0.08 * 0.86 + 0.2 * 0.84

It would be appreciated if someone can point out where I've gone wrong in my reasoning.
Sorry about the late response.

I don't have the book in front of me and am away this month, but I'll look when I get home. PM me if I forget.

In the mean time, definitely don't let something like this bother you. If one of us is off by a bit in an isolated spot it's really not a big deal unless you consistently find the math confusing/wrong (in which case one of us is doing something incorrectly).
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2017, 06:53 PM   #1607
Doc-Magic
stranger
 
Doc-Magic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 11
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hi !

I have a question about the chapter "Playing Draws OOP" p291

At the end you mentioned : our opponent will not ussually bet small on the turn when there are many draws in our range. Put differently, he would size his bet to make us indifferent to calling or folding with many of our straight draws and flush draws"

Even if it's impossible to calculate, what is approximately the best sizing against a range with lots of straight draws and flush draws on the turn (who have approximately 20% equity) ? Between 1/3 and 1/2 pot ?
Doc-Magic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2017, 11:26 AM   #1608
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc-Magic View Post
Hi !

I have a question about the chapter "Playing Draws OOP" p291

At the end you mentioned : our opponent will not ussually bet small on the turn when there are many draws in our range. Put differently, he would size his bet to make us indifferent to calling or folding with many of our straight draws and flush draws"

Even if it's impossible to calculate, what is approximately the best sizing against a range with lots of straight draws and flush draws on the turn (who have approximately 20% equity) ? Between 1/3 and 1/2 pot ?
I'd just go one step further now and say this:

"In general, the weaker our opponent's range is relative to ours, the more frequently and bigger we should bet. The stronger our opponents range is to ours, the more frequently we should check and when we do bet we should bet smaller."

Equity distribution is more complicated than that, but that's it at a glance. Draws are usually pretty weak (especially on the turn) so the weaker villains range is, the more and the bigger you want to bet.

Also, it's less important to make a flush draw unable to profitably call so much as you just need to reduce it's expected value. So say I'm playing against you and you have a flush draw on the turn and the pot is $100. If I check, let's assume you'll check back and the EV of your flush draw will be $35 (I'm of course making numbers up). But if I bet $50, maybe the EV of calling will be +$5 and you'll always. So while I didn't bet big enough to make you indifferent to calling or folding, I did greatly reduce your EV by betting instead of checking. That's usually good enough, and frequently what I have to do as I can't justify a bigger bet or I'll lose to much to your strong hands.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2017, 02:00 PM   #1609
Doc-Magic
stranger
 
Doc-Magic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 11
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hi !

In the Chapter "River play : Camparing IP and OOP Jam"

you write : "when IP our bets needs to win at least 50% of the time when called to make betting more profitable than checking."

You also take the example where OTR, we are in position and our opponent check, we go all in for 1 PSB. It's requires him to call 50% of the time to keep us indifferent to bluffing. You assume he has us beat 20 % of the time. this means he will fold 50% of the time, call and lose 30% of the time, call and win 20% of the time.
Therefore the EV of betting is 0,5(1) + 0,3(2) - 0,2(1) = 0,9
the EV of checking is 0,8(1) + 0,2(0) = 0,5

So it's best to bet. But if i take the same example and instead 20% of he has us beat 40% of the time (but we are steal winning more than 50% when he called), the most EV line becomes checking

EV of betting is 0,5(1) + 0,1(2) - 0,4(1) = 0,3
EV of checking is 0,6(1) + 0,4(0) = 0,6

Am i doing an error in my calculation ? Since the general rules doesn't function anymore
Doc-Magic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2018, 06:37 PM   #1610
tuccotrading
adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,122
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
I'd just go one step further now and say this:

"In general, the weaker our opponent's range is relative to ours, the more frequently and bigger we should bet. The stronger our opponents range is to ours, the more frequently we should check and when we do bet we should bet smaller."

Equity distribution is more complicated than that, but that's it at a glance. Draws are usually pretty weak (especially on the turn) so the weaker villains range is, the more and the bigger you want to bet.


Also, it's less important to make a flush draw unable to profitably call so much as you just need to reduce it's expected value. So say I'm playing against you and you have a flush draw on the turn and the pot is $100. If I check, let's assume you'll check back and the EV of your flush draw will be $35 (I'm of course making numbers up). But if I bet $50, maybe the EV of calling will be +$5 and you'll always. So while I didn't bet big enough to make you indifferent to calling or folding, I did greatly reduce your EV by betting instead of checking. That's usually good enough, and frequently what I have to do as I can't justify a bigger bet or I'll lose to much to your strong hands.
I think there is more to this than simply the EV of the flush draw has been cut down to +5)

The draw recovers/ recieves extra value on the river with a well constructure bluff/ value bet range.

(The draw may choose a bluff line on the turn or utilize fancy exploitive play on the river vs specific opponents as the pot is now larger... but I am only addressing what happens on the river when both players play close to GTO)

Last edited by tuccotrading; 01-01-2018 at 06:46 PM.
tuccotrading is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 04:39 AM   #1611
alabaro
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Russia
Posts: 14
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hi, Matthew! I read both your “application” books and it was my most useful poker coaching since 2011. In your last book you ask readers be free to contact with you, if arise any question.

Now I have two very important questions and kindly ask you to help me:

The first is about max EV in Spin’n’Go games. In Spin’n’Go’s thread at “two plus two” people talks about absence ICM in Spin’n’Go games and it’s the main reason to play this game in the same way as cash games i.e. we should choose max EV action in every spot with our hand. For example, imagine situation than we know that fold have -2bb EV and call have -1bb EV and in this case we should choose “call” for optimal playing in this spot.

Another “good people” talks about possibility to neglect some EV in order to realize our “advantage” when we playing with weak opponent. This point of view also has some interesting features. For example, imagine situation than we know that our opponent have a huge leaks in play with 9-14bb stack depth and now we play second hand in the tournament with 25 bb eff. stack and have a choice to fold with -2bb EV or call with -1bb EV and we choose suboptimal “fold” in order to realize our advantage in shallow stack depth. What is your point of view?

The second question is about pot odds. Please, imagine theoretical situation when we play cash NLHE and have flush draw on the flop “A93” and our villain OOP bet 1PSB. We absolutely know our opponent plays this way only top pair without any draw. Also we absolutely know our opponent makes another 1PSB if turn’s card not makes up any flush. And third, we absolutely know our opponent pays off 1PSB in case we gather our flush. Should we call 1PSB if we absolutely know that we have pot odds only for one card to make up our draw?

Sorry for my English, it’s not my native language.
alabaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2018, 12:38 AM   #1612
thecantonkid
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 371
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbeans View Post
I have a question on a specific area of the book (pg 61), I can't seem to make sense of.

Assumptions facing a button raise are:
SB - 3 Bets 16%, Calls 8%
BB - 3 Bets 14%, Calls 20%

Book states button open will be called 21.7% based on:
0.217 = (0.08)(0.86) + (0.20)(0.74)

I know in the errors section the 0.74 should be 0.76 (or vice versa) but even with this, I'm a little confused.

Are we counting the scenario where both BB and SB calls? Either way it doesn't seem to make sense.

Case 1 (assume 1 caller)
(%SB calls)(%BB folds) + (%BB calls)(% SB folds)
0.2 = 0.08 * 0.66 + 0.2 * 0.74

Case 2 (assume 2 callers possible)
(%SB calls)(%BB doesn't 3 bet) + (%BB calls)(% SB doesn't 3 bet)
0.237 = 0.08 * 0.86 + 0.2 * 0.84

It would be appreciated if someone can point out where I've gone wrong in my reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbeans View Post
I have a question on a specific area of the book (pg 61), I can't seem to make sense of.

Assumptions facing a button raise are:
SB - 3 Bets 16%, Calls 8%
BB - 3 Bets 14%, Calls 20%

Book states button open will be called 21.7% based on:
0.217 = (0.08)(0.86) + (0.20)(0.74)

I know in the errors section the 0.74 should be 0.76 (or vice versa) but even with this, I'm a little confused.

Are we counting the scenario where both BB and SB calls? Either way it doesn't seem to make sense.

Case 1 (assume 1 caller)
(%SB calls)(%BB folds) + (%BB calls)(% SB folds)
0.2 = 0.08 * 0.66 + 0.2 * 0.74

Case 2 (assume 2 callers possible)
(%SB calls)(%BB doesn't 3 bet) + (%BB calls)(% SB doesn't 3 bet)
0.237 = 0.08 * 0.86 + 0.2 * 0.84

It would be appreciated if someone can point out where I've gone wrong in my reasoning.
I haven´t read the book, but to answer your question, the 21.7% calls, represent both scenarios: One caller and two callers.

The (0.08)+(0.86)is the same as (0.08)+(0.66)+(0.08)+(0.20).

Where you´ve gone wrong is in Case 2.
The equation is as simple as 0.016 = 0.08+0.20

You add case 1 to case 2 and you get 21.68
thecantonkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2018, 03:14 PM   #1613
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc-Magic View Post
Hi !

In the Chapter "River play : Camparing IP and OOP Jam"

you write : "when IP our bets needs to win at least 50% of the time when called to make betting more profitable than checking."

You also take the example where OTR, we are in position and our opponent check, we go all in for 1 PSB. It's requires him to call 50% of the time to keep us indifferent to bluffing. You assume he has us beat 20 % of the time. this means he will fold 50% of the time, call and lose 30% of the time, call and win 20% of the time.
Therefore the EV of betting is 0,5(1) + 0,3(2) - 0,2(1) = 0,9
the EV of checking is 0,8(1) + 0,2(0) = 0,5

So it's best to bet. But if i take the same example and instead 20% of he has us beat 40% of the time (but we are steal winning more than 50% when he called), the most EV line becomes checking

EV of betting is 0,5(1) + 0,1(2) - 0,4(1) = 0,3
EV of checking is 0,6(1) + 0,4(0) = 0,6

Am i doing an error in my calculation ? Since the general rules doesn't function anymore
Not sure what general rule you're talking about, but the math looks correct to me at a glance (but always keep in mind math in books is usually checked 6 or 7 times, and mistakes still slip in). But I think you're good to go.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2018, 04:04 PM   #1614
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alabaro View Post
Hi, Matthew! I read both your “application” books and it was my most useful poker coaching since 2011. In your last book you ask readers be free to contact with you, if arise any question.

Now I have two very important questions and kindly ask you to help me:

The first is about max EV in Spin’n’Go games. In Spin’n’Go’s thread at “two plus two” people talks about absence ICM in Spin’n’Go games and it’s the main reason to play this game in the same way as cash games i.e. we should choose max EV action in every spot with our hand. For example, imagine situation than we know that fold have -2bb EV and call have -1bb EV and in this case we should choose “call” for optimal playing in this spot.

Another “good people” talks about possibility to neglect some EV in order to realize our “advantage” when we playing with weak opponent. This point of view also has some interesting features. For example, imagine situation than we know that our opponent have a huge leaks in play with 9-14bb stack depth and now we play second hand in the tournament with 25 bb eff. stack and have a choice to fold with -2bb EV or call with -1bb EV and we choose suboptimal “fold” in order to realize our advantage in shallow stack depth. What is your point of view?

The second question is about pot odds. Please, imagine theoretical situation when we play cash NLHE and have flush draw on the flop “A93” and our villain OOP bet 1PSB. We absolutely know our opponent plays this way only top pair without any draw. Also we absolutely know our opponent makes another 1PSB if turn’s card not makes up any flush. And third, we absolutely know our opponent pays off 1PSB in case we gather our flush. Should we call 1PSB if we absolutely know that we have pot odds only for one card to make up our draw?

Sorry for my English, it’s not my native language.
Chip EV changes as stack depth changes, but in general if it's a 3 person winner takes all, I'd for all practical purposes take the most +EV spot.

If your opponent is much, much worse than you, then it can make sense to pass up on +EV spots now for a more +EV spot later. I think this is rarer than people make it out to be though.

Your last question regarding flush draws is confusing and I need more detail.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2018, 05:45 AM   #1615
alabaro
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Russia
Posts: 14
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Thanks!
Some details about second question:
We have flush draw and 34% possibility gather flush on the river and 17% possibility gather flush on the turn. We sure about villain bet 1 PSB on the turn if turn card not suit to our flush draw. Our pot odds on the flop is 33% to call 1PSB, and our chance get flush on the turn is only 17%. Should we call so huge bet on the flop if we know we have only one card to collect our flush draw?
alabaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2018, 11:18 AM   #1616
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alabaro View Post
Thanks!
Some details about second question:
We have flush draw and 34% possibility gather flush on the river and 17% possibility gather flush on the turn. We sure about villain bet 1 PSB on the turn if turn card not suit to our flush draw. Our pot odds on the flop is 33% to call 1PSB, and our chance get flush on the turn is only 17%. Should we call so huge bet on the flop if we know we have only one card to collect our flush draw?
How much will you win if the flush hits? If the flush hits and he checks, will he call your bet?
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 12:17 PM   #1617
alabaro
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Russia
Posts: 14
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Suppose, he call our 0,5 PSB, when we get our flush and fold in case we bet more then 0,5 PSB. Is it right that our key point is implied odds in this discussion?
alabaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 07:31 PM   #1618
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alabaro View Post
Suppose, he call our 0,5 PSB, when we get our flush and fold in case we bet more then 0,5 PSB. Is it right that our key point is implied odds in this discussion?
I'm still confused.

Do you not understand how to do pot odds + implied odds and that's what you're asking me to explain? Or do you understand how to do pot odds and implied odds, and you're just asking me if I think calling because you might make the flush and get paid more later is worth it?
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2018, 04:29 PM   #1619
alabaro
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Russia
Posts: 14
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
you're just asking me if I think calling because you might make the flush and get paid more later is worth it?
Yep. Sorry for my stupidity. And another side of my question is there any additional features in this spot that we should take into account such as balance or range protection, etc?
alabaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 02:35 PM   #1620
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alabaro View Post
Yep. Sorry for my stupidity. And another side of my question is there any additional features in this spot that we should take into account such as balance or range protection, etc?
I am still confused.

Whether or not you call a bet on the turn with a flush draw, and how big of bet you're willing to call, depends on the quality of your flush draw (are you drawing to the nuts?), how deep you are, how likely your pairs are to be good if you make a pair and not the flush, how deep you are, how many flush draws are in your range (which determines how much you'll get paid when you hit), etc etc. There isn't a threshold where you can automatically determine a bet becomes so big that you need to fold.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 04:54 PM   #1621
alabaro
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Russia
Posts: 14
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Thanks a lots
alabaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 01:34 PM   #1622
sparks_mandrill
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 152
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Matt, does your new book make this book somewhat obsolete or outdated now?
sparks_mandrill 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 05:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online