15 For Your 15

1. That's good to know. And you'll never be able to exploit my aggression ... I'm the number one gear-changer. I think that comes from driving a manual for so long ...
2. I like where your head's at. It might require a .5 somewhere. Maybe that would be Level 3.5? I'll look into it, and maybe we can bounce some things around once you're stateside.
3. You're right, it was the correct decision at the time. At the table, I gave myself a mental pat on the back for not raising there. But like I said, that turned into an ankle kick once I saw the flop. It's like you when you could have made that sucker bet at Barona -- it would have been the right time to make the wrong move.
4. Well she didn't look at her cards when she called all-in. So theoretically it was her random hand vs. two other random hands (33.33% pot equity, right?) -- she was being asked to contribute what would have been 25% of the resulting pot (calling $14 into a pot of $42 ... 14/(14+42) = 25%). So correct if she assumed she was a 33.33% favorite. However, I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption, given that I had re-raised her straddle and another guy had raised that all-in. As always, there are more factors to consider than immediate pot odds. And it might be a good idea to look at your cards ... though I guess not looking worked out for her ...
5. I'm all for it. The kids at UCLA do that with the Westwood Series of Poker. I think we could get a similar thing jumping off. That would be extra incentive to get players to regularly show up. And I think we should have multiple games. For instance, a mix of tourneys and cash games, and have it set up where how you do in the cash game not only directly hits your bankroll but also gives you points. Like, the big winner gets five points, the second big winner gets three, etc. But maybe it would be better to separately track the cash game stats. I dunno, we can work that out later I guess.
6. I will definitely do that. If we played weekly, I think it might be advisable to try something like (assuming enough players show up) three nights Hold 'Em and maybe one night mixed? I think there are players that aren't really for a mixed game due to unfamiliarity and perceived lack of excitement. Or, what may work out even better would this: having a Hold'Em tourney for the mini-WSOP and as players bust out a side mixed game. This is if we got a night with like 12 players or so. One thing that worked out well at a home game I went to was starting with an hour or so of mixed games as an appetizer, and then playing Hold 'Em after that. I think if you do the opposite people may just leave after their done with Hold 'Em. But I'll put the feelers out. And I like your trio of suggestions.
7. I've changed my mind on this. I'm willing to link exchange. Our blog has so few readers, we can only gain from doing that.
8. It would depend on how much it costs to get our own domain name. I'll let you do the research on that.
9. Point taken.
10. Am not -- unless we have completely different definitions of donk. And if I'm a donk, then I guess that makes you a fish. No way we're on the same level. :-P
11. Say what's up to the Game and Arron Afflalo for me.
12. Glad we got that straightened out. I thought Jun had lost his mind buying in for $1,000 in such a small game.
13. Well yeah, there was like two months where I didn't play at all. As you can see, there isn't even a post for the month of July. Since the end of August, I've played here and there. Mostly I've been unsuccessfully trying to crack the local home game scene a-la-Rounders. With moving and buying new furniture, a new car, etc., I haven't had the bankroll to play in casinos or online. On a side note, I posted so many times in reply to your article because I was emphatic in my belief that you were waaaaay off base.
14. I think it's fairly well established that I'm not most people. :-D Not that I'm better -- just atypical.
15. "You can't lose what you don't put in the middle ... but you can't win much either."