To help me prepare for the stud event, I have decided to revisit what I consider the sacred texts of seven-card stud play. I know reading up before a major tournament probably seems routine to most amateur and semi-pro poker players out there (they're thinking DUH, or should I say durrrr?), but I'm trying my best to document my entire process of preparing for and playing this event. Afterward, the plan is to review what preparations seemed helpful and what things I would have been okay without. This should help me prepare better for next year's Series, and give my poker friends some tools to use in their eventual quests for bracelet glory. A little bit of analysis, as Phil Laak [1] would say, "for the television audience at home."
The book that first gave me an inclination to try my hand at seven-card stud was the late Chip Reese's section of the original Supersystem. His writing style is ridiculously easy for the beginner to digest, and yet includes enough advanced concepts that after reading through it once or twice, you will absolutely be able to hold your own in most stud cash games.
The other book that really shaped me as a rookie was Sklansky's Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players. Most poker book enthusiasts will tell you that this is required reading for any intermediate stud player looking to improve his or her game. I would agree with them wholeheartedly. This book expands on many of the concepts that Reese's writings introduce, and also contains many ideas all its own.
I am currently re-reading Sklansky, with an eye toward finishing it by the middle of next week, and to read the Reese section by the end of next week. Then I'll have one more week to review all my notes on each before the trip. I am debating picking up the Full Tilt Poker Strategy Guide. From the review I've read, David Grey's section on Stud tournaments is solid, but not spectacular. Worth it? I am also questioning if I really need to buy and read through Max Stern's Championship Stud in the short amount of time I have before the tournament. Debatable. But I generally prefer more information to less, so we'll see. (I've heard that the Razz section of Championship is one of the definitive texts, though.)
I also plan to skim through the manuals in the hours before the tournament, just as a bit of a warm-up exercise. A little last-minute cram, just like back in college. I think this preparation strategy has an edge over playing stud hands immediately before the event (which was another option I considered). This is because I want to have in my head the correct way to play certain hands -- not just the way that I typically play them. Although I feel I am pretty good at stud, even winning players have certain tendencies and weaknesses that cause them to lose equity over the long run, to not make as much as they could. Including the pros. Like Phil Ivey [2] said, "I don't know anybody who plays every hand perfect ... besides Phil Hellmuth." [3] So I'm thinking it'll be good to get outside of my own mind, to a certain extent.
The question is, will this cause me to over-think, and not trust the instincts that I've built up over all my hands of play? As Phil Gordon [4] said, “It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be good at poker. Anybody with a fourth-grade education can figure out the logic behind the odds and outs.” I guess if I bust out early or play some hands egregiously, there will be plenty of time to second-guess the method. For now, I think doing plenty of reading beforehand will be +EV.
Showing posts with label Recommended Articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Recommended Articles. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
"Folding," by Tommy Angelo
I read this article a long, long time ago, but it's only been recently that I've really applied it to my game. I think it has helped immensely. It really wasn't all that long ago that folding top pair in a short-handed game was a completely foreign concept to me. Folding an overpair? Fuhgeddaboutit! Tommy Angelo is a superb writer, and this classic article of his is definitely well worth passing on. Enjoy!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Shout Out
I came across a great tip today courtesy of Poker on a Mac.
Apparently you can read a lot of information from various poker books at Google. This is a great option for someone who wants to see what they are getting before they go buy a book or for someone like me who normally only gets 1/3rd through a poker book before they get bored.
Here's the link to Poker on a Mac's tip.
Apparently you can read a lot of information from various poker books at Google. This is a great option for someone who wants to see what they are getting before they go buy a book or for someone like me who normally only gets 1/3rd through a poker book before they get bored.
Here's the link to Poker on a Mac's tip.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Return to the Basics
Decent review of the basics for HORSE.
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/16530
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/16530
Friday, February 2, 2007
Drawing Red Lines
*There seems to be an interesting correlation with how many hours I play and how much I post or rather how little I play. I seem to have found a good balance right now.*
Drawing Red Lines is Jim McManus's bluffing at poker and at war. It's a good read.
The first part can be found online at Cardplayer.
The second part can be found in your local casino addition of Cardplayer and also online.
Drawing Red Lines is Jim McManus's bluffing at poker and at war. It's a good read.
The first part can be found online at Cardplayer.
The second part can be found in your local casino addition of Cardplayer and also online.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Folding
I've been rereading my copies of old Phil Laak articles when I came across this great quote.
"Never underestimate your opponents' ability to find reasons to call you. People like to call. And that's why it's all so crazy nowadays. They like calling and raising more than folding. That's what makes poker great."
On the surface it's simply a slight dig at the looseness of poker today. However, it's more than that. People get so caught up in being aggressive and getting all the money in with the best hand and with having the correct pot odds that they forget you can also make money through folding. Everytime you are put to a decision with the second nut flush or top two on a connected board perhaps it would be better to look at the hand as $50 made (or whatever the bet to you is) instead of a $$ pot lost.
"Never underestimate your opponents' ability to find reasons to call you. People like to call. And that's why it's all so crazy nowadays. They like calling and raising more than folding. That's what makes poker great."
On the surface it's simply a slight dig at the looseness of poker today. However, it's more than that. People get so caught up in being aggressive and getting all the money in with the best hand and with having the correct pot odds that they forget you can also make money through folding. Everytime you are put to a decision with the second nut flush or top two on a connected board perhaps it would be better to look at the hand as $50 made (or whatever the bet to you is) instead of a $$ pot lost.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Bad...
The last 48 hours or so were tough for the poker world. You’ve probably heard about two ex-Neteller execs getting arrested and supposedly charged with money laundering. If not, you can read about it here or here. Then there was the case of Russian Roulette in Elmherst which you can read about at Card Squad. A home game was broken up and players arrested in
**Update - For coverage of the Neteller exec case, I recommend checking out Lou Krieger's blog. He is keeping much better track of the going-ons then I ever could.**
**Update #2 - The ramifactions for the average online poker player from the Neteller arrests are starting to come in. I received an email from Bodog that stated they would let me withdraw to my Neteller account but would no longer accept deposits from them. I read that Full Tilt and Poker Stars are following Neteller's advice and allowing all non-InstaCash transactions but I haven't heard personally via email from either of those sites."
***Update #3 - The bad hits keep on coming. A jury in London ruled that poker is primarily a game of chance and not one of skill. Let's hope the US doesn't pay too much attention to this. We don't need any more fodder for the over-zealous with a personal vendetta against poker and gambling.***
***Update #4 - Jamin reported to me that there was a brawl at Commerce Casino on Tuesday night while he was there. Also, I have officially heard from Absolute now. They aren't accepting Neteller anymore but they are offering a fat reload package to try to maintain customers.***
***Update #5 - This is getting a bit out of hand for one post. If the news keeps flowing at its current rate I'm going to have to make a new one. However, I just wanted to say Goodbye, Neteller.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Feldman's Tip of the Week
In anticipation for the next installment of my Guide to Tilt, here is Andrew Feldman's latest post. He discusses when luck is and isn't the reason for your poor results.
Friday, December 29, 2006
History of Poker
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Deep Stack Poker
While I was cruising ShipItFish's journal, I came across this post about why playing short-stacked in a cash game sucks. I mentioned something to that effect in my last post, and I think SIF does a better job of explaining it than I would. Enjoy.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Calling an All-In
I thought this article was pretty helpful too. This is another one of those aspects of No-Limit Hold 'Em that I sometimes struggle with. This article is good practice for evaluating the sequence of events and a player's position to determine whether or not to make the ultimate poker gamble. Enjoy.
Short-Handed Hold 'Em
As I expressed in a recent post, I'm a really big fan of home games, which are often short-handed. But even though I love playing in them, my record of wins and losses leaves something to be desired.
If I were to average all my home game winnings and losses from the date I started playing poker, I would look pretty good on paper. Unfortunately, my average is grossly skewed by two games that I played as a guest at another person's home game. I posted wins of $431 and $157 at those two games (buying in for $80).
In my regular home game, however, the buy-in has typically been only $5. And in those games, throughout my career I've done pretty horribly. I've had some decent wins in there, but I would say after a typical session I finish stuck for about 2-3 buy-ins ($10-15).
So while in terms of absolute dollars I turn out to be a long-run winner in home games, I'm a loser in terms of number of buy-ins. I guess I could take from this analysis that I'm a better player at higher stakes. Then again, I don't play too differently just because more money is involved. My style stays pretty much the same. I guess it might be more accurate to say that my style of play is better suited for games with larger stakes.
I tend generally to be a fairly loose-aggressive player. I can certainly change gears and play tight when the situation demands it, but tight play is not my initial approach. (Note that when I say "loose," I mean more in terms of the range of cards I feel comfortable playing rather than the number of hands that I play. I still fold most of the time. But when I do raise a pot, I'm just as likely to be holding 8-6 suited as pocket Kings.) At higher stakes I can better get away with this, because it's possible to use aggression to push players off marginal hands (even if I'm only holding a marginal hand myself). At low or micro limits, like most home games tend to be, overcards and second pairs are more likely to stick around. Thus, my aggression in early betting rounds gives me less information about my opponents' holdings. If I bet solidly on the flop and get called in a low-limit game, it's hard for me to know if my opponent is trapping me or chasing me. In a game where the bucks are a little bigger, the ambiguity is often reduced or eliminated.
It could also be argued that I did well when I was a guest at my friend's game because the players have had less time to analyze my style. One could say that over time, the players in my regular game have built up defenses against my tactics and know how likely I am to bet aggressively with less-than-premium holdings. But then how does one account for the player in our game that does well week-in and week out? This guy loses on occasion, but rarely more than a single buy-in. And most sessions he finishes ahead by over $20. Players have had equally ample time to figure him out. No, I think the real explanation is that there is an inherent flaw in my short-handed play that I haven't been able to figure out.
So, to help get my short-handed game where it needs to be, I decided to seek some help. What I found was a decent article on CardPlayer's website. It's not the most profound thing ever, but there were a few nuggets that I think will be good things to remember in my short-handed play.
One point that caught my attention was that in short-handed play, the value of high cards (10 and up) and small pairs increases. The reasons are simple: there are fewer players out there to challenge you. If on average a third of the table sees the flop in hold em, that means three total players at a 9-handed full ring game vs. only two in a 6-handed game. So you're more often heads up for the pot. Conversely, the value of suited connectors goes down. This is because less often will you have the correct pot odds to chase your straights and flushes in a short-handed game.
Anyway, these are some things that I picked up. Obviously there's more to this article, and there's even more literature out there beyond this piece. I guess the moral of the story is that even if you've been playing for a while, it doesn't hurt sometimes to do some reading to shore up your game.
If I were to average all my home game winnings and losses from the date I started playing poker, I would look pretty good on paper. Unfortunately, my average is grossly skewed by two games that I played as a guest at another person's home game. I posted wins of $431 and $157 at those two games (buying in for $80).
In my regular home game, however, the buy-in has typically been only $5. And in those games, throughout my career I've done pretty horribly. I've had some decent wins in there, but I would say after a typical session I finish stuck for about 2-3 buy-ins ($10-15).
So while in terms of absolute dollars I turn out to be a long-run winner in home games, I'm a loser in terms of number of buy-ins. I guess I could take from this analysis that I'm a better player at higher stakes. Then again, I don't play too differently just because more money is involved. My style stays pretty much the same. I guess it might be more accurate to say that my style of play is better suited for games with larger stakes.
I tend generally to be a fairly loose-aggressive player. I can certainly change gears and play tight when the situation demands it, but tight play is not my initial approach. (Note that when I say "loose," I mean more in terms of the range of cards I feel comfortable playing rather than the number of hands that I play. I still fold most of the time. But when I do raise a pot, I'm just as likely to be holding 8-6 suited as pocket Kings.) At higher stakes I can better get away with this, because it's possible to use aggression to push players off marginal hands (even if I'm only holding a marginal hand myself). At low or micro limits, like most home games tend to be, overcards and second pairs are more likely to stick around. Thus, my aggression in early betting rounds gives me less information about my opponents' holdings. If I bet solidly on the flop and get called in a low-limit game, it's hard for me to know if my opponent is trapping me or chasing me. In a game where the bucks are a little bigger, the ambiguity is often reduced or eliminated.
It could also be argued that I did well when I was a guest at my friend's game because the players have had less time to analyze my style. One could say that over time, the players in my regular game have built up defenses against my tactics and know how likely I am to bet aggressively with less-than-premium holdings. But then how does one account for the player in our game that does well week-in and week out? This guy loses on occasion, but rarely more than a single buy-in. And most sessions he finishes ahead by over $20. Players have had equally ample time to figure him out. No, I think the real explanation is that there is an inherent flaw in my short-handed play that I haven't been able to figure out.
So, to help get my short-handed game where it needs to be, I decided to seek some help. What I found was a decent article on CardPlayer's website. It's not the most profound thing ever, but there were a few nuggets that I think will be good things to remember in my short-handed play.
One point that caught my attention was that in short-handed play, the value of high cards (10 and up) and small pairs increases. The reasons are simple: there are fewer players out there to challenge you. If on average a third of the table sees the flop in hold em, that means three total players at a 9-handed full ring game vs. only two in a 6-handed game. So you're more often heads up for the pot. Conversely, the value of suited connectors goes down. This is because less often will you have the correct pot odds to chase your straights and flushes in a short-handed game.
Anyway, these are some things that I picked up. Obviously there's more to this article, and there's even more literature out there beyond this piece. I guess the moral of the story is that even if you've been playing for a while, it doesn't hurt sometimes to do some reading to shore up your game.
A Letter to Dr. Schoonmaker
*I finally had a day off from work where I wasn't ridiculously busy. So in honor of the increasing likelihood of an early return to the felt, I attempted to catch up on my poker reading. A lot was good including an article by Ray Cooke about disturbing the fish tank and Poker and Finance part 2 from Two plus Two. However, one article rubbed the wrong way. Surprisingly it was from an author I respect and have discussed here previously.*
Dear Dr. Schoonmaker,
I was disappointed in your latest article. After I read it, I looked back to discover what I did to deserve such a scolding. But as I have been out of the game for almost six months, I failed to unearth any crime.
Then I went back and reread your article. You ask if I play better than respected authors and if I am smarter than them. But instead of waiting for my response, you tell me that I'm not. Do you think you know how smart I am because your PhD outweighs my B.S.? Have you played poker with me before and know how good of a grinder I am?
You apparently feel that all of us amateur and semi-pro players are just emotional idiots. We don't want to play like robots. We want to be creative. We want our own style. I agree wholeheartedly with you despite the negative connotation you added to these statements. In order to be great players, world-class players, we can't be robots and we can't just play the odds. We have to factor in intuition also, which is something robots don't possess. In order to be the best, we have to be creative. Once we stop creating, stop advancing, someone else will pass us and we will fall a step behind. And unless we are exact clones of Harrington, Malmuth, Hellmuth, etc., none of their systems will perfectly fit us. You yourself state that we should "select a system that fits you" meaning us. Thus we need our OWN system because we are all unique. Even if our system only differs 1% from another person's, it is still our own.
You provide two other points that point out the faults in your poorly thought berating. You state we modify systems because "most human behavior is comfort-driven rather than effectiveness-driven." To this I say that the drive to be effective stems from the drive to be comfortable. People are effective so they can feel comfort that comes from the self-satisfaction of doing a job well or they are effective so that they can make more money and live with greater comfort. In nature, reproduction is #1, survival is #2, and comfort is #3. Everything else including effectiveness is just a means to accomplish #'s 1, 2 and 3 better.
Then you go on to state that "Poker playing and thinking has continuously evolved." Um, in case you haven't noticed, we are living in a poker renaissance. The game is still evolving. Yesterday's books are just that. We have to modify, adapt, and evolve to keep up. We need this in order to be effective.
Now I have a few questions to ask you, Dr. Schoonmaker.
1) Are you a good poker player? You certainly write like you are a great one and can tell the rest of us what to do because of it. Yet I've never heard of you playing any tournaments or any underground internet rumors about the cash games you're involved in. I only know who you are because you've written a book and created a conveniently profitable niche during the poker boom. Am I just not listening hard enough or do you not play poker? Or is it even worse and you are a bad poker player?
2) You realize that your article is a clear-cut example of disturbing-the-fish tilt that we all abhor so much right? You do realize that? In Ray Cooke's excellent article, he lists 5 reasons to not give your opponents grief. Let's go over the first two.
A) "The worst play in poker is to do anything that might drive a live one from the game."
Your berating made me and probably other readers that are a little sensitive about their fishiness want to stop reading your articles. Through your scolding, you are driving us away.
B) "The second-worst play in poker is to educate your opponents to play better."
I'm going to ignore the fact that for a living you write articles whose sole goal is to educate your opponents to play better (assuming you do in fact play at least a little). However, you are unwittingly educating your opponents about your own vulnerabilities. Clearly you are more than a little touchy about people questioning existing systems and attempting to modify it. If you are so touchy about other's books, how do you feel when people question yours? What would it take to put you on tilt? Criticism of a passage you have written? Arguing that the goal of poker is to make our lives better not to win money? Or perhaps we don't have to question anything and just mention your publications. Then we could let you think about them and stew and put yourself on tilt? See how much info you just gave away?
Since you have taken it upon yourself to act like a parent and treat us like children, I hope you do what all good parents do: Pay attention to our response so that in the future you can do a better job helping us. You don't want us to grow into rebellious teenagers and tune you out. Without the poker world reading you works, would you be able to make as much money as effectively so that you could continue to live comfortably?
Sincerely, with hopes your next publication is better,
Billy Engelke
Dear Dr. Schoonmaker,
I was disappointed in your latest article. After I read it, I looked back to discover what I did to deserve such a scolding. But as I have been out of the game for almost six months, I failed to unearth any crime.
Then I went back and reread your article. You ask if I play better than respected authors and if I am smarter than them. But instead of waiting for my response, you tell me that I'm not. Do you think you know how smart I am because your PhD outweighs my B.S.? Have you played poker with me before and know how good of a grinder I am?
You apparently feel that all of us amateur and semi-pro players are just emotional idiots. We don't want to play like robots. We want to be creative. We want our own style. I agree wholeheartedly with you despite the negative connotation you added to these statements. In order to be great players, world-class players, we can't be robots and we can't just play the odds. We have to factor in intuition also, which is something robots don't possess. In order to be the best, we have to be creative. Once we stop creating, stop advancing, someone else will pass us and we will fall a step behind. And unless we are exact clones of Harrington, Malmuth, Hellmuth, etc., none of their systems will perfectly fit us. You yourself state that we should "select a system that fits you" meaning us. Thus we need our OWN system because we are all unique. Even if our system only differs 1% from another person's, it is still our own.
You provide two other points that point out the faults in your poorly thought berating. You state we modify systems because "most human behavior is comfort-driven rather than effectiveness-driven." To this I say that the drive to be effective stems from the drive to be comfortable. People are effective so they can feel comfort that comes from the self-satisfaction of doing a job well or they are effective so that they can make more money and live with greater comfort. In nature, reproduction is #1, survival is #2, and comfort is #3. Everything else including effectiveness is just a means to accomplish #'s 1, 2 and 3 better.
Then you go on to state that "Poker playing and thinking has continuously evolved." Um, in case you haven't noticed, we are living in a poker renaissance. The game is still evolving. Yesterday's books are just that. We have to modify, adapt, and evolve to keep up. We need this in order to be effective.
Now I have a few questions to ask you, Dr. Schoonmaker.
1) Are you a good poker player? You certainly write like you are a great one and can tell the rest of us what to do because of it. Yet I've never heard of you playing any tournaments or any underground internet rumors about the cash games you're involved in. I only know who you are because you've written a book and created a conveniently profitable niche during the poker boom. Am I just not listening hard enough or do you not play poker? Or is it even worse and you are a bad poker player?
2) You realize that your article is a clear-cut example of disturbing-the-fish tilt that we all abhor so much right? You do realize that? In Ray Cooke's excellent article, he lists 5 reasons to not give your opponents grief. Let's go over the first two.
A) "The worst play in poker is to do anything that might drive a live one from the game."
Your berating made me and probably other readers that are a little sensitive about their fishiness want to stop reading your articles. Through your scolding, you are driving us away.
B) "The second-worst play in poker is to educate your opponents to play better."
I'm going to ignore the fact that for a living you write articles whose sole goal is to educate your opponents to play better (assuming you do in fact play at least a little). However, you are unwittingly educating your opponents about your own vulnerabilities. Clearly you are more than a little touchy about people questioning existing systems and attempting to modify it. If you are so touchy about other's books, how do you feel when people question yours? What would it take to put you on tilt? Criticism of a passage you have written? Arguing that the goal of poker is to make our lives better not to win money? Or perhaps we don't have to question anything and just mention your publications. Then we could let you think about them and stew and put yourself on tilt? See how much info you just gave away?
Since you have taken it upon yourself to act like a parent and treat us like children, I hope you do what all good parents do: Pay attention to our response so that in the future you can do a better job helping us. You don't want us to grow into rebellious teenagers and tune you out. Without the poker world reading you works, would you be able to make as much money as effectively so that you could continue to live comfortably?
Sincerely, with hopes your next publication is better,
Billy Engelke
Poker and The Big Lebowski by hdouble
First of all, don't read these until you've watched the Big Lebowski (preferably at least twice). You just won't appreciate them to the full extent otherwise.
Second, I was struck by how many different influences in my life led me to these articles. 1)I heard about them in Bluff Magazine. 2)It drew my interest because it combined one of my favorite movies, The Big Lebowski, with one of my favorite pastimes, poker. 3)The author, hdouble, wrote "in the spirit of the Sports Guy", the Sports Guy being my favorite columnist.
Here are the links.
Part 1: Zen and the Art of Dude.
Part 2: The Dude Abides
Second, I was struck by how many different influences in my life led me to these articles. 1)I heard about them in Bluff Magazine. 2)It drew my interest because it combined one of my favorite movies, The Big Lebowski, with one of my favorite pastimes, poker. 3)The author, hdouble, wrote "in the spirit of the Sports Guy", the Sports Guy being my favorite columnist.
Here are the links.
Part 1: Zen and the Art of Dude.
Part 2: The Dude Abides
Jacks by Phil Laak
Article from Bluff Magazine by Phil Laak. It discusses an interesting hand he had while playing at Los Angeles's Commerce Casino awhile serving as a great way to show just how important (and costly/valuable) information can be at the poker table.
(BTW... the article claims to be "Satisfactory or Maximum Results" by Angel Largay which is also a good article. However, this is a misprint and it is the Laak article.)
(BTW... the article claims to be "Satisfactory or Maximum Results" by Angel Largay which is also a good article. However, this is a misprint and it is the Laak article.)
WSOP Fantasy League
Any of you readers fantasy football or basketball nerds like me? Wonder what it would be like to add fantasy poker to your arsenal? Well apparently a few prominent members of the community are and did. They started a WSOP fantasy league and drafted teams.
Read about how the poker league was setup and who Daniel Negreanu and his fantasy peers drafted for their teams at ESPN.
Also, if you are interested in starting one up let me know.
Read about how the poker league was setup and who Daniel Negreanu and his fantasy peers drafted for their teams at ESPN.
Also, if you are interested in starting one up let me know.
The Banker and the Iceman by Michael Craig
Earlier I posted links to what I felt was fascinating coverage of the world of high stakes heads up poker. Well I found another one. This again chronicles Andy Beal's battles with the top poker pros in the world. However, this focuses on his multiday session with Phil Ivey.
The highlight of this article was the following quote:
"Beal took a verbal IOU for $10,000. Neither player had chips that small."
Just ridiculous.
Check out the full article from Bluff Magazine.
The highlight of this article was the following quote:
"Beal took a verbal IOU for $10,000. Neither player had chips that small."
Just ridiculous.
Check out the full article from Bluff Magazine.
"The Banker, The Boss... " by Michael Craig
Bluff Magazine's 5 part article (linked at ESPN Poker Club) chronicling Andy Beal's attempt to beat 3 of the world's best poker players. Interesting peak into the world of high stakes poker and one man's quest to prove that he can compete with the best.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Is Poker Good For You by Conrad Brunner
An article from the latest Card Player Europe. In this Brunner poses the title question and relates a story about how poker saved one persons life.
Telling a Story by Phil Gordon
Here is a recent article by Phil Gordon stressing that you tell a consistent story with your betting. I find that a lot of people I play against online have trouble with this and often tip off what they have by changing their "story" halfway through a hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
