Here is the action I have:
Marsh betting on Marsh $20 @2.7:1
Woody betting on Woody @20 @ 9:1
Adam betting on Adam $20 @ 7.33:1
Mark betting on Marsh $20 @1.7:1
Jeh betting on Adam $10 @ 7.33:1
Chuck betting on Mike $5.00 @8.09:1
Jeh betting on Mike $5.00 @8.09:1
Chuck betting on Chuck $5.00 @5.25:1
Adam betting on Mike $5.00 @8.09:1
Adam betting on Marsh $5.00 @1.63:1
Adam betting on Chuck $5.00 @5.25:1.
The race will be between Marsh, Adam, Chuck, Mike, Woody, and Royal.
The winner will be the person with the largest bankroll from their starting roll of $100.00 on July 1, 2010.
If anyone needs me to fund their account please contact me at jasonrobertgill@gmail.com. I believe I need your screen name and your email address assigned on cake. I can then transfer money into your account from mine and you can reimburse me at poker.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Cake Challenge II: The Cakening
It has been over a year since the last Cake Challenge.
I was just browsing over some of our blogs for it, and realizing how much we all learned and gained from it. I have been fooling around a bit online, but mainly been focusing on live play as of late. Some of our most regular players (Chuck and Woodrow for example) weren't really around for the heyday of the Cake Challenge.
I am proposing the Cake Challenge II today. I am going to lay out some groundwork for it, but I think anyone who is interested should give their input, and we can pick the terms as a group.
For me, there are 3 main reasons to do a challenge like this.
1. Motivation. I am a competitive person and always seem to do better when I am being put against someone else than when I am on my own. I doubt I am the only one in our group that feels this way.
2. Bankroll Management. The #1 most important factor for the Cake Challenge is simply managing your bankroll properly, which is a skill that has applications in real life poker and also outside of poker.
3. The Grind. One of the most important things in poker is just putting in the hours. This often goes overlooked, but if you want to succeed at poker, you have to be willing to put in the time, and this urges you to do that.
So here is the deal as I see it:
You start with a set bankroll. In the first challenge we started with $50.00, but I think maybe $100 or $200 is more appropriate this time around. This initial buy-in represents your ENTIRE poker bankroll for the purposes of the challenge. This means that if you lose this amount, you are busto, broke, out. No re-buys are allowed. You are challenged to treat this relatively small amount of money as if it were your entire net worth.
This isn't easy. You can't have a moment where you just say "Ah fuck it, it's only a hundred bucks" and just punt it off cause you are steamed.
This also means that playing within your roll and game selection will be key.
Last time around, most players chose around 5% of their current roll as the most they were willing to put on the table at once. Percentages for tournaments varied amongst participants.
Part of this challenge is to come up with your own bankroll management system. This can include stop-losses, shot taking, capping your wins etc. You have to come up with something that works for you while protecting your roll at the same time. There are no set rules for this at all.
I am proposing that this happen on Cake again for 2 main reasons:
1. Most of us are comfortable with Cake and the player pool is generally kinda bad.
2. Rakeback.
The downside to Cake is that they don't allow HUD's on their site. (Although Hold'em Manager does work now for capturing your own data and analyzing it).
One other part of the challenge is that you are expected to keep track of your progress accurately (again, HEM should be great for this).
So who is in?
For those interested, what do you think the buy-in should be? Any other suggestions?
I was just browsing over some of our blogs for it, and realizing how much we all learned and gained from it. I have been fooling around a bit online, but mainly been focusing on live play as of late. Some of our most regular players (Chuck and Woodrow for example) weren't really around for the heyday of the Cake Challenge.
I am proposing the Cake Challenge II today. I am going to lay out some groundwork for it, but I think anyone who is interested should give their input, and we can pick the terms as a group.
For me, there are 3 main reasons to do a challenge like this.
1. Motivation. I am a competitive person and always seem to do better when I am being put against someone else than when I am on my own. I doubt I am the only one in our group that feels this way.
2. Bankroll Management. The #1 most important factor for the Cake Challenge is simply managing your bankroll properly, which is a skill that has applications in real life poker and also outside of poker.
3. The Grind. One of the most important things in poker is just putting in the hours. This often goes overlooked, but if you want to succeed at poker, you have to be willing to put in the time, and this urges you to do that.
So here is the deal as I see it:
You start with a set bankroll. In the first challenge we started with $50.00, but I think maybe $100 or $200 is more appropriate this time around. This initial buy-in represents your ENTIRE poker bankroll for the purposes of the challenge. This means that if you lose this amount, you are busto, broke, out. No re-buys are allowed. You are challenged to treat this relatively small amount of money as if it were your entire net worth.
This isn't easy. You can't have a moment where you just say "Ah fuck it, it's only a hundred bucks" and just punt it off cause you are steamed.
This also means that playing within your roll and game selection will be key.
Last time around, most players chose around 5% of their current roll as the most they were willing to put on the table at once. Percentages for tournaments varied amongst participants.
Part of this challenge is to come up with your own bankroll management system. This can include stop-losses, shot taking, capping your wins etc. You have to come up with something that works for you while protecting your roll at the same time. There are no set rules for this at all.
I am proposing that this happen on Cake again for 2 main reasons:
1. Most of us are comfortable with Cake and the player pool is generally kinda bad.
2. Rakeback.
The downside to Cake is that they don't allow HUD's on their site. (Although Hold'em Manager does work now for capturing your own data and analyzing it).
One other part of the challenge is that you are expected to keep track of your progress accurately (again, HEM should be great for this).
So who is in?
For those interested, what do you think the buy-in should be? Any other suggestions?
Limit Hold 'Em -- Flopped Trips
Setting aside the fact that most (all) of you stay away from Limit Hold 'Em, I still play it often (~ once a week) and would like your input on a hand.
A little background that may/may not be relevant. I play $8-$16 (sometimes, $4-$8) at Diamond Lils. From 2005-2008, $8-$16 @ Lils was a great game. The biggest game in the house was $12-$24 (meaning, the better local limit players went to the Muck), and $8-$16 was more the game that $4-$8 players went to "stick their toes in," rather than the waiting spot for $12-$24 players. As such, it was a very easy game. I could sit on my hands playing Adam ABC poker and rake it in (relatively speaking). More recently, it's become a much tougher game to beat (or, I've gotten considerably worse), as Lils is now dominated by $20-$40 players (Lils introduced that game about 2 years ago), and there are fewer "lower limit" Limit players left, at least at Lils. Accordingly, the $8-$16 game is often populated by a fair number of $20-$40 players waiting their turn.
Ok, so here's the hand. I had just sat down. Approx 8 hands into the session, I'm in the SB with 5-7d. Two limpers, I call $4 more and BB checks. ($32 in pot)
Flop is 5-5-6, two hearts (no diamonds). I bet out, hoping to induce "raise for a free card" or some other raise..... Somewhat hard to put me on a 5 (only two 5's left, and why would I bet out?). Don't want to check and let draws get there for free and want to build pot. BB calls as does cut off. Other guy folds. BTW, I know very little about my opponents. I don't know the BB at all, and I recognize the cut-off as a $20-$40 player; I think he's solid, but am mostly guessing. ($56 in pot)
Turn is an off suit Q. I bet out again and my two villians call. ($104 in pot)
River is an off suit 9. Being me, I assume at least one of these yahoos might've hit his draw. Or, that one of these two has been slow playing a bigger 5. The latter seems less likely, but I don't want to get raised. So, I check....intending to check call ($16) when one of these two bets. The BB instantly bets and the cutoff raises! How can I be good? If the BB wasn't left to act behind me, I would've for sure called the $32. But I figured one of these two had to have me beat, and with the BB behind, it might cost me three or four $16 bets to find out. Fold.
Um, bad fold (at least in a results-oriented sense). BB, who called the raise, proudly turns over 8-9o for the win! He had overs and a gutshot on the flop and "got there" on the river to make measly two pair. The cutoff had 8-8, which he showed after the BB showed his superior cards first (despite having called the cutoff's river raise). (Pot ended up $168.)
Agree with my play, regardless of result? Let me have it.
A little background that may/may not be relevant. I play $8-$16 (sometimes, $4-$8) at Diamond Lils. From 2005-2008, $8-$16 @ Lils was a great game. The biggest game in the house was $12-$24 (meaning, the better local limit players went to the Muck), and $8-$16 was more the game that $4-$8 players went to "stick their toes in," rather than the waiting spot for $12-$24 players. As such, it was a very easy game. I could sit on my hands playing Adam ABC poker and rake it in (relatively speaking). More recently, it's become a much tougher game to beat (or, I've gotten considerably worse), as Lils is now dominated by $20-$40 players (Lils introduced that game about 2 years ago), and there are fewer "lower limit" Limit players left, at least at Lils. Accordingly, the $8-$16 game is often populated by a fair number of $20-$40 players waiting their turn.
Ok, so here's the hand. I had just sat down. Approx 8 hands into the session, I'm in the SB with 5-7d. Two limpers, I call $4 more and BB checks. ($32 in pot)
Flop is 5-5-6, two hearts (no diamonds). I bet out, hoping to induce "raise for a free card" or some other raise..... Somewhat hard to put me on a 5 (only two 5's left, and why would I bet out?). Don't want to check and let draws get there for free and want to build pot. BB calls as does cut off. Other guy folds. BTW, I know very little about my opponents. I don't know the BB at all, and I recognize the cut-off as a $20-$40 player; I think he's solid, but am mostly guessing. ($56 in pot)
Turn is an off suit Q. I bet out again and my two villians call. ($104 in pot)
River is an off suit 9. Being me, I assume at least one of these yahoos might've hit his draw. Or, that one of these two has been slow playing a bigger 5. The latter seems less likely, but I don't want to get raised. So, I check....intending to check call ($16) when one of these two bets. The BB instantly bets and the cutoff raises! How can I be good? If the BB wasn't left to act behind me, I would've for sure called the $32. But I figured one of these two had to have me beat, and with the BB behind, it might cost me three or four $16 bets to find out. Fold.
Um, bad fold (at least in a results-oriented sense). BB, who called the raise, proudly turns over 8-9o for the win! He had overs and a gutshot on the flop and "got there" on the river to make measly two pair. The cutoff had 8-8, which he showed after the BB showed his superior cards first (despite having called the cutoff's river raise). (Pot ended up $168.)
Agree with my play, regardless of result? Let me have it.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Getting Raked
So last night's fundraiser was an interesting experiment. MB had originally proposed that everyone bring a can of food to poker and I ended up proposing that we do a rake instead. I knew a standard 10% rake would be ludicrous and I was trying to figure a way to raise some money without totally draining the table of chips. I figured 5% would be like online and would be .50 (one BB) out of a ten dollar pot. I also thought we could cap the donation per hand. I settled on 1% with no cap figuring that we would definitely have some big hands with Omaha on the slate. With some $100 pots, a few bigger pots, and a smattering of $25-$99 pots we'd get a couple bucks from everyone which would equate to a can of food or so.
The results were surprising. $52.75 from a 1% rake with $2010 in play. One might immediately conclude that a 10% rake would have meant over $500 would have been raked or 1/4 of all the money on the table but that would not be the case. True, with an uncapped rake we would have exceeded the $4 cap on at least one occasion (largest was a >$575 pot, which was chopped) and maybe one or two times more. But those few instances would have been more than outweighed by the starting rakes on lower amounts. There were many >$20 pots coming up just shy of the $25 threshold where the rake started which would have contributed much more money. Even if we went with the online equivalent of 5% rake and a $3 cap we would have still raked substantially more money than we did.
I know that we all know the numbers and have read the stats on how rake affects your yield but it's not until you actually see the chips pulled out of the game that you truly appreciate how devastating the rake can be.
Other side notes:
* I realized that dealers at casinos have an easier job calculating rake since they just need to count up to $40. Doing the math of a $38.50 pot with a $18 bet and two calls on the river involved more math than I was anticipating. Casinos also typically cap out early so they don't need to worry about counting the total amount of the pot after two big stacks both push all in.
* Though we've joked about it, beating a 1/2 table with a 10% rake does have its challenges. Not impossible of course, but highly dependent on a steady stream of fish to feed the tables.
* It is really deceptive how much money gets taken off the table in rake. I know that over one session there is a lot of churn from the same chips being bet over and over. Still, the nickel and diming that happens every hand is so subtle that it is difficult for players to get a sense of just how much money is being bled off bit by bit.
The results were surprising. $52.75 from a 1% rake with $2010 in play. One might immediately conclude that a 10% rake would have meant over $500 would have been raked or 1/4 of all the money on the table but that would not be the case. True, with an uncapped rake we would have exceeded the $4 cap on at least one occasion (largest was a >$575 pot, which was chopped) and maybe one or two times more. But those few instances would have been more than outweighed by the starting rakes on lower amounts. There were many >$20 pots coming up just shy of the $25 threshold where the rake started which would have contributed much more money. Even if we went with the online equivalent of 5% rake and a $3 cap we would have still raked substantially more money than we did.
I know that we all know the numbers and have read the stats on how rake affects your yield but it's not until you actually see the chips pulled out of the game that you truly appreciate how devastating the rake can be.
Other side notes:
* I realized that dealers at casinos have an easier job calculating rake since they just need to count up to $40. Doing the math of a $38.50 pot with a $18 bet and two calls on the river involved more math than I was anticipating. Casinos also typically cap out early so they don't need to worry about counting the total amount of the pot after two big stacks both push all in.
* Though we've joked about it, beating a 1/2 table with a 10% rake does have its challenges. Not impossible of course, but highly dependent on a steady stream of fish to feed the tables.
* It is really deceptive how much money gets taken off the table in rake. I know that over one session there is a lot of churn from the same chips being bet over and over. Still, the nickel and diming that happens every hand is so subtle that it is difficult for players to get a sense of just how much money is being bled off bit by bit.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Folding with no bet to you
The discussion came up last weekend about whether or not players should fold when there is no bet to them. My take on it is that it is a legal move but bad etiquette since it can affect the play of the hand. And when the game involves showing cards such as in Stud games or Pass the Trash then the potential effects of open folding are even more pronounced. As an example, let's assume that Player A has a Ten high mixed suit low. Everyone else at the table has paint showing except for Player B showing a Trey. The player who has the Ten high would almost certainly fold to a bet if he had to act before the Player B but if Player B open folds his hand before Player A acts then Player A knows he can for sure lock up the low and will seriously affect the play of the hand. Additionally, every card that the open folder turns over is potentially critical information since those cards cannot show up in other player's hands.
In PtT I don't feel that any significant information is given away by flipping cards over in a hand that one doesn't plan on playing. And I'd say that any modicum of information that is given away is far outweighed by the importance of protecting other players in the hand.
There is much discussion about the matter in this 2+2 thread.
In PtT I don't feel that any significant information is given away by flipping cards over in a hand that one doesn't plan on playing. And I'd say that any modicum of information that is given away is far outweighed by the importance of protecting other players in the hand.
There is much discussion about the matter in this 2+2 thread.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Putting it all on black.
Jack Shedd is a developer and designer that I enjoy reading. Just so happened he blogged about blackjack card counting yesterday, and I found it an interesting read. Thought you might, too.
Now that’s a way to train yourself on something. Big Contrarian → Putting it all on black.
I built a quick simulator in Cocoa that dealt cards from a shuffled six-deck shoe. As each card was flipped over, slowly at first, the background of the application flashed either red, for -1, or green for +1. At random intervals, the application would stop and ask me whether I should bet low or high. If I was wrong, it flashed and beeped like a expensive car in a hail storm. If I was right, it kept going. Over time it randomized its speed, so I’d never fall into an easy rhythm.
Now that’s a way to train yourself on something. Big Contrarian → Putting it all on black.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
2009 HU tourney wrap up
Well, that's another heads up tourney in the books. Wanted to get feedback on the format.
Short story is that there was no "game money" this year, blind caps changed, payouts moved from 50/25/12.5/12.5 to 40/30/15/15, and the tie breaker system is new. Also wanted to ask about the duration since the first portion went from 7:30 to 10:30 and brackets finished about 1:50 versus a projected 1:00 finish. For more details see long story below (yeah I know it is squarely in TLDR territory, if you want to just jot your thoughts without reading below I don't blame you).
* No "game money" this year. Last year, every win in the first stage of the tourney would be worth a couple bucks. That ended up depleting the payouts for the top finishers and didn't add up to a substantial amount of money even if you won a lot of games. Based on feedback from last year it was dropped this time around. Turns out that it took a long while for someone to be so far behind that they couldn't qualify even if they won out.
* Changed blind caps for the bracket rounds. It was unfortunate that Marsh didn't make a run into the brackets because he was the one who felt that the blinds got too oppressive at the end of last year's tourney and once the blinds capped you really just couldn't fold. It would have been nice to get his perspective of the changes. The difference was this year, even with the BB at 20% of the average chip stack I did feel that one could fold when the blinds capped as I saw happen on multiple occasions.
=== Disclaimer === serious tournament math geek discussion below ===
* Different preliminary matchups. Last year we had fewer people and just did a true round robin. Since that would have been too many games for this year the tourney used pools of players instead. In a true round robin the player records are about as fair as you can get it. Ties were broken by head to head matchups. This year since not everyone played everyone else I went with the ranking system described below.
- Win/loss percentage
- Strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 counts marginally more than a win over a player who ended up 4-4)
- Secondary strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 with tougher opponents weighs in more than a win over a 6-2 player with victories over weaker opponents)
- Record within your pool
- Strength of your pool (if players are tied after all above tie breakers then a player who had to play two players from a stronger pool would be seeded higher than one from a weaker pool)
A couple of things came up while working on the format. At first I had it set up where everyone played all nine players from outside of their pool but changed that to help prevent tie deadlocks since two players could happen to beat the same players since each pool member played the exact same players as everyone else in the pool. The tie breaker system also ignored head to head records which would have changed things. Jeh, Drew, and Joe all had the same record and Drew beat both Joe and Jeh and was seeded highest of the three. But Joe was seeded below Jeh despite defeating him. I did consider using head to head record but didn't for two reasons 1) in simulations it was too easy for a three way circular tie to happen where A beat B beat C beat A and head to head wouldn't help and 2) I could tell it was going to be a total pain to write a formula for the spreadsheet that did that. As it turns out the difference was only in seeding and did not affect someone being bubbled out because of the ranking.
* The tourney ran late. We actually started pretty darn close to schedule which was great. We had a situation where one player was playing longer matches on average than other players. Not saying that's bad or anything. Just pointing out that despite the flexibility afforded by the format for the prelims we still were gated by one player before starting the bracket round. I was tinkering around with a format like ELO chess rankings which would allow any player to play any amount of games against any other player but it would have to provide incentive for players who went 4-0 to continue to play games at risk of breaking their win percentage yet guard against players having nothing to lose and playing recklessly. In the end I couldn't get a system figured out in time but I think that system has potential since it would let us just set a time limit for the first stage and we would be able to stay closer to schedule.
That's it for the wrap. Let me know if you have any comments on any part of the tourney.
Short story is that there was no "game money" this year, blind caps changed, payouts moved from 50/25/12.5/12.5 to 40/30/15/15, and the tie breaker system is new. Also wanted to ask about the duration since the first portion went from 7:30 to 10:30 and brackets finished about 1:50 versus a projected 1:00 finish. For more details see long story below (yeah I know it is squarely in TLDR territory, if you want to just jot your thoughts without reading below I don't blame you).
* No "game money" this year. Last year, every win in the first stage of the tourney would be worth a couple bucks. That ended up depleting the payouts for the top finishers and didn't add up to a substantial amount of money even if you won a lot of games. Based on feedback from last year it was dropped this time around. Turns out that it took a long while for someone to be so far behind that they couldn't qualify even if they won out.
* Changed blind caps for the bracket rounds. It was unfortunate that Marsh didn't make a run into the brackets because he was the one who felt that the blinds got too oppressive at the end of last year's tourney and once the blinds capped you really just couldn't fold. It would have been nice to get his perspective of the changes. The difference was this year, even with the BB at 20% of the average chip stack I did feel that one could fold when the blinds capped as I saw happen on multiple occasions.
=== Disclaimer === serious tournament math geek discussion below ===
* Different preliminary matchups. Last year we had fewer people and just did a true round robin. Since that would have been too many games for this year the tourney used pools of players instead. In a true round robin the player records are about as fair as you can get it. Ties were broken by head to head matchups. This year since not everyone played everyone else I went with the ranking system described below.
- Win/loss percentage
- Strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 counts marginally more than a win over a player who ended up 4-4)
- Secondary strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 with tougher opponents weighs in more than a win over a 6-2 player with victories over weaker opponents)
- Record within your pool
- Strength of your pool (if players are tied after all above tie breakers then a player who had to play two players from a stronger pool would be seeded higher than one from a weaker pool)
A couple of things came up while working on the format. At first I had it set up where everyone played all nine players from outside of their pool but changed that to help prevent tie deadlocks since two players could happen to beat the same players since each pool member played the exact same players as everyone else in the pool. The tie breaker system also ignored head to head records which would have changed things. Jeh, Drew, and Joe all had the same record and Drew beat both Joe and Jeh and was seeded highest of the three. But Joe was seeded below Jeh despite defeating him. I did consider using head to head record but didn't for two reasons 1) in simulations it was too easy for a three way circular tie to happen where A beat B beat C beat A and head to head wouldn't help and 2) I could tell it was going to be a total pain to write a formula for the spreadsheet that did that. As it turns out the difference was only in seeding and did not affect someone being bubbled out because of the ranking.
* The tourney ran late. We actually started pretty darn close to schedule which was great. We had a situation where one player was playing longer matches on average than other players. Not saying that's bad or anything. Just pointing out that despite the flexibility afforded by the format for the prelims we still were gated by one player before starting the bracket round. I was tinkering around with a format like ELO chess rankings which would allow any player to play any amount of games against any other player but it would have to provide incentive for players who went 4-0 to continue to play games at risk of breaking their win percentage yet guard against players having nothing to lose and playing recklessly. In the end I couldn't get a system figured out in time but I think that system has potential since it would let us just set a time limit for the first stage and we would be able to stay closer to schedule.
That's it for the wrap. Let me know if you have any comments on any part of the tourney.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Really Cold Deck
It is hard to lose this many coin flips and take as many bad beats as I did in a 2 day span. Somehow I still have half of my roll in tact and hope to grind my way back up. I don't think I tilted too much though I did play a few more hands than usual to try to get unstuck. I believe I lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 all ins, the 15 recorded here, a cooler, and 1 hand I put in chips drawing dead. I think I won about 5 all ins.
I am going to have to drop down in stakes but can still comfortably play $2/$4 PLO and PLO8. Long way from Durr land though.
If anyone can survive this session, there is little chance it could get worse.
Here are the 15 all in losses I recorded.
Flopped Nuts then hit a bad turn
One of the 6 outs on a 3 way all in hits
Lose a Coin Flip I am slightly ahead
Bad River Way ahead when Money goes in
Lose on Pot Committed Aces
Way Ahead then a Bad River
Better Wrap with Bigger Flush Draw Does Not Work Out
Aces against 2588 single suited all in Preflop Bad Result
Lose a Flip Slightly Behind
Lose another Flip Slightly Behind
Bad River ahead when Money Goes In
Ahead on Coin Flip Bad Result
Brutal 2 Outer on the River
Flopped Nuts Can't Hold Up
Coin Flip Slightly Behind
As bad as this run was at least I was not one outed. Look at this poor soul, though I am not in this hand.
Top Boat No Good
So I temporarily have an enforced no online poker rule. MB changed my password. Still not twitching though I am getting close.
I am going to have to drop down in stakes but can still comfortably play $2/$4 PLO and PLO8. Long way from Durr land though.
If anyone can survive this session, there is little chance it could get worse.
Here are the 15 all in losses I recorded.
Flopped Nuts then hit a bad turn
One of the 6 outs on a 3 way all in hits
Lose a Coin Flip I am slightly ahead
Bad River Way ahead when Money goes in
Lose on Pot Committed Aces
Way Ahead then a Bad River
Better Wrap with Bigger Flush Draw Does Not Work Out
Aces against 2588 single suited all in Preflop Bad Result
Lose a Flip Slightly Behind
Lose another Flip Slightly Behind
Bad River ahead when Money Goes In
Ahead on Coin Flip Bad Result
Brutal 2 Outer on the River
Flopped Nuts Can't Hold Up
Coin Flip Slightly Behind
As bad as this run was at least I was not one outed. Look at this poor soul, though I am not in this hand.
Top Boat No Good
So I temporarily have an enforced no online poker rule. MB changed my password. Still not twitching though I am getting close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)