hypothetical WSOP situation (first hand)
Zane Trancos
who moves in. Assuming that you are a better than average player, how
much of an edge would you need to call?
In his tournament book, Sklansky says that if it's 4c4d versus AhKh,
you can pass (51-49 edge). However, Sklansky and most people in a
"60-40" thread that I found would not pass up a 60-40 edge, and
those that favored a call did not think it was even a close decision,
whether you are a good player or a *great* player. But I didn't
find a consensus on what the "cutoff point" was.
I found it interesting that Sklansky didn't construct the example
with a bigger pair, like Ad Kc versus Qs Qh (which would be a 57-43
edge for QQ). If you mess around with the suits, you can construct
other situations like 54-46, etc.
Do you think a 57-43 edge is worth passing up on the first hand if
you play better than the field? Is it a close decision? Where do you
draw the line and how do you determine that?
(I found a thread regarding the situation of everyone going all-in
on the first hand of WSOP when you have aces. I must admit to being
one of those people who would hem and haw and *probably* call after a
long time, but after reading a couple of Paul Phillip's posts which
reframed the problem, I would now call in a flash and I think it's a
clear call even for the player with the biggest edge over the field.
Does anyone have a similar argument as to (a) why a 60-40 edge is too
good for ANYONE to pass up and (b) where you would/should draw the
line between 51% and 60%?)
Best,
Zane T.
lysdexic
an opponent is of much less value compared to late in the tournament.
So you are risking a 40% chance of elimination for relatively few chips and
no real advantage as far as opponents (someone who unecessarily goes all in
from the SB will get eliminated soon anyway, you do not need to take a risk
to do it).
How much do you really gain by doubling up in the first hand of a tourney?
It is better to avoid these risks early and take them later in the tourney
when doubling up means winning a hell of alot more chips and gaining a
greater strategic advantage.
"Zane Trancos" <zane_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d28cb72e.03122...@posting.google.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Paul Phillips
Zane Trancos <zane_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>$10,000 event, first hand. You are in the BB. Everyone folds to the SB
>who moves in. Assuming that you are a better than average player, how
>much of an edge would you need to call?
It depends on what your priorities are, as there are several that are
sometimes in conflict with one other.
1) to win (first place) this specific tournament?
2) to maximize your EV for this tournament, regardless of time?
3) to maximize your EV per unit time?
4) to survive as long as possible?
A lot of people seem to rank 4) first even though it's antithetical
to winning tournament play anytime it comes into conflict with the others.
This has been covered here many different ways.
If you want to maximize your EV per unit time, which I think is the
most rational viewpoint, you should take any edge, and (in my opinion)
any coinflip. I also think people who find this concept hard to wrap
their brains around are playing tournaments at a serious disadvantage.
They are intentionally passing on edges hoping to survive longer and
gain edge later, but you have to win the chips sometime. I do my best
to thoroughly exploit people who want to fold and "find a better spot."
I suppose it is possible that there are players at your table that are
dying to give their money away and that you can pass on small edges
because you really will get big ones later. But most of the time in real
life I believe this is a fantasy, and even if true, often by the time it
comes up you've bled many chips and aren't going to earn as much out of
the encounter as you "should have". Or someone else will beat you to
busting the bad player you were eyeballing.
>In his tournament book, Sklansky says that if it's 4c4d versus AhKh,
>you can pass (51-49 edge). However, Sklansky and most people in a
>"60-40" thread that I found would not pass up a 60-40 edge, and
>those that favored a call did not think it was even a close decision,
>whether you are a good player or a *great* player. But I didn't
>find a consensus on what the "cutoff point" was.
There is no way to establish an objective cutoff point because it is
partly a function of divergent priorities. I will go out on a limb and
say that as long as it's early and you still only have your starting
stack (the two necessary conditions for chips to have approximately linear
value) then you should take ANY edge. And anyone who passes on 60/40
(after being shown the math) is clearly nuts. Take your pick in between.
I think passing on 55/45 early would be equally nuts, but someone who
places no value on their time might think differently.
>Does anyone have a similar argument as to (a) why a 60-40 edge is too
>good for ANYONE to pass up and (b) where you would/should draw the
>line between 51% and 60%?)
Tom Weideman calculates that applying a 60/40 edge repeatedly (even
in the most pessimistic case) has an EV of 2.45 buyins.
I think the case is even stronger than made there because of the
unquantifiable but very real power of having more chips than anyone else.
But either way there's no way to deny it. Always getting your money in
60/40 would have as good or better a result than any tournament player
averages. That means when it comes up on the first hand, you do it.
You can do the math for different matchups the way Tom did and see how
it works out, but as the numbers change and the case for calling loses
strength, you should analyze his simplifying assumptions as well.
--
Paul Phillips | Let's revolt! Who's with me?
Caged Spirit | -- the less-than-convincing peasant leader in
Empiricist | medieval madness
slap pi uphill! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Paul Phillips
>At the begining of a tournament chip stacks are very small and eliminating
>an opponent is of much less value compared to late in the tournament.
You don't take a spot like this to eliminate the opponent. It means
zero to eliminate an opponent at that stage. You take it for the chips.
>So you are risking a 40% chance of elimination for relatively few chips
Relatively few chips!? How do you ever expect to win more than "as many
chips as I have right now" in a tournament? This is as many chips as it
is possible to win at once. It's the opposite of "relatively few".
>(someone who unecessarily goes all in
>from the SB will get eliminated soon anyway, you do not need to take a risk
>to do it).
You may need to take a risk to be the one who gets the chips! If I were
someone else sitting at a table and watched a good player pass on a 60/40
shot against a bad player, I would rub my hands in glee at my good fortune.
Usually when others are gleeful, you've made a mistake.
>How much do you really gain by doubling up in the first hand of a tourney?
A lot. In a $10K event, about $10K in real money equity. I'd say that's
a darn good day already.
>It is better to avoid these risks early and take them later in the tourney
>when doubling up means winning a hell of alot more chips and gaining a
>greater strategic advantage.
If you double up early you may never have to double up again. But how
do you know someone will hand you another 60/40 edge later, or that you will
have enough chips for the double up to really mean something? You never know
what situations you will face later. You know you have an edge now.
--
Paul Phillips | Most people would rather be certain they're miserable,
Analgesic | than risk being happy.
Empiricist | -- Robert Anthony
pp: i haul pills |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Howard Treesong
>$10,000 event, first hand. You are in the BB. Everyone folds to the
>SBwho moves in. Assuming that you are a better than average player,
>how much of an edge would you need to call?
Paul Phillips' priorities:
> 1) to win (first place) this specific tournament?
> 2) to maximize your EV for this tournament, regardless of time?
> 3) to maximize your EV per unit time?
> 4) to survive as long as possible?
>A lot of people seem to rank 4) first even though it's antithetical
>to winning tournament play anytime it comes into conflict with the
others.
>If you want to maximize your EV per unit time, which I think is the
>most rational viewpoint, you should take any edge, and (in my
>opinion) any coinflip.
Doesn't that suggest that you should take any positive EV move at any
point in a tourney, regardless of variance? Change the first-hand
example above to one in which you have a 25% chance at a pot (say you
have something like AQ against AK or something similar) against one
other player with just enough dead money in the pot to get you 4.01
times your money. It's a postive EV play, but the variance is very
high.
I haven't thought this through very carefully. I'm on O'ahu for a
couple of weeks and my brain seems to slow waaaaaaaay down when I'm
here. But my initial reaction is that I wouldn't take that
proposition, even though it's EV-pos. That may be because I'm
somewhere between 1) and 2) in the structure articulated above (and
the difference between the two, while real, should be minor in most
circumstances).
>There is no way to establish an objective cutoff point [for the
>edge you should take because it is partly a function of divergent
>priorities. I will go out on a limb and say that as long as it's
>early and you still only have your starting stack (the two necessary
>conditions for chips to have approximately linear value) then you
>should take ANY edge.
I don't think this is ALWAYS true. For instance, if I sit down at a
tourney table with nine total strangers, I haven't done the analysis
required to figure out how likely one of them is to give me better
chances -- and if there are four people at the table who will give me
a better spot, then I should wait. Moreover, if Phil H is at my
table, I'm likely to want to stick around to see whether I can figure
a way to get into his head, piss him off, and thus entertain myself.
I suspect there are others among us who share that view.
-Howard Treesong
Paul Phillips
Howard Treesong <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Doesn't that suggest that you should take any positive EV move at any
>point in a tourney, regardless of variance?
Yes, but a positive chip-EV move is not necessarily a positive
money-EV move. If you are the co-chip-leader, the tournament is on
the bubble, and the chip-leader moves all-in and shows you his
cards, it is clearly not correct to call with a 51/49 shot.
The later the tournament is, the less the chips you gain are worth,
and the more the chips you lose are worth. So you do not always
take a positive chip-EV play because of the payout structure.
The further you stray from initial conditions, the more the
considerations change. Primarily that means if your stack is big,
you should be less willing to gamble to make it even bigger, and
the closer you are to the money, the less willing you should be to
risk many chips on a small edge.
But most people way overuse these concepts. On the bubble at the
bellagio, I was one of the very shortest stacks (obviously, since I
started day three 33rd of 36.) It folded to me in the small blind
and I moved in, into another short stack. He folded and came over
to tell me in all honesty that he wouldn't play anything but KK or AA
there, as if it were self-apparent! It is that kind of thinking that
kept me alive for hours and hours with a short stack in the later stages
with barely a showdown, because people were so risk-averse.
>Change the first-hand
>example above to one in which you have a 25% chance at a pot (say you
>have something like AQ against AK or something similar) against one
>other player with just enough dead money in the pot to get you 4.01
>times your money. It's a postive EV play, but the variance is very
>high.
In real life we tend not to know exactly what our opponents hold and
have to guess at it. If you're considering going all-in on the first
hand, you should have played it in such a way to extract a ton of
information about your opponent's hand. Then "real" poker skills will
give you the chance to figure out your opponent's hand and fold if you are
beaten, before the pot odds demand that you call. At least, that is the
goal. If you can't do that, then you're better off either getting all-in
and hoping for the best, or folding early. The nightmare is putting a
lot of chips in the pot and then folding without a showdown.
>I don't think this is ALWAYS true. For instance, if I sit down at a
>tourney table with nine total strangers, I haven't done the analysis
>required to figure out how likely one of them is to give me better
>chances -- and if there are four people at the table who will give me
>a better spot, then I should wait.
Perhaps, perhaps. But my conclusion in real life is that people tend
to overestimate how likely someone else is to give their chips away vs.
their own likelihood. If you are staring at a known edge, you have a
bird in the hand. The hope that others will give you their chips in
better spots is a bird in the bush.
Hellmuth folded KsQs on a JsTs2h flop once after putting a bunch of
money in the pot. To me, that is a good example of the delusion that
a clamp is sure to arise and people will still put their money in.
I don't flop a set vs. TPTK nearly often enough. I need to get my chips
with AK vs. QT whenever I can.
>Moreover, if Phil H is at my
>table, I'm likely to want to stick around to see whether I can figure
>a way to get into his head, piss him off, and thus entertain myself.
Now this, there can be no arguing with.
--
Paul Phillips | We really just threw together that pawn shop
Moral Alien | commercial at the last moment, ad hoc.
Empiricist |
up hill, pi pals! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Linda K Sherman
> Hellmuth folded KsQs on a JsTs2h flop once after putting a bunch of
> money in the pot. To me, that is a good example of the delusion that
> a clamp is sure to arise and people will still put their money in.
I guess I'm having one of my mentalpausal moments because I can't figure
out what the second sentence is trying to say. I think "clamp" is
eluding me.
Lin
Paul Phillips
Linda K Sherman <dim...@pwy.com> wrote:
>I guess I'm having one of my mentalpausal moments because I can't figure
>out what the second sentence is trying to say. I think "clamp" is
>eluding me.
A "clamp" as in a "tight grip". Having one's opponent drawing
nearly dead (e.g. set vs. pair) is a clamp. Usually used on the rail
in such sentences as "I had him in a clamp but he wriggled out."
--
Paul Phillips | As scarce as truth is, the supply has always
Stickler | been in excess of the demand.
Empiricist | -- Josh Billings
pal, i pill push |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Santos L Halper
three) but it's very, very true. I stood behind Paul on that day for
over three hours. With 24 people left, Paul was moved to a table with
Gus Hansen on his left, Dewey Tomko on his right, and Amir Vahedi to
the right of Dewey. I had no clue who Paul was (bare feet, red
homeless man's backpack under his chair), and my wife and I both
wanted to stay to watch the short-stacked dead money guy get eaten
alive by these other three. But, he hung tough, picked his spots and
won some pots. Little did we know......
By the way, congratulations, Paul.
Paul Phillips <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message news:<bsakrr$ler$1...@spoon.improving.org>...
Vince lepore
> Howard Treesong <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Doesn't that suggest that you should take any positive EV move at any
> >point in a tourney, regardless of variance?
>
> Yes, but a positive chip-EV move is not necessarily a positive
> money-EV move. If you are the co-chip-leader, the tournament is on
> the bubble, and the chip-leader moves all-in and shows you his
> cards, it is clearly not correct to call with a 51/49 shot.
How about when you are three handed, you are co-chip leader each with
almost a 3 to 1 advantage over the 3rd player. Let's say you are a bit
behind first and have 2.4 million to his 2.7 with third place having a
little more than 800k. The blinds are 30-60k. You are on the button
and raise to 240k. The sb, chip leader, moves all in. The bb folds.
Let's add that you are the most aggressive player of the three and
that your aggression has been paying off and allowed you to slowly
build your stack. You have T,T. Do you call?
If this hand looks familiar it may be because it is the hand that I
believe decided this last Bellagio tournament. The button was Gus
Hansen and the sb was the eventual winner whoever he might be. I
believe there were 2 mistakes made on this hand. Well, one anyway.
What do you think?
P.S. I don't know why but it appeared that there were only a few of
us in the audience rooting for the guy that won.
Congradulations,
Vince
Paul Phillips
Vince lepore <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>almost a 3 to 1 advantage over the 3rd player. Let's say you are a bit
>behind first and have 2.4 million to his 2.7 with third place having a
>little more than 800k.
I believe it was more like 3.1M to 2.4M. That's also consistent with
the roughly 6.3M in play. I know I had counted him down before the hand
and was confident I had a good shot at coming back if I lost an all-in.
And after I won the pot I had better than a 6-1 chip lead on dewey.
>The blinds are 30-60k.
No, we were halfway through the 50-100K round.
>You are on the button and raise to 240k.
280K.
>Let's add that you are the most aggressive player of the three and
>that your aggression has been paying off and allowed you to slowly
>build your stack. You have T,T. Do you call?
Gus decided I couldn't have QQ/KK/AA because I would have been
trickier, rather than moving all-in. Assuming that assessment is
correct (and it probably is) then it might be a good call. It
depends on whether 99 and lower pairs might also be among the
possible hands. I don't think so, but maybe he mis-assesses that.
>If this hand looks familiar it may be because it is the hand that I
>believe decided this last Bellagio tournament. The button was Gus
>Hansen and the sb was the eventual winner whoever he might be. I
>believe there were 2 mistakes made on this hand. Well, one anyway.
If there were two mistakes they were both made by gus (perhaps not
raising enough to open, and calling... maybe you think he should have
limped the button and then moved in on top of a raise... not sure what
you're thinking.)
Gus never failed to raise a button in this spot. AQ deeply dominates
the range of hands he might hold here (which is "all of them") and I'll
take my chances every time. But I won't price him in to see a flop and
then have to play it out of position, so moving in is the only option in
my view, even though the raise was bigger than I like to make.
I have zero regret about moving in there even though I turned out to
be only a 43% winner.
>P.S. I don't know why but it appeared that there were only a few of
>us in the audience rooting for the guy that won.
I noticed that too! Maybe after season two runs I'll have gained some
followers. But I'll live either way.
--
Paul Phillips | Some cause happiness wherever they go;
Future Perfect | others whenever they go.
Empiricist | -- Oscar Wilde
Howard Treesong
> to overestimate how likely someone else is to give their chips away vs.
> their own likelihood. If you are staring at a known edge, you have a
> bird in the hand. The hope that others will give you their chips in
> better spots is a bird in the bush.
We don't have any real disagreement here. I just meant to articulate
the point that there are some limiting cases to the general principle.
Speaking personally, I need to think about my gut reactions in light
of this idea. In the Bellagio 1500 PLH, I hit AA against Eddie
Alabsi's KK very early in the tourney, on something like the third
hand out of the deck. He raised in second position, and I came over
right away. Costa, sitting one seat to my left, mucked holding AK.
On a 778 flop, Alabsi bet the pot, I raised the pot, and he mucked. I
misplayed this hand after the flop. When Alabsi calls my raise
preflop and then comes out strong to that flop, what's he gonna have?
A7 is unimaginable, and unless he's making a strange play to 88, I
have the nuts. A smooth call is much more likely to pull chips out of
him, and I shouldn't be worried unless I see a K, Q, or J on the turn.
I shouldn't have raised, seen the turn, and tried to get more of his
chips in. But I was thinking more about the horror of losing all my
chips super-early, and thus was at least partially consumed by
survival.
> Hellmuth folded KsQs on a JsTs2h flop once after putting a bunch of
> money in the pot.
I suppose the soul-cam told him his opponent had a set, and he thought
he was a 60-40 dog . . . but I'm with you on this one.
> >Moreover, if Phil H is at my
> >table, I'm likely to want to stick around to see whether I can figure
> >a way to get into his head, piss him off, and thus entertain myself.
>
> Now this, there can be no arguing with.
It's only a matter of time until the three of us are at the same
table, hopefully a final. Boy, I can't wait.
OT aside: the battleship Missouri is amazing. Freakin' LARGE.
Freakin' CRAMPED for enlisted men, and the gun control turret is
scary: twelve inches of iron between you and the outside, and it
doesn't feel like near enough.
-Howard Treesong
Vince lepore
> In article <bbdd5c2d.03122...@posting.google.com>,
> Vince lepore <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >almost a 3 to 1 advantage over the 3rd player. Let's say you are a bit
> >behind first and have 2.4 million to his 2.7 with third place having a
> >little more than 800k.
>
> I believe it was more like 3.1M to 2.4M.
O.K.
> >The blinds are 30-60k.
>
> No, we were halfway through the 50-100K round.
O.K.
> >You are on the button and raise to 240k.
>
> 280K.
O.K. Given these parameters I believe that there were indeed 2
mistakes made. One by you and one by Gus.
> Gus decided I couldn't have QQ/KK/AA because I would have been
> trickier, rather than moving all-in.
O.K. But I doubt that this is as true for Q,Q. But he was doing the
assessing not me so I'll give him the benefit.
> Assuming that assessment is correct (and it probably is) then it might be a > good call. It depends on whether 99 and lower pairs might also be among the
> possible hands. I don't think so, but maybe he mis-assesses that.
Let's say he put you on 2 over cards and only two over cards. Does
that make the call correct? Let's say he figures he is a 55-45
favorite to win the hand if he calls. Is his call correct even if his
assessment is correct?
> If there were two mistakes they were both made by gus (perhaps not
> raising enough to open, and calling... maybe you think he should have
> limped the button and then moved in on top of a raise... not sure what
> you're thinking.)
>
If your stacks were reversed would you make the same play? Given the
situation would you risk all of your chips on one hand where you might
be behind and your stack to blind ratio was inconsequential? I know
your answer for the situation as it played out. You moved in 2.4 mil
(3.1) to win 400k. By the way I watched most of the final 6 play and
this was the first time I believe that you moved in. You had taken
quite a few chips from Gus with medium reraises. I believe that if
I'm correct about this being the first move-in then Gus knew it too
and might have felt you were making a move.
> Gus never failed to raise a button in this spot. AQ deeply dominates
> the range of hands he might hold here (which is "all of them") and I'll
> take my chances every time. But I won't price him in to see a flop and
> then have to play it out of position, so moving in is the only option in
> my view, even though the raise was bigger than I like to make.
>
As it turned out if you don't move in you might lose the hand. If you
just call or make a medium raise and Gus does'nt reraise you probably
can't call the flop. Of course it only costs you a small fraction of
your chips to call and you still might get all of Gus's chips. I
can't imagine Gus calling your preflop all-in raise if he doesn't have
you beat. That's why I don't like your all-in raise given that there
is still a short stack around that has to win a hand.
> I have zero regret about moving in there even though I turned out to
> be only a 43% winner.
When I play tournaments I consider the prize money. I don't play for
the glory. Second place money was significantly more than third in my
opinion. Consequently, I believe that in both your situation and
Gus's you both made mistakes in the play of this hand. However, if
the money doesn't mean much then you probably both played correctly.
Please, these are only my opinions with the sole purpose of discussion
and not criticism. I'm trying to learn something.
Thanks,
Vince
Paul Phillips
Vince lepore <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Let's say he put you on 2 over cards and only two over cards. Does
>that make the call correct? Let's say he figures he is a 55-45
>favorite to win the hand if he calls. Is his call correct even if his
>assessment is correct?
If he knows for sure that he is 55/45 and he folds, he is mentally
conceding first place to me. He cannot anticipate a better spot to
double up, and if the theory is that he should just sit back and hope
Dewey busts so he can lock up 2nd, by the time it's heads-up I am
liable to have an insurmountable chip lead.
TT is generally too big to lay down pre-flop 3-handed. Perhaps if Dewey
had 200K instead of 800K and was sure to be all-in very soon, but that was
not the case. However, if I were Gus I'd have limped the button. That
lets him get the money in first if it's raised out of the blinds, and if
he doesn't like the flop, it's only 100K out of 2.4M in the middle.
>If your stacks were reversed would you make the same play?
Hard to say. Maybe, but not definitely.
>Given the
>situation would you risk all of your chips on one hand where you might
>be behind and your stack to blind ratio was inconsequential?
It was not inconsequential. There were only 64 BB in play, three handed.
That means to open for a meaningful raise (3 BB) you have to expose close
to 5% of the chips in play, and 15% of the average stack! That's huge.
It's not pure crapshoot level but it's far from inconsequential.
>You moved in 2.4 mil (3.1) to win 400k.
Yep. Gus will fold the huge majority of his hands there. It is
very different against a selective button raiser, or someone who limps
a decent percentage of hands.
>By the way I watched most of the final 6 play and
>this was the first time I believe that you moved in.
I think you're right, but it's also the first time I felt like the
blind sizes and chip positions didn't give me any good choices except
fold or all-in.
>I believe that if
>I'm correct about this being the first move-in then Gus knew it too
>and might have felt you were making a move.
That it was the first time I was all-in is precisely how he can be
sure that it wasn't a "move", it was a good hand that didn't want to
play out of position. There's no way it was some random garbage.
I think it was roughly TT-QQ/AQ/AK. Everything else I play differently.
And against that range he's in some trouble, especially since even if
he wins the pot he's a good ways from 2nd place, let alone 1st.
>I can't imagine Gus calling your preflop all-in raise if he doesn't have
>you beat.
That doesn't make the raise wrong if the frequency with which he folds
and concedes me the dead money is high enough. And I think it clearly is,
given his button raising frequency. It's also important that he will
fold many hands that DO have me beat, specifically small/medium pairs.
>When I play tournaments I consider the prize money. I don't play for
>the glory. Second place money was significantly more than third in my
>opinion. Consequently, I believe that in both your situation and
>Gus's you both made mistakes in the play of this hand. However, if
>the money doesn't mean much then you probably both played correctly.
Yes, I expect both Gus and I are willing to sacrifice some equity to
increase our chances of winning. I know I am. How much equity, I dunno.
I made lots of decisions throughout the tournament that were focused on
winning -- several times moving in with a short stack in a risky spot
and having to pray nobody woke up with a hand, when others might have
folded and tried to limp up the ladder a couple spots.
It's nice when it works out.
--
Paul Phillips | Love of the theater runs in Gary Oldman's family.
Future Perfect | His son Newman was recently cast as the lead in an
Empiricist | off-broadway production of "Rich Man, Poor Man."
greg pittman
his discussions with Howard Treesong(?), educates everyone that wants to
emulate.
Greg
It's redundant, but congrats on the big win.
Vince's Mother's Spirit
Happy holidays to my little boy. Your behavior is much improved recently.
If you try to keep the holiday spirit in your heart all year long, perhaps
I finally can rest in peace. I sure hope so.
-- Vince's Mother's Spirit
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Howard Treesong
> I just want to say ...Damn it's good to have Paul Phillips back posting,
> his discussions with Howard Treesong(?), educates everyone that wants to
> emulate.
>
Greg,
I'm not sure quite why I warrant the question mark, but I guess I'd
rather be useful as a foil than as nothing at all.
-Howard Treesong
greg pittman
rather be useful as a foil >than as nothing at all.
>Howard Treesong
I just have no clue, as to who you really are. You have alluded to in
the past, that this is not your real name.
Regards,
Greg
Howard Treesong
Greg,
Right on. It's not (thank God, I suppose).
-Howard Treesong
Howard Treesong
Greg,
Easy E
>
> Right on. It's not (thank God, I suppose).
>
> -Howard Treesong
Damn! And here I was getting together investors and planning to ask
you what long-displaced tribe you were from... and where we were
opening our casino/cardroom.
Howard Treesong
>> -Howard Treesong
>
> Damn! And here I was getting together investors and planning to ask
> you what long-displaced tribe you were from... and where we were
> opening our casino/cardroom.
Of course, the genesis of the moniker is my great-uncle on my mother's
side, who was half Pequot, half Sioux, and half Cherokee. Funny you
should ask . . . I've been working on plans to drain half the
Ofekenofee and bust open the Florida market with some reasonable poker
games.
-Howard Treesong
Peg Smith
rick...@hotmail.com (Howard Treesong) writes:
>Of course, the genesis of the moniker is my great-uncle on my mother's
>side, who was half Pequot, half Sioux, and half Cherokee...
That's a lot of halves, heehee.
Peg
Steven "D"
Dave
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031226170641...@mb-m04.aol.com...
He got quartered on the low hand...........