Offering sunday 200g stakesby CrownRoyal, October 18
Since the stock market sucks and I don't have anything to invest in and I enjoy gambling I'll stake anyone for the sunday 200g @ 70/30 split no stakeback.
if you can show me you're a decent player I might cut you a better deal
As clafified in earlier blog posts, I'm Yet again working my way up the cashgame ladder. (if u don't know just read through yesterdays blogs and comments)
today i started with $30, 4 tabling nl2.
the game is ridiculously easy (jinx) at these stakes though, i managed to win 7bi in close to 2 hrs of play
heres my stats from todays session;
During current Hold'em session you were dealt 1389 hands and saw flop:
- 188 out of 288 times while in big blind (65%)
- 70 out of 287 times while in small blind (24%)
- 183 out of 814 times in other positions (22%)
- a total of 441 out of 1389 (31%)
Pots won at showdown - 60 of 104 (57%)
Pots won without showdown - 300
I made a couple bad folds that are posted on lp, but overall i feel i played my best.
I pulled close 14bb/100 which isn't too bad for my first session back to nl2.
Not to lie, I am going to be "degen" with it, by moving up micros at 10-20 bi til i hit nl25 where i'll build up a solid roll before moving to nl50 (nl5 at 100 and nl10 at 200, nl25 at 400-500), moving down if i hit 8-9 bi and rebuilding up *day[9] helped incorporate this strategy into my mind well*
Oh well, hopefully the first of many blogs on my way back up, for the 255th time.
Just knowing I can make 5k a month on nl25 and nl50 is enough motivation to keep me going non stop.
yeah, flame me all you want, omfg neilly you suck your at nl2 again, blah blah, trust me ive heard it a fucking million times, who cares. if u wanna flame im going to start banning people from my blog.
in other news im looking for an $11 stake for the $200k gntd tomorrow to split 50/50 profits with, if anyones interested pm me (my rolls only 65.88 and don't want to shell out $11 for the tournament)
u can sharkscope me to decide if you think im a good investment, obviously i have won my fair share of tournaments.
hmm...gonna go eat lunch and watch the rest of the penn state game, be back on in a few hours.
GL everyone,
Ryan
I played alot today and ran my roll down to $16. FML
Fun. Several news papers that endorsed Bush in 04 have endorsed Obama this year, including the Denver Post which is one of the biggest here in CO, a swing state. Right now Obama is dominating in news paper endorsements by 58-16... ouch. But there have been some really nice endorsements and it if you still don't have a decision made please take the time to read why these guys have chosen to support Obama:
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.
-----------------------
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.
With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.
The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.
We see parallels today.
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.
Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.
-----------------------
McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.
We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.
He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.
He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.
His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.
-----------------------
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.
It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.
It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.
We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.
The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.
Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.
These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade. The Constitution, more than two centuries old, now offers the world one of its more mature and certainly most stable governments, but our political culture is still struggling to shake off a brash and unseemly adolescence. In George W. Bush, the executive branch turned its back on an adult role in the nation and the world and retreated into self-absorbed unilateralism.
John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies. He earned The Times' respect, and our endorsement in the California Republican primary, for his denunciation of torture, his readiness to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his willingness to buck his party on issues such as immigration reform. But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined "torture" in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred.
Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment.
Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.
He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left.
We are not sanguine about Obama's economic policies. He speaks with populist sweep about taxing oil companies to give middle-class families rebates that of course they would welcome, but would be far too small to stimulate the economy. His ideas on taxation do not stray far from those put forward by Democrats over the last several decades. His response to the most recent, and drastic, fallout of the sub- prime mortgage meltdown has been appropriately cautious; this is uncharted territory, and Obama is not a master of economic theory or practice.
And that's fine. Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise. He will not be one to forge far-reaching economic policy without sounding out the best thinkers and practitioners, and he has many at his disposal. He has won the backing of some on Wall Street not because he's one of them but because they recognize his talent for extracting from a broad range of proposals a coherent and workable program.
On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers. But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to "suspend" his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear). Having little to contribute, he instead chose to exploit the crisis.
We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.
"I've decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.
"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president.
"I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia," says the Republican.
In just 16 days, a presidential campaign that has raged for almost two years will at last come to an end.
In that time, America has undergone profound changes. And for most Americans, those changes have not been for the better.
When the first, absurdly early straw polls were taken in Iowa in 2007, America was torn by a war in Iraq that seemed unwinnable. But the economy seemed reasonably sound.
That preoccupation with the war may help explain why Republicans passed over Mitt Romney's successful record of job creation in favor of war hero and foreign-policy specialist John McCain. On the Democratic side, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who wasn't even in Congress when the war began, bested Sen. Hillary Clinton in part because she voted to authorize the war.
Americans, as we now know, wanted change.
But as this race nears the finish line, America's priorities have changed, too.
The "surge" has reduced the level of violence in Iraq and President Bush has begun modest troop withdrawals. Sens. McCain and Obama differ mostly about the details and pace of future withdrawals.
But the speed and virulence of the worldwide liquidity crisis, caused by the collapse of the junk mortgage market, has stunned most Americans and has led voters, who now review their shrinking retirement funds and rising unemployment rates with alarm, to focus overwhelmingly on America's economic ills.
Given this inescapable economic agenda, The Post believes Barack Obama is better equipped to lead America back to a prosperous future.
Frankly, neither Obama nor McCain has a comprehensive plan to end the economic crisis, or to even calm our jittery nerves. But Obama's promise to surround himself with this country's top economic thinkers, such as Warren Buffet, is at least somewhat comforting.
In unsteady times, it may seem obvious to gravitate toward the veteran politician, but in this campaign, it's been the newcomer who has had the steady hand.
This fast-breaking global meltdown overwhelmed both campaigns and the final weeks of a hard-fought political contest are hardly the place for the cool, bipartisan thinking needed to get us out of this mess. Fortunately, bipartisan efforts by the Bush administration and Congress have at least bought America time to begin crafting long-term economic reforms.
Looking at McCain's and Obama's specific proposals, we unfortunately find much to dislike in both port- folios. We can live with Obama's call to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year. And, in fact, we've long thought it fiscally irresponsible to wage two wars on tax cuts.
However, we're concerned he may increase capital gains taxes at a time when the economy is starved for investment capital. Indeed, we'd favor eliminating capital gains taxes entirely if such profits are reinvested in another enterprise within one year.
We also would urge Obama to expand investment tax credits for businesses, to put profits back to work creating new jobs.
America's other most pressing long-term economic problem is health care.
Obama's plan, while not perfect, is far superior to McCain's catastrophic ideas. How does it affect the economy?
Consider this: General Motors now pays more than $1,500 for health care benefits, mostly for retired employees, on each new car sold.
America's competitors in Japan, Germany and China don't share such costs because their national health care plans are funded through broad-based taxes. Somehow, America must level the playing field.
McCain wants to eliminate the corporate tax deduction on existing health care plans, a cruel corporate surtax averaging $3,500 per employee. That tax hike would force employers to drop coverage for tens of millions of workers. The lucky workers who still had employer-paid benefits would have to pay income taxes on them — a $3,000 tax increase on a typical middle-income Colorado worker. And this massive tax increase on employers and employees alike comes from a man who asked repeatedly in the last debate: "Why raise anybody's taxes?"
Why, indeed, Sen. McCain?
We can't imagine a Democrat- controlled Congress would pass McCain's reckless health care tax. But even proposing such a scheme shows his woeful lack of understanding of America's economic underpinnings.
As to Obama, we confess we fear that a compliant Congress may be all too eager to approve his plans. That's why it's critical for him to reach across the aisle and draw the best team he can assemble to get America working again. Why not ask Romney to chair his health-care reform task force, or even serve as his economic recovery "czar"? There's precedent for such a move, since Wendell Willkie helped sell President Franklin D. Roosevelt's vital wartime lend-lease program after losing his presidential race to FDR in 1940.
What's the chance that Obama will reach out in such a bipartisan fashion? Actually, he has a long record of doing exactly that. We don't mean his brief tenure in the Senate so much as his successful run as a community organizer in Chicago.
Republicans love to mock Obama's history as a community organizer. But here was a man with no money to offer, no patronage to dispense, no way to punish his opponents. All he could do was to work with people from all walks of life, liberals and conservatives, business people and the unemployed, and bring them together in common cause for a better community. Could there really be better preparation to reunite a worried and divided America to again pursue our "more perfect union"?
If Americans were only worried about foreign affairs, McCain's stalwart service in the military and experience on the national stage would make him the more credible commander in chief. But our eyes have turned homeward and, in this hour, Obama has the eloquence and vision to bring us back together.
As novelist Christopher Buckley said in endorsing Obama, the Illinois senator "has a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament."
With the help and prayers of the American people, we believe those talents can also make Barack Obama a great president.
Americans are ready to be one country. By the millions, they yearn to bridge their differences, to find common cause, to rise above ideology, race, class and religion.
They have grown weary of the culture wars and the personal attacks, tired of the exaggerated lines that divide. They dare to imagine a more constructive discourse, a debate marked by civility and respect even in disagreement, a politics that begins with listening to each other.
Nothing else so fully explains the meteoric rise of Sen. Barack Obama. If America had preferred a master of policy for its next president, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have won the Democratic nomination. If America valued experience in public life above all else, Sen. John McCain would be trouncing Sen. Obama in the polls.
But it is Sen. Obama who won his party's nomination, and it is he who leads in the polls. Americans across the land want to pull together, and in Sen. Obama they see a man of exceptional gifts who just might show them how.
Our endorsement for president of the United States goes to Sen. Barack Obama, Chicago's adopted son. He has the unique background, superior intellect, sound judgment and first-rate temperament to lead our nation in difficult times.
Sen. Obama's strengths begin with the unusual circumstances of his childhood, a biracial and cross-cultural upbringing that imbued in him a remarkable ability to see the world through the eyes of others. A now-familiar story is told of how the young Barack, as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, would go around the table listening to all views on an issue. Then he would gesture toward the quietest person in the room and ask, "Bob, what do you think?" He called the shots, but was confident enough to hear out those with whom he might disagree.
Sen. Obama's remarkable talent for hearing all the disparate voices of America was perhaps nowhere more evident than on March 18 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, when he delivered an instantly historic speech on race relations. As millions of Americans watched and nodded, he boldly challenged whites and blacks to see the truth in the other's perspective.
Guided by these same cross-cultural instincts, Sen. Obama climbed the ladder of Chicago Democratic politics -- from community organizer to state senator to U.S. senator -- while dodging the tag of "machine-made." We watched in admiration, here in Chicago, as he developed alliances with the old Harold Washington coalition, but also with party stalwarts such as state Sen. Emil Jones. He mostly steered clear of unwise political entanglements, and when he did use poor judgment, he learned from his mistake. The senator no doubt learned to appreciate the enormous importance of transparency in politics when he was dogged by questions about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the political fixer. When he finally sat down with the Sun-Times and answered every question, the Rezko story lost its steam.
Right on the issues
We agree with Sen. Obama on many of the most pressing issues of the day.
He is right when he says America must be open to talking to its adversaries. He is right when he says America must lose the swagger abroad and repair its standing in the world. He is right when he says America must stand with Israel.
Sen. Obama is right in his prescriptions for the economy, though they need expansion and vetting. He is right in his compassionate but fiscally prudent plan -- unlike Sen. McCain's plan -- to help millions of homeowners avoid foreclosure.
And Sen. Obama is right on energy policy. We support his proposals to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by a host of means -- domestic drilling and nuclear energy, to be sure, but also an unprecedented national commitment to developing wind power, solar power and other forms of "clean" energy.
Tested in a marathon
It is a peculiar virtue of a marathon presidential campaign that the ordeal itself becomes a powerful test of who has the right stuff -- and Sen. Obama has won that test hands down.
From the moment he announced his candidacy, on a cold Saturday in Springfield in February 2007, he has demonstrated extraordinary leadership skills, grace under fire, laudable restraint and a sincere respect for the intelligence of the voter. He has surrounded himself with excellence -- imagine such competence moving into the West Wing -- and built what is perhaps the most effective ground organization in the history of presidential campaigns.
Sen. Obama writes his own best speeches. He refuses to play the "gotcha" game. He runs his own campaign -- it does not run him.
He has kept his cool while his opponent runs hot and cold. He shook off the advice from his senior advisers to "go negative" when the polls were more grim, the way President John F. Kennedy coolly rejected the overly bellicose advice of his generals in the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of Sen. John McCain.
Sen. McCain is an American hero. His courage as a prisoner of war and his 26 years on Capitol Hill command our respect. Anybody who happened to notice him struggle to shake hands with moderator Bob Schieffer at the end of the third debate had to be moved.
But somewhere along the line, McCain stopped being McCain. The maverick who always thought for himself turned his thinking over to others. He cared too much about winning.
He reversed his position on major social issues to curry favor with the Republican base. He pulled silly surprises from a hat, such as "suspending" his campaign. Most egregiously for a man of advanced age who knew how important this decision could be, he chose the unqualified Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice president.
Right for the times
Often in America's most difficult days, the nation has been blessed with extraordinary leaders who seemed just right for the times. We have in mind George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The times again demand an extraordinary leader. Our next president will take the oath of office in a country that is at war, heavily in debt, deeply divided and sliding into a recession. He will have to make hard choices -- the money won't be there for all his ambitious plans -- and he will have to work with a Congress so lopsidedly Democratic that it may be veto-proof.
Here in Chicago, we have been watching Barack Obama and sizing him up for some time. We knew him well before he introduced himself to the nation with his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
We saw the strength of character, the steady temperament, the intellect, the compassion, the ability to see through others' eyes.
The very title of Sen. Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, foretold what America will need in the circumstances under which the next president takes office.
Success will require audacity, in all the best meanings of the word: nerve, spunk, grit and, especially, boldness.
And success will require a president and a people ready to embrace hope, in all the best meanings of that word: A conviction that what we want and need can be had.
Barack Obama believes in the audacity of hope. He inspires it in others. He inspires it in us.
Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States of America.
THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.
Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.
The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.
Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.
OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.
Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.
A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.
The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.
Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.
ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.
But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.
Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.
We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.
But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.
ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
COME JANUARY, a new president will take charge of a nation diminished, an America that is far shakier economically, less secure militarily, and less respected internationally than it was eight years before. The nation needs a chief executive who has the temperament and the nerves to shepherd Americans through what promises to be a grueling period — and who has the vision to restore this country to its place of leadership in the world.
Such a leader is at hand. With great enthusiasm, the Globe endorses Senator Barack Obama for president. The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans’ hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening.
Unlike many of his rivals this year of either party, Obama isn’t refighting the political or cultural battles of the 1960s. Instead, he is asking Americans to take responsibility for the nation’s problems now; no one else will take care of them, and the consequences of years of disunity and profligacy should not be visited upon future generations.
Obama shows great faith in the possibility of persuasion overseas and in the ingenuity of the American economy. While intransigent rogue states can’t be finger-wagged into giving up on nuclear weapons, perhaps they can be talked back from the brink. As fossil fuels become scarcer, and the ecological damage more evident, Americans can put up windmills and solar panels and drive more efficient cars.
Encouragingly, Obama has assembled an impressive economic team that understands both the power of the market and the need to discourage recklessness and promote social equity. He would broaden access to health insurance, using a mechanism akin to this state’s Commonwealth Connector. And he offers a tax plan that, in offering modest cuts to most taxpayers and taking back some past cuts for the highest earners, acknowledges the widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.
The question, of course, is whether Obama can make good on his promises under the circumstances. For George W. Bush will leave a woeful legacy. The Iraq war, which was sold to Congress and the public on false pretenses, continues to consume billions upon billions of dollars, even as many of the plotters of Sept. 11 are still at large. In his efforts to cultivate democracy abroad, Bush has hacked away at its roots here: due process, the separation of powers, the conviction that there are some things that government must not do. Waterboarding and secret prisons abroad, warrantless wiretapping at home — these acts belie America’s image of forthrightness, the nation’s greatest asset in world affairs.
Meanwhile, as the planet gets warmer, its top energy consumer has no plan to wean itself from fossil fuels. Healthcare costs are strangling businesses. Real wages have declined for the average worker, even as the cost of food and fuel has skyrocketed. Vague unease about the economy has turned into outright fear as the financial system sank into quicksand and 500-point-plus plunges on the stock market have become a near-daily occurrence. Obama’s opponent, Senator John McCain, would try to solve all these problems by going back to the same Republican set of tools: tough talk abroad, tax cuts for the richest at home. In contrast, Obama’s presidency would benefit from the Illinois senator’s formidable political gifts. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a former community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, Obama debuted on the national political scene with a dazzling speech at the Democratic National Convention four years ago. Since then, every word of his books and his speeches has been closely parsed. Evident from all that scrutiny is a nimble mind, an ever more impressive grasp of policy detail, and an ability to listen to contradictory viewpoints. Obama is clearly a liberal. But when he led the Harvard Law Review, he won praise from conservative thinkers because he genuinely wanted to hear what they had to say.
Obama is hardly immune to political calculation. Though he has positioned himself as a supporter of campaign finance reform, he backed out of the public financing system after his ability to raise jaw-dropping sums over the Internet became apparent. In the general election campaign, he has been slow to admit how much the financial crisis would limit his policy options come January.
Even so, the way Obama has run his campaign has been a marvel of sound management: He laid down principles, put the right people in positions of authority, and spent money strategically. And he has shown a remarkable steadiness. Whether he was far behind Hillary Clinton before the Iowa caucuses or on the verge of locking up the Democratic nomination, whether he was leading or trailing McCain in the general election contest, Obama made the same forward-looking appeal to voters’ best instincts.
As the first black major-party presidential nominee, Obama has strived to make voters comfortable with a ‘‘skinny kid with a funny name.’’ And yet the historical significance of his bid is impossible to ignore. Voters can make no more powerful statement about America’s commitment to inclusion and opportunity than to put forward this man — Barack Hussein Obama, son of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas — as the nation’s representative to the world.
An early Obama campaign slogan declared, ‘‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.’’ His critics deemed such rhetoric too ethereal. Now it seems prescient, as the nation confronts a financial crisis of historic proportions, as well as all the other policy failures and debt-fueled excesses of the last eight years. The United States has to dig itself out. Barack Obama is the one to lead the way.
I've cashed out everything last year to buy christmas gifts and to focus on school. Since chemistry in 3rd year's a joke, I decided to put in a little 40$ to start playing again.
My bankroll has never been that big (I had 1000$ and was playing NL25 when I stopped), but now it is damned tiny, so I've got to rebuild. I went through NL2 in about 4-5 days and I thought I would hopefully rampage NL5 that quick too because it's boring as hell.
I was running at about 20BB/100 when I started running into so much crap. Last 4 days have been horrible and it's so tilting to think that every cooler is making me stay a little longer at that shit limit lol. It's been only 9 days since I deposit but it feels like months.
I will start a blog, i was thinking about it for so long
Well like any other blog...
First of all i m 21 y.o. from Bulgaria.
I play poker for 2 years and i m kinda making a living from it,
the problem is that i cant put big amount of time in it, i overheat all the time...
I play 50k hands for 2 weeks and the next month i just spend the money
I beat 50,100,200 NL for ~5ptbb/100 but i cant play a lot and i have this problem i always spend my bankroll and i have to start from the begining.
If you have an idea to help me please feel free to share it, thanks
Well with this blog i will try to stay more focused on the game and not being such a degenerate, but we will see.. the time will show !
Tonight I'm gonna get fucked up cuz I need to celebrate the fact that I'm back in bidness. My friend is playing at a shit club but atleast I'm getting in for free (HUSTLAAA), ah well, I hope everyone has a nice saturday, PEACE
Came back from school and read some news, came across this. Basically a hedge fund manager's letter of goodbye explaining how messed up this country is, the system and the laws. something different from all the financial mess we all been hearing.
Say what you will about Andrew Lahde, but the man knows how to write a letter.
Last month, the famed-for-betting-against-subprime hedge fund manager shuttered his operations, citing unacceptable levels of counterparty risk.
His goodbye missive is impressive not just for its length, but for its clearly-articulated (and somewhat apocalyptic) closing arguments.
Verbatim:
“Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.
Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.” I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.
There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.
I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.
So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don’t worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer’s company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.
I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life — where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management — with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.
On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.
Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won’t see it included in BP’s, “Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions,” television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM’s similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant — marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let’s stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.
The past 2 days I have played a lot of poker live. It is so much fun! Especially when online is going pretty bad...
Thursday night I played 1/2 SEK, 200bb deep, with a couple of friends. When it comes to friends I dont want to play higher because the swings can be pretty big anyway and its unfortunate if someone looses too much. That night I can honestly say I played great poker and completely pawned at the table. I made hugh calls in big pots with Q high and 3rd pair etc. And the best was that I was completely shure I had them!
Normally I play pretty loose aggressive when it comes to livepoker but that night I loosened up even more playing like 65/50 in a 5-max table. I can say I didnt get much credit for anything! So I didnt try to outplay them with pure aggression and instead I played pretty passive. Since I didnt get many good cards either I guess that was a pretty good decision. But since I could read there souls and I was aggressive when I finally got a hand I ended the day well up!
Yesterday I played a tourney in Uppsala. Finally I found a "pokerclub" that plays pretty regularly. Unfortunally its a legal club so no cashgames are allowed since that would be "danger to the public" (or whatever its called in english, its a legal issue). They play a 300+30 tourney and afterwards there are some S&G. I didnt play that great going out early in the tourney but I took that back in the sidegames.
All in all it was pretty fun! I know I am not a tournamentplayer playing too aggressive in some spots and not knowing when to just wait for hands. But there is still lots of value in that club and I love livepoker so I think I will go there more times!
Well, I had my first losing session in 3 weeks today. Ran shitty, but made a $1000 comeback from lowpoint of -1450 to finish at -437, and I would have actually made money if I ran just even. Here are my charts for today and for last 3 weeks. I am debating getting Holdem Manager because PT3 doesnt support UB yet, and I think it is definitely superior to PT2...anyone have any thoughts on that?
I ran like God for the 3 weeks prior to today. Didnt play much but winrate was pretty good with all that luck. Wish I could keep this winrate up permanently, gotta keep working on my game...as you can see my win w/o sd is pretty bad. Overall up $4388 over 24.4k hands for +5.2BB/100 +8.9 SD and -3.6 noSD. Adjusting for luck its +2.0BB/100, which seems to be pretty close to my true winrate.
Full Tilt Poker Game #8534203691: Table Racel (6 max) - $1/$2 - No Limit Hold'em - 17:41:53 ET - 2008/10/17
Seat 1: desiballer798 ($363.85)
Seat 2: Hero ($533)
Seat 3: TurboFish ($407)
Seat 4: luckyhaba ($212.55)
Seat 5: Lacko78 ($200)
Seat 6: KAbdulJabballer ($203)
Hero posts the small blind of $1
TurboFish posts the big blind of $2
The button is in seat #1
Holecards(Odds) Dealt to Hero
luckyhaba folds
KAbdulJabballer folds
desiballer798 folds
Hero raises to $6
TurboFish raises to $20
Hero has 15 seconds left to act
Hero raises to $60
TurboFish has 15 seconds left to act
TurboFish calls $40
Hero has 15 seconds left to act
Hero bets $408, and is all in
TurboFish calls $282, and is all in
Uncalled bet of $126 returned to Hero
Showdown Hero shows a full house, Aces full of Sixes
TurboFish mucks
Hero wins the pot ($811) with a full house, Aces full of Sixes
TurboFish is sitting out
Summary Total pot $814 | Rake $3
Board:
Seat 1: desiballer798 (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: Hero (small blind) showed and won ($811) with a full house, Aces full of Sixes
Seat 3: TurboFish (big blind) mucked - a full house, Kings full of Sixes
Seat 4: luckyhaba didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: Lacko78 is sitting out
Seat 6: KAbdulJabballer didn't bet (folded)
Yes I played it very unstandard but I tried to show weakness by half potting cuz I showed a monster before fullpotting
hello. i gave poker a shot around 3 years ago, just deposited $50 and played a bit, was down a few dollars and withdrew. about 2 1/2 months ago i decided to give it a more serious shot and deposited $100. i played around a bit with no clue what i was doing and had my bankroll dwindle down to $77. i thought i was on a straight path to busto, and it was at that point i started keeping track of and looking back at my hands and started reading a lot of LP and whatever else i could find, watching videos and reading guides.
i made myself stick with NL2 until i hit $200, which i was finally able to do last week after 2 months and 37k hands. ive been attempting NL10 for the past week with some mixed results. had a very nice run to start with, +10 buyins in the first few days. since then its been pretty swingy and i just lost 6 buyins in the last 24 hours. my confidence is shot right now and i really have no clue what to do or how to win. i think im gonna take a couple days off and review some hands more thoroughly. ive lost 5 out of my last 6 sessions. this is probably standard but its been my toughest stretch so far and my mindset is just really bad right now.
I've taken someones advice and read through some of my old blog posts, which I used to NEVER read the responses to (literally 15-20 blogs without reading one response), and see that I was being constantly flamed for "owing ppl money", etc, to clear it up, my debts to the lp community are fucking tiny. The only person I owe anything significant to is robinson47 who is giving me as much time as i need to pay him (and im going to pay him with 100% interest of what he loaned me)
I also owe jlost88 a few hundo, which i will clarify (one day he lent me $12, i won a $12 180 man sng), we made a deal that i was going to give him 50% of my profits after the month was over or something like that, but after winning the tournament i shipped him back the $12 and started with a roll of 500 from the win. i ended up busting it and haven't gotten him his $ from that yet, yet he knows he will also receive it, and he has made over 100k this year, so its NO big deal at all, to either of us, since we both know he will get it.
hmmm....I owe doomer like $100 left from a $1k loan a long while back that I've paid him off on several occasions, with large portions of my roll when I could have waited til it was a much smaller % of my roll, but i did the right thing. Doomers worth over 100k as well.
so for all of you fucktards out there saying and or thinking im some degenerate scumbag who scams people out of 10 dollars you are fucking sadly mistaken and need to stop listening to dumbshits who only now hearsay.
the only people i "owe" anything to have given me infinite time to pay them back, have never hassled me about it, and to be honest its none of your guys fucking business, and if i hear another word about it im going to fucking find logiabs, pay him $4k to hunt you down and kill you.
I have been struggling on poker for a week now... somehow it feels that I just fail to play my A game. I tilt all the time and play badly even when I don't. I also fail at discipline. For example I just today came home from bar and started to play poker. Nice. It could have been way worse tho, and I finished -1,5 buyins for the whole day. However it is time for decisions now:
1. Either I drink or I play, not both ._.
2. Stop loss at 2 buyins and then no more poker for that day. I need to practise controlling my emotions and when I manage to lose 2 buyins without it affecting me at all I can lift loss limit.
3. For the end of this month, only nl100. Iam well rolled for nl200 and the games are quite soft but I want to get my mojo back. Besides right now I really don't want to have standard -10 buyins at nl200, just wouldn't be able to take it.
4. Not instaleaving tables after losing 1 big pot. It makes no sense to first carefully pick a good table and then leave just because I got bad beated or coolered or made a mistake. Really bad habit.
5. 20k hands 4tabling 100nl this month, then 50k hands at nl200 before christmas holidays (14.12)
Then some life goals, I feel I need those too:
1. I need to stop missing karate practises.
2. 2 times a week to swimming
3. less eating shit and expensive food at shitty and expensive kebab houses tt
Contact Users: 953 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 02:37
- a full house, Kings full of Sixes
,
,
,
,