---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by Tommy Angelo (Micro/Small Stakes)

that was a long fortnight of waiting

Fantastic video.

I just scored a big reciprocaly advantage over my oppenents, by being mindfully aware of reciprocality in poker and life?

By EP 8, im gonna convert to buddhism for sure, hehe.

excellent video!

those piano interludes are just fantastic!

Für Elise sounds terrible backwards imo.

I'm a mini mum, sitting still, not moving for hours and keeping quiet while playing 30 hands an hour is just not my world. I believe that you can totally separate your demeanor at the table from what is happening in the hand.

I haven't commented a lot about the poker stuff in the series, but I'm really proud of this episode. Not the laugh content, as this is the one which has the fewest one-liners, but the overall content is stuffed, imho.

This episode also has my only important contribution--folding reciprocality--of which I'm particularly proud. I'm still not sure I was able to get the point out of my mind and into the series. I'm hoping so.

I became a big fan of Tommy's urging us to anticipate, and this is where my little contribution becomes important. If you realize that by folding more than the player who doesn't, you can anticipate the inevitable bad beats using folding reciprocality. You make money when you fold and he doesn't. This is where it comes into its own.

There's just a ton of info in EP4. I still get a lot out of it, even after hearing it a dozen times.

I'll go back to cracking jokes, now. Do what you do best, right?

(Tommy is on vacay this week, so he'll be answering when he returns sometime during the weekend.)

Wayne

great video. really enjoyed it

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I thought the same whilst listening to the betting reciprocality. It's the same problem with the theory of poker, with which you compare it to. In fact if the cards were reversed and i felt villain would make more money playing my hand, I could still feel i 'won' more money in this situation if my play vs his range was more profitable, rather than against just that specific hand.

As contract bridge deals with such unknown information, aren't their similar range issues? Where you make a decision that's the most +EV when considering the potential distributions of the cards in each of the other players' hands?

Tommy, Wayne,

Do u guys think playing bridge is a good way to get a better card sense in general?

there is a local bridge club down my street, I have never played there because there is no cash to be won and never considered it useful, but now I think maybe it would be good to get a better general card sense... your take on this would be great

Thanks

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

That's why Galfond>Sklansky

Very good episode and a useful analytical tool.

The big problem (as far as pure poker decisions go) I suppose is that we are already doing things in what we believe to be the best way (given our skill, knowledge and information) which can make it hard to objectively evaluate the actions of others. Also it may be hard to estimate what someone else would do in a reverse situation, if their thinking is different than ours.

But thinking about it in terms of what I did and what he did definitely will open the mind to other ways of handle situations. Sometimes it is hard to switch lanes when it comes to poker thinking, especially when what you are doing is working 'well enough'.

Evolution, relativity, poker, reciprocality...

Sounds familiar.

Time Link to 00:14:29

Here's a link to the article Tommy was referring to:

http://tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality.htm

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I agree and had a loooong arguement with Tommy about this a few months ago. He kept talking about relative truth and other none constructive stuff. So if u want my advice, it's a complete waste of time to argue with him. His buddhist style probably keeps him happy but it also makes it impossible to question him in any way which is pretty scary and in my mind extremely dishonest.

The way he performs this technique is horrible and a really bad and missleading way to think about poker.

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I'll let Tommy answer this when he comes back. If you haven't figured it out after 4 episodes, I'm never right. However, I'd have to say apples and oranges, unless your talking your range is better than his range, so you have a reciprocal advantage, at which point I'd say "Ahhhhh!"

Wayne

Tommy, Wayne,

Do u guys think playing bridge is a good way to get a better card sense in general?

there is a local bridge club down my street, I have never played there because there is no cash to be won and never considered it useful, but now I think maybe it would be good to get a better general card sense... your take on this would be great

Thanks

I loved bridge and would encourage anyone to learn it, but that's not answering your question. No. Bridge is more difficult to learn than poker and way more all-consuming.

Just look at who plays it. Old ladies. You think this didn't have something to do with them being old ladies? Play bridge. Become an old lady. That's my excuse.

Wayne

The way he performs this technique is horrible and a really bad and missleading way to think about poker.

Wow. So that's why I lose every argument, well, except for the one about Freebird. I thought I was just stupid. But that would be only me, surely no one else. I never knew he could TRICK me!

Wayne

Tom/Wayne,

On reciprocality

Have you considered self-reciprocality - measuring your actions vs your own previous actions.
e.g. A-game measured against previous A-game play
or A-game vs C-game
or C-game vs C-game

How would you view reciprocality as a prism for measurement of improvement?

A separate but perhaps not distinct point.

How do you know that you have a level of competence in measuring a given circumstance through a prism of reciprocality? i.e. how do you avoid self-delusion where you say well in fact I would be profiting here but because you have not accurately measured the pool/range of possible responses accurately you might just be = or losing.

Thanks again.

Enjoyed this video.

Wow. So that's why I lose every argument, well, except for the one about Freebird. I thought I was just stupid. But that would be only me, surely no one else. I never knew he could TRICK me!

Wayne

U are not stupid Hr Wayne. U just lack a little confidence. Each morning I suggest u take some time in front of the mirror. Stand up straight, breath calmly and repeat ten times: "Tommy is just a man".

Hey Tommy!

This post really got very very long, I'm actually surprised myself
So maybe you want to get yourself a coffee and food for three days before you start reading

I'm a big fan of your series, cause it's maybe the one that will help me the most, cause I'm just a huuuuge tilter.
If someone would say that I am my worst poker enemy he would be totally right.

Normally I'm a pretty calm guy (very emotional though, but mindfull emotional) I help solving arguments, don't have huge arguments that often, I'm pretty much good friend with everybody (as far as this is possible ), but when it comes to poker and computer games in general I'm just very prone to tilting since I was a little child hammering on my keyboard because I lost some stupid little game.

It's really not funny and I suffer a lot from it, not only in the poker world were I lose a ton of money because of it, but also in real life, cause I scream and shout through the whole house, which annoys the persons around me (esp my mother, cause I live at home) and destroyed my mouse several times and also a keyboard, a headset and a pokerstars stress-star (lol, cheap crap).
I'm ashamed for this everytime again but I can't stop it.

I tried so many things, watched psychology vids on another site (which were not even close to as good as your series), bought a psychology book, read a ton about this topic in several forums/blogs and worked with your series, but it just doesn't get that much better.
There is a little little little bit of an improvement, but I'm far away from my first and most important goal, which is stop annoying other people around me (second goal would be to stop annoying myself).

For example today I played for a while, being pretty calm and tiltless (there were a few situations where I was tiltet a bit, but I was able to manage them pretty well) and than suddenly I drop like 3 stacks or whatever amount in a few hands which destroys my session totally (I know this is wrong view, but I just think that way in that moment).
I played and played and made good decisions but now it was all for nothing, I even lost some money (again wrong view, but I can't turn it off). And this huge fish just played terribly wrong and it was the worst card in the deck that came on the turn and pokerstars is such a ****** software and rigged and blablabla... wrong view over wrong view over wrong view.
I try to overcome this, but it just seems impossible to me if those things that tilt me happen so fast in a row. I'm basically not done with the first tilt activator and then the next thing happens and it just builds up on each other.
To make it visual: I'm on 0 on the tilt scale, after a beat I get on 50 "degree tilt", I breath in and out, in and out, try to do all the things I learned from you and it gets better and I move down to 20 degree tilt.
But then another thing happens: BOOM, oh no, not again! This time it tilts me even more, so together with the 20 degree tilt I'm now on 100!
Ok, calm down, calm down, BUT... now it's just far more difficult to get down on the tilt scale, cause my mind is shutting down more and more, I just get slowly down to 70 degree tilt and how it goes, if there were two tilt activators the third isn't far away (this might even be a thing I don't care about if it happens if I'm at 0 degree tilt) and suddenly I'm on 180 and in my evolution back to the stone age. Ugga Ugga destroy mouse, now keyboard, let out brute screams Ugga Ugga!! I'm basically a tilt monkey now, totally mindless.
I try to get back to normal, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out but it doesn't help anymore no matter how often I do it.
I just need to let my aggression go out somehow, which results in those destroyed things, the persons around me being annoyed and me being ashamed and having lost some money.
But what can I do against this?
How can I reduce my "tilt degrees" faster?
How can I get back to mindfull in 180 situations where the breathing thing doesn't work?

Maybe this is a problem of me being alone infront of my computer, because if somebody is watching me play (standing/sitting next to me or sweating through the internet while talking through skype or whatever) I'm faaaar less likely to tilt.
Actually I don't tilt at all if somebody is standing next to me (maybe because it wasn't the case that often and just in some good sessions) and not that often if someone is watching through the internet.
It also helps to make a video while playing (but this is less effective than having somebody else to talk to).
Is this because I just stay more mindfull in those situations?
And how can I take those benefits into daily grind, where I just can't have somebody next to me all the time?
Why can't I control my emotions while being alone whereas I can control them if someone is around?
How can I practice to control them while being alone?

Maybe I should quit immediatly everytime I get a bad beat/cooler or whatever is tilting me?
But thats no solution forever, cause it would result in many very short sessions, which would reduce my winrate (cause I couldn't wait for the blinds to come along, cause in those hands there might be another tilt activator), I would have to leave all the tables which I choose in a time costing selection and the next session I would have to table select again.

And I want to overcome tilt and not let tilt dictate me how to play poker!

The most important thing for me at the moment is to stop influencing other persons lifes, which I think totally sucks, cause I can imagine how angry I would be if someone screams through the house while I try to sleep a bit after lunch.

I don't want to quit poker, cause I love the game, I have fun playing it (most of the time, obv not if I'm on tilt), I have invested so much time learning the game and getting better and the money is a very good bonus, but if I continue to tilt that hard there is basically no other way.

Hopefully I described my situation well enough to get some good advice and hopefully it didn't bore you too much.

Thomas

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

The crux of what I think he is saying is that if you make a single poker decision in the EXACT same situation over a million hands and add up the sum of how much money was won or lost and then compare the same result to how your opponent did if he or she made a single, DIFFERENT decision, if your sum is greater than his or hers, you win.

This can be hard to visualize because EVERY factor must be equal EXCEPT for the decision. This means stack sizes must be the same, the opponent(s) must be the same, your images must be the same, your hole cards must be the same, and even minute details like how you breath (live) or how long you click bet/raise/check (online) must be the same. In practice, you can't actually test for this - it's a concept. But, it's not terribly difficult to conjecture. I've been in many situations live and online where I make a decision that I know is +EV and making me money that I know my opponents would not make in the same decision in situation and I know I am winning.

You can't take just one hand example because it doesn't take bad beats, ranges, or luck into account.

Time Link to 01:05:43

Randomly snapped this pic this on my Motorola Razor about 4 years ago. I call it "In the Shadow of the Guru."

Tommy,
Can you please put out a piano only CD?

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I believe that the answer to your question is yes. We should always be thinking in terms of ranges.

In episode 4, when I gave an example of the type you described, I was pretending that I was talking to someone who had never heard of, or thought of, the tool I call reciprocal analysis. I chose the simplest possible example I could think of. I did not consciously omit the concept of ranges. I just went with an example I've been using for years because it's familiar to me, and it has served well in the past at getting the concept across quickly and accurately.

Now I've had a chance to think about adding range-thinking to the example, or some other example.

I believe it's possible that introducing the concept of ranges to an example that is someone's first-ever exposure to RA could make the example less effective in two ways. 1) It might distract the listener into thoughts about ranges 2) Some people don't think in terms of ranges, and those people might be totally thrown off the intended new concept by the introduction of a second new concept.

That said, I would VERY MUCH like to have an example of reciprocal analysis in my pocket that DOES include ranges, for when such an example would be more effective and/or appropriate than my usual one.

Care to make one up? Pretend you are talking to someone who knows about RA, and about ranges, and they say, "Give me an example of RA that includes ranges."

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

As to "a bit misleading," I guess the questions I want to ask you are: 1) Did the example make it clear in your mind what RA is? 2) Were you misled?

If your answers are yes and no, then I would say that in your case, the example worked as intended.

I can see that it's possible that someone could listen to the example hand in episode 4 and think, "Hey, he didn't say anything about ranges, so he must be condoning an overall way of thinking that does not include ranges." If that is what you had in mind when you wrote "a bit misleading," then please let me know. If it is, then I would call in collateral damage. At this time I still think it's better to keep the example as stripped down and as short as possible. But I could be persuaded otherwise, depending on the example that includes the word "ranges."

Now, if you think the lack of ranges in the example is misleading in terms of getting the basic concept of RA across to the listener, then that is something I definitely want to attend to. So please let me know more about what you had in mind with "a bit misleading." Thank you.

Tommy

I was really happy to read the above post Tommy. It sounds to me like u have taken the criticism to heart and u are giving a perfectly sensible answer this time. U def have changed to the "right view" now ! This is great because I don't have to pick on u anymore !

Tommy, Wayne,

Do u guys think playing bridge is a good way to get a better card sense in general?

there is a local bridge club down my street, I have never played there because there is no cash to be won and never considered it useful, but now I think maybe it would be good to get a better general card sense... your take on this would be great

Thanks

Learning how to play bridge is like learning how to play the violin. You know it's going to be ugly for quite a while. I do think that if you get heavily into bridge for a few years, you'll be a better card player for it. But you really have to get insanely hooked on bridge in order to play it enough so that you learn how to not make screechy sounds. And at the point, poker is no longer the reason you play bridge, so it all sorts itself out.

Tommy

Tom/Wayne,

On reciprocality

Have you considered self-reciprocality - measuring your actions vs your own previous actions.

Yes.

e.g. A-game measured against previous A-game play
or A-game vs C-game
or C-game vs C-game

How would you view reciprocality as a prism for measurement of improvement?

The very end of episode 4 is about what you called self-reciprocality, but more in a life sense than in an A-game/B-game/C-game sense. Same thing though. And a very good point I think, to include the A-B-C's.

A separate but perhaps not distinct point.

How do you know that you have a level of competence in measuring a given circumstance through a prism of reciprocality? i.e.

You don't.

how do you avoid self-delusion

You just keep wrapping yourself in as much awareness as you can.

Tommy

U def have changed to the "right view" now ! This is great because I don't have to pick on u anymore !

:-)

Tommy,
Can you please put out a piano only CD?

A real CD? That's not on the project queue. Free mp3's of the stuff I recorded for EPTPE will probably surface in the fall.

To make it visual: I'm on 0 on the tilt scale, after a beat I get on 50 "degree tilt", I breath in and out, in and out, try to do all the things I learned from you and it gets better and I move down to 20 degree tilt.
But then another thing happens: BOOM, oh no, not again! This time it tilts me even more, so together with the 20 degree tilt I'm now on 100!
Ok, calm down, calm down, BUT... now it's just far more difficult to get down on the tilt scale, cause my mind is shutting down more and more, I just get slowly down to 70 degree tilt and how it goes, if there were two tilt activators the third isn't far away (this might even be a thing I don't care about if it happens if I'm at 0 degree tilt) and suddenly I'm on 180 and in my evolution back to the stone age. Ugga Ugga destroy mouse, now keyboard, let out brute screams Ugga Ugga!! I'm basically a tilt monkey now, totally mindless.

That you can write this out means you’re halfway home.

I try to get back to normal, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out but it doesn't help anymore no matter how often I do it.
I just need to let my aggression go out somehow, which results in those destroyed things, the persons around me being annoyed and me being ashamed and having lost some money.
But what can I do against this?

Quit.

That is, assuming that you are taking lots of breaks. If you aren’t taking breaks, then do that. And then quit long before you’re a wreck, at no later than 50% tilt in your usual downward spiral. To get some ideas about how to practice quitting, watch episode 5.

If you are taking good breaks and doing breathing on breaks and doing lots of sitting up and breathing while you are playing, and you are still on monkey tilt, then you’ve done all you can do. Your only choices now are to quit, or rate to lose a bunch of money and feel like crap.

How can I reduce my "tilt degrees" faster?

There’s a saying that goes something like, “You can’t make a rose grow faster by pulling on it.”

Think of how insane your monkey tilt is. Does that seem like something you can just fix all of a sudden? The good news, it’s very simple to fix it gradually. But it ain’t easy. If it was, there’d be a lot less tilting.

Tommy

I was always in a constant battle of aiming for a certain style: Lag..tag... and my HUD wasn't helping me because it would show me how I was playing.
So i was playing a 23/19 and said: man, thats tight, I have to play loose and I did that, not even caring that much about tables conditions but just doing it

Now I don't care about a style anymore. Because of this episode i realise "if everybody is playing tight, you should play loose" isn't really that important. Not everybody is playing tight, not everybody is playing loose at a table of 6 players.

It's a mix of players and you can actually make 2 groups: Bad players and good players. I rather belong to the group of good players no matter what my stats are aslong as I am making money while finding out how I could exploite every player on the table.

Really a great episode and thats for this realisation

Is another re.. something (still can't type it): Everybody is multi-tabling so I get an edge by playing way less then most?

As to "a bit misleading," I guess the questions I want to ask you are: 1) Did the example make it clear in your mind what RA is? 2) Were you misled?

If your answers are yes and no, then I would say that in your case, the example worked as intended.

I can see that it's possible that someone could listen to the example hand in episode 4 and think, "Hey, he didn't say anything about ranges, so he must be condoning an overall way of thinking that does not include ranges." If that is what you had in mind when you wrote "a bit misleading," then please let me know. If it is, then I would call in collateral damage. At this time I still think it's better to keep the example as stripped down and as short as possible. But I could be persuaded otherwise, depending on the example that includes the word "ranges."

Now, if you think the lack of ranges in the example is misleading in terms of getting the basic concept of RA across to the listener, then that is something I definitely want to attend to. So please let me know more about what you had in mind with "a bit misleading." Thank you.

Tommy

Hey,

Thanks for an awesome post. I don't think it's misleading in a way that would make it harder to understand the basic concept of reprocicality, not at all. Simple examples like that make the concept quite easy to understand. But on the other hand, the final result of the reprocical analysis, ie "is folding kings good here" or something along those lines, might be very wrong if you don't do it with ranges. Players might be misled into thinking their nitty folds are good, etc.

Should've explained it more clearly in my first post, but I was in a bit of a hurry then.

Another potential problem with reprocical analysis IMO is that it's very easy to skew it to your advantage, since it's so hard to be truly objective about your play.

Is another re.. something (still can't type it): Everybody is multi-tabling so I get an edge by playing way less then most?

Yes.

Another potential problem with reprocical analysis IMO is that it's very easy to skew it to your advantage, since it's so hard to be truly objective about your play.

True. No matter what sort of self-analysis we do, there is always risk of distortion because "it's so hard to be truly objective about your play." I wouldn't say that skewing-to-our-advantage is a problem with reciprocal analysis in particular. It's just a problem with analysis in general.

Self-delusion is for everyone.

Except me.

Thanks for responding Tommy.

I am 35 years old and whilst I continually try to keep myself open to new ideas - I am not often suprised.

Your videos series is refreshingly suprising.

That in itself is valuable to me. Perhaps more than anything else.

amazing vid... one of the best so far... greatly needed after last nights session.. i was getting bad beats left and right and eventually tilted which led to berating .. which led to not playing my 'a' game.. and just an overall feeling of not being satisfied or proud of my session or myself...

these vids are just a great reminder of how tiltlessness is a path and not a destination...

also, when you guys mentioned playing loose when the tbls tight etc. it reminded me of what Miles Davis once said...

" when they play fast you play slow... when they play slow you play fast"..

thanks again...

I went to the local bridge card club... it was a scary experience!

Tommy, wouldn't you say there's quite a fine line between anticipating a bad beat and not having the right view?

Let's say you get sucked out on a couple of times by a lower pocket pair getting it all in preflop. The next time you're aces run into queens preflop, you almost expect to see a queen on the flop, "as it always comes". That's definately not the right state of mind, but I found myself lots of times in this position. Weirdly expecting for an opponent to hit just to confirm my theories, that I'm running bad in that particular week or whatever.

Tommy, wouldn't you say there's quite a fine line between anticipating a bad beat and not having the right view?

Let's say you get sucked out on a couple of times by a lower pocket pair getting it all in preflop. The next time you're aces run into queens preflop, you almost expect to see a queen on the flop, "as it always comes". That's definately not the right state of mind, but I found myself lots of times in this position. Weirdly expecting for an opponent to hit just to confirm my theories, that I'm running bad in that particular week or whatever.

The kind of anticipation of a bad beat that you described is definitely wrong view. Very, very wrong. In the discussion in episode 4 about folding reciprocality, the type of anticipation we were talking about was the kind you do at home, not at the table. To make the example extra simple: If you usually have a good hand when you are putting money in the pot, and your opponents usually don't, then you are going to suffer a lot of bad beats. Awareness of and acceptance of this fact is something you could think of as homework. You work on this over and over when you aren't playing, so that when you are, and the beats come, they will be less likely to tilt you.

Tommy

Was re-listening to this episode in the car and have to say that the version of Heart and Soul played at the end is such an amazingly uplifting piece of piano...thanks Tommy, instant feel-good.

Love the piano in this episode and the content, 1st class as usual.

Hmm. I've been enjoying the series up until now. I started to watch this video, trying to relax and forget about my sinus infection making me feel miserable by focusing on something else for a while. What does it tell me to do? Focus on my breathing. Grr. I am mindful that I am angry about that. No, it is not helping. Life tilt ensues. I better watch something else for now or I might become the first person to smash my computer because I life tilted while watching a Tommy Angelo video.

Edit: Is this right quitting? LOL, haven't gotten that far. <= somehow that helped

Hmm. I've been enjoying the series up until now. I started to watch this video, trying to relax and forget about my sinus infection making me feel miserable by focusing on something else for a while. What does it tell me to do? Focus on my breathing. Grr. I am mindful that I am angry about that. No, it is not helping. Life tilt ensues. I better watch something else for now or I might become the first person to smash my computer because I life tilted while watching a Tommy Angelo video.

Edit: Is this right quitting? LOL, haven't gotten that far. <= somehow that helped

RakeFactoryIMO,

I just blogged about your post. Your reply is here:

LIFE TILT ENSUES

OMG, ty for that video... Maybe watched it a year too late, but better than never...

Time Link to 00:59:03

ok this sounds great and all, but I can't help but feeling that if I begin to anticipate bad beats than I might play a different way, in that I don't want a bad beat to come if i can anticipate it so I might bet less with KK or something like that which is not optimal. So for me anticipating a bad beat would not be profitable for me.

This is one of the greatest material I have ever seen, not only poker-wise. I can feel all the wisdom coming out Tommy's words. One thing I didn't like tho: Wyne Lively is way too annoying.

ps: Sorry Wayne, but I had to say it.

This is one of the greatest material I have ever seen, not only poker-wise. I can feel all the wisdom coming out Tommy's words. One thing I didn't like tho: Wyne Lively is way too annoying.

ps: Sorry Wayne, but I had to say it.

Putting aside the fact that I totally disagree, saying someone is annoying is not very helpful feedback. Maybe you could explain what it is that bothered you about Wayne in this video.

Oh, I think I exaggerated a little bit. It's just that I felt his jokes somewhat distracting of the main theme of the vid.

Time Link to 00:22:44

First off great VID.

This is my first comment so pardon my englisch (im dutch)
But isn't reciprocality something you constanly search for in every game aspect of poker finding edges over your opponent (TREESS;-)) because when you evaluat each situation where you gain EV and your opponent (tree) wont. Is this what seperate a good player from a better player. Lets say the more reciprocalitynish someone has ore willing the learn the more edge he/she has over someone else who has lesser or is not so into reciprocalitynish??

And for the critics you try dutch:-P

Hi Tommy and Wayne,

First off Wayne, you were anything but annoying man. You were just great dude and I really mean that.

This is my second run through this totally wonderful series and wanted to share something with you. I was biking through some of the beautiful scenery we have here in Ontario on the weekend and had this episode on my phone as I was riding. Tommy, your great piano play at the end was just so uplifting I can't say enough about it. As I came through the forest onto a clearing in front of a huge lake and continued on over the long pavement bridge to get across, it felt like I was floating through the air, filling my lungs and enjoying the scenery while listening to and really digging this great music. It was an experience I'll remember in my mind for a long, long time .

I also wanted to share a hand I played in a $1-2 NL Holdem game the next day at Casino Niagra. I was playing in a game which turned pretty tight towards the end of my usual once a week, eight hours of playing. I was pretty tired, was about even, and felt that since I'd be leaving soon I won't bother changing tables for the third time. Anyways, although the game was pretty tight I noticed about every second player on average was raising their button. This one hand I was in early position and got dealt...you guessed it...pocket aces. Immediately, I thought to myself 'now what can I do to play this hand with the concept of Reciprocality as a basis'. I'll also add that I'm well read in the David Sklansky stuff and remembered him saying to occasionally limp with aces in early position. So guess what? Rather than raising from early position and watching them all fold, I limped. When the player on my left called I then immediately thought to myself ' oh no, now watch them all limp in ". But no, everyone folded to the button after that who raised to $12. I got my wish and immediately re-raised to $40. The player on my left folded and the button called. Now since he called and considering how tight this table was I put him on a premium pocket pair and not AK although I would have loved a shove at that point obviously.

The flop came 10 3 8. With a flush draw and possible straight draw on the board I bet out $60. He min-raiised to $120. Having started the hand with about $190 I shoved. He called, turned over pocket queens and I won his entire stack of about $180. Nice young kid who handled it very well. I later thought to myself although the hand was good for me I think it was good for this kid too. It'll add to his experience in the long run which is important imho.

There was one other hand where I called a raise in the cutoff with 10,7. I was splashing around a bit at this tight table and got paid off again when my flush hit on the turn beating the original raiser out of another $120 who had flopped a set. To be nice, after that I folded everything for about 1-1/2 orbits before calling it a night.

The lesson is 'Reciprocality, It's a great thing!'

I would like to thank both those who found me annoying and those who didn't. Not often one can please both sides. I'm still very proud of the work Tommy did, and not that embarrassed about my own contributions. It's a good thing to contribute something to the Universe. I'm very glad I was along for the ride.

Time Link to 00:14:31

here