After the size of what I posted then looking back what changed well the biggest take away was the formatting of Microsoft Word that has the original and this site which has the information formatted to its own way.

The paper could not have been put with the flaws of the outcome of the esthetic look of my paper in the scope of the site, of the flaws that might have been harder to read, did this put the brain in flux when reading certain sections based on how the information was formatted to the site?

Natural posting because of the outcome now looks planned actually I just did not check the format of such large content.

The love of the natural happenings could not have been planned out, written in advance any better than an outcome of what is before knowing what is.

Funny how things work out or the additional happenings of not knowing what was, to know then becomes reality by just a flaw in how it was formatted, does it make the brain work harder to follow, would one give up instead of reading, or if something worth knowing goes beyond the problems of reading information?

This may lose value based on our thoughts of how something should be presented for comfortability to be worth more than working for something of great value?

Not basing this on my paper, the basis is just how people will view information just to view or working for information either by how the format is viewed or the information to follow?

Is it easy on the eyes?

Here I am not making this comparison with my paper but information that has worth to us each in our own way?

What a person invites into their game will find itself on the table as well?

The invitation then will find itself within the decision making of scenarios, however, do people who only look at how they play their hands afterwards then use later of the latter, will a certain type of analytical thought help consistently, will they even identify this in the same manner?

I understand fully how others use information and it is not hard to leap in the information into their scenarios because always looking back will allow them to walk right into a set up?

A mark on the ego by set up of their own information then being used against the person of interest?

Defining words, scenarios, is this being applied?

Even a thought, after thought, do people become resigned or content within thoughts by how they become defined by their own thoughts or even others thoughts?

People who are content are happy, feeling good, comfortable; their own confidence sets up contentment, but are they comfortable in a way that information can be used against them?

I also have to be cognizant, aware from experience, mindful of danger when at the table.

Having been in situations when a player is resigned to make a decision, however, is being resigned a bad existence?

Only when having either to be the hero, or make decisions based on what player in situations where being content then becomes being resigned by having to make one choice instead of another?

For example, allowing the victim to believe they are the opponent leading into me on the turn because they bet any turn card to steal because of my actions being true to their read on the flop.

A mark on the ego happens here when I three bet in position their bet leading out knowing they are bluffing, this is the rule not the exception based on what is innate in each opponent in this spot.

The victim the latter who was the opponent the former did not understand they were giving out information of their understanding of how to use sequence of my game checking behind on the flop.

They now change to set up their play to now become the victim instead of being the opponent within the same street of the turn, following a read back to the flop on the turn they go from opponent to victim in this sequence?

Honesty, inserting logic, un-inserting the same logic, learning one’s own abilities backwards, and forwards to the point of competence, then moving up to intelligence back and forth between the two is the basis of reading how to con the other’s ego.

This came from the thesis but this part is proved by the experience to consume to become only after being the victim, then becoming the opponent after getting scared learning about this dynamic.

Just practicing this thought process by working this out at the table, having parts of what to remember on my wall, and then putting this all together is this not what we are supposed to do when becoming better at poker?

For me defining words then using them in posts this way then printing out certain aspects for my wall allows extra thought that becomes intelligence in situations such as this one?

It is always up to the opponent to define how they will define their situation counter their punches then land combinations of combination hands against them.

Then knowing when to become the former instead of the latter in moments when it is clear what they do not have?

Repeating parts of this thesis into smaller parts to analyze allows for target growth either to push my game forward or fix my mistakes to then further my game along.