I find that buying in at the minimum in cash and tournaments gives one a sense of others who do not for their own reasons.

To achieve a confidence of balance?

Playing short stacked, however, at the beginning of tournament there are enough blinds to have several strategies at the beginning to either advance the optimum, or adjust when what has been put forward as the best approach sometimes will not happen.

When to adjust?

Why should I adjust?

How would I adjust?

Is this based on facts or what I want to believe I need to apply?

Is this something I need?

Or is this something I just desire?

Questions one has to ask, otherwise, what is being seen in the moment that made me ask my game, the ego these questions?

I looked at how my game went through stages without using the typical ways of doing, so, after having the thesis as a research referral of how I was thinking away from the table.

Trying to build up models of others of how I see players move, change gears, why in theory they would be doing these adjustments and when, which stage of theory?

For example, is the twenty blinds the trigger, is it later perhaps, ten blinds, this is standard, what types of hands, do they have a tighter range or looser range?

Is this typical for this player to switch, meaning are they switching to a loose range that was once tight?

Did I catch them doing so earlier in the game, by perhaps playing tricky, tendencies of better players?

Worst players that have an agenda of winning, this is what they try, do they have the ability?

Does this fit the target(s) back ground of playing smoothly in this manner as if they have no problem repeating what is comfortable?

Do they go back to what was comfortable in the beginning as to gather more chips, going back to the scene of the crime?

How a person will use range, will use greed when comfortable because of the desire to gather more bets; when people use call ranges, off a three bet, off a four bet, then what is their greed factor?

Do they only flat these situations or go over the top because of having hands to back up the action?

When flatting are they in the range of the same person, thus, giving their greed, the ego of what the call was about then allow for chasing big pots, but by a greed strategy give themselves a chance to get out cheap as possible then on the other side of the coin scooping a big pot?

As I will take the villain role, this so people have a clear look at the information, my desire, would be to have pre-courser of information to then allow a clear look at their exact hand when possible to then back off to range, even further down to what they do not have.

Hedging as many factors of threes, sub scenarios of the first three factors, this off table, individual dynamics.

Image?

Style?

Bet sizing?

Bad bets in comfortable situations as per usual then knowing this is a situation to go up one level, when in other comfortable situations of them having their close to top made hands, or top made hands in these spots by how they get value against second best opponents.

Going down a level in other situations as to let the opponent define by the size of the bet, greed will show when they do the opposite by representing what they do not have, or they will bet comfortable to back up how the ego will gather bets.

When one knows the feeling of the touch of another, one the visual of a touch, the other the feel of the touch; in poker the board texture of touching cards, connecting cards, the feeling of knowing the other is chasing the two touching cards.

A feeling comes over one when one feels this ego sense of knowing the situation above all other analogy that has just taken place, that before this had not, until this point of this statement.

Since I am a hedge player because I play an image by playing five styles, depends on the above statements plus more that are not listed because of the vastness of poker and the length to name what would be important.

However, all is important but flawed existence allows for the plus, minus of what is, since our “A” game is a moving target; then to become better in a session I also need to move my target when appropriate off their flaws to then form them to guess more than they think or know in the eternal(the present).

The feeling of a feel is a hedge that is set up either to get away from or act on depends on them not me because I am not that smart.

Cash games are stack games, I am playing for my stack, your stack has to match my stack, with these moving, fluid, factors; I play TAG with LAG image, play LAG with TAG image, the third factor the formula of ATC, LP,TP this to create clusters of opportunities from playing clusters of hands.


This is to keep my game fluid, with moving parts, make your game static, but the decision is on the player, not me because the pressure in these scenarios is on your game.

Then hedge, is inverting my hand range, by inverting bet sizes by position, then image off table and individual dynamics.

As well as understanding their play by their position off of their personal choices by hand selection, then analyzing their play, factors of, is my game opposite in hand selection and thought about how hands play out?

Are they susceptible to plays of aggression based on my prior actions that should already be in place, otherwise my game will be behind in actions needed for their ego to make the opposite decision.

Then when the biggest part of the formula is not applied by my behavior, energy, and the feel of how I am playing are factors to be in place for maximum pressure or patience.

More patience could happen as to stick to limit style poker, from Lee Jones, this is the very least but affective approach still to stack because of patience.

Why I write as well is to balance out thought, balance out the play of the other, to contrast what is simple, simple about the smallest mistake can be used to balance out the individual.

That is why when I respond I try to take the opposite stance as the person posting will take the affirmative, to give information from an opposite point of view again balance of process.

I will take a losing argument then turn into a winning argument, take a negative approach and turn it into a positive approach, balance, looking to understand both sides.

This is why when I keep posting there is no balance, no rhyme or reason to post, play as I do because of balance. Balance in writing to give arguments to both sides to use both sides against itself, the argument of who is better within the eternal.

Is there ever a empirical right or wrong, is an argument, discussion have an empirical outcome?

Is the discussion always an eternal thought with infinite decisions, in which to create infinite strategies against the discussion?

However, the beauty of this, the vastness of poker, vastness of debate, this is still ruled through thought, pen, and paper, but does technology make us believe the opposite of what is?