Mason or anyone...

Would you give a review on , Psychology of Poker - Allan Schoonmaker ?


Curious to hear some thoughts on this book before I purchase it. Thanks ! Mark M.

I know Schoonmaker reads these forums, so before I go into my negative review: Alan, I'm not being mean-spirited nor do I have an agenda. Just my honest review:


I thought this book was a waste of money and it is the ONLY poker book I've purchased that I have returned.


I just found that it wasn't very useful. It went into a lot of detail about how to determine how loose-tight passive-aggressive you are. It spends a lot of time painstakingly explaining that tight-aggressive is the best way to play. Then it goes into how you can adjust your game so that you are more tight-aggressive. If you are already tight aggressive, it talks about the problems you can run into and how to adjust when players are adjusting properly to your tight-aggression.


You can take a quiz and then look at a chart to see how you stack up on the tight-aggressive loose-passive scale. This is totally useless in my opinion.


Overall, it's pretty straightforward and what is says is common sense. I personally don't think it should take 200 pages to state the obvious.


The title is misleading because it doesn't deal with the psychology of your opponents and how to read them or get into their heads. It should be called "Poker playing styles" or something. For info on psychological warfare, which is probably what you are REALLY looking for, you should read Caro's Book of Tells, which focuses on how to read them, but not necessarily how to manipulate them.


If you don't know what tight-aggressive means or you know that you are a calling station, this book MIGHT help you understand how to categorize your opponents and help you figure out a way to become more tight-aggressive.


But I think you have to be pretty clueless to benefit from this book.


natedogg

Thanks for an honest and informative review. How would you rate John Feeney's, Inside the Poker Mind , if you've read it ?


Mark M.

As far as Schoonmaker's book I disagree with natedogg, in one respect. I think that the book is very useful if you are relatively new to poker, and may not have any idea about these various styles. This is mostly for low limit players, and Schoonmaker is a low limit player according to the book. I have a few friends who are low limit players and who could learn a lot from it, in fact I bought it for one friend of mine and have no doubt that it will help his game. if you are an experienced player the book has less to offer but I think it will be very helpful to some players who are low limit and who may not think about what the best strategy is to beat certain player types.


Feeney's book is one of the better poker books I have read, in a general sense. If you have not read it I would highly recommend it. There has been some discussion of the book on this site before. It is an excellent first look into the middle limits for players who are experienced winners at lower limits. even for middle limit players it has much to offer. For advanced players it is probably not that helpful since you will already know much of the info in the book.


Pat

Pat has this about right. The Schoonmaker book is targeted for players who are still relatively new to poker. The Feeney book is targeted mostly for hold 'em players who are winning a little but wish to move to a higher limit and win more.

I pretty much agree with Natedogg. I only glanced at this book but even a glance is enought to tell you this book has very little value. Everyone I have talked to agrees. I am honestly surprised that S&M would have anything to do with this book. Schoonmaker has also posted a couple times on this forum and basically has just stated unproven simplistic dogma. When a group of us challenged him, he just disappeared.


John Feeney's book on the other hand is quite another matter and near the top of the list. Likewise, Feeneys posts on this forum are always well thought out, well written and balanced with perspective. I have had some rewarding exchanges with Feeney. Get this book for sure.


The Schoonmaker book is highly unrecommended from all accounts. I strongly recommend ALL the poker literature written by S&M, other than this book.

Inside the Poker Mind is really good. The section titled "Strategic Thinking in Hold'em" is fantastic. This book is definitely worth keeping and it's worth the purchase price.


However, it holds the distinction of having the worst poker essay ever written titled "A Poker Player in Therapy". It was so corny, dumb, and utterly useless that I felt embarassed just reading it. You'll find it in the fourth section "Poker and Emotion". As a whole the section is pretty useless. Don't go on tilt. Duh. Feeney elaborates a bit but that's the general idea.


However, I suppose some players need that one hammered in pretty forcefully.


Overall, I give the book an "A" carried on the strength of sections 2 and 3.


natedogg

Inside the Poker Mind is an excellent book if you are a Hold Em player. It is very well written and not too dry. I highly recommend it.


mg

Referring to Schoonmaker's book, "if you are an experienced player the book has less to offer but I think it will be very helpful to some players who are low limit and who may not think about what the best strategy is to beat certain player types. "


This is absolutely true. This book is great for those who haven't thought that much about player's styles and what that means to you when you play against them. Another useful thing you can get out of this book comes when you play against the same players on a regular basis - this book helps you learn how to beat certain player types. This book helps newer players learn about how someone's underlying normal way of conducting themselves in life often shows through to the way they play at the table. I would recommend it highly for all new players, and inexperienced low limit players.


Feeney's book is one of the better books I have read. However, I have to disagree with this statement you made


"For advanced players it is probably not that helpful since you will already know much of the info in the book. "


I think that anyone who hasn't read it will get something useful out of it. There is much covered that isn't in any other books, and I have read a majority of the good ones (more than 35, including everything available on this website).


Dave in Cali

I do not recommend Schoonmaker's book either but I highly recommend Gary Carson's. Look for it in www.garycarson.com. Carson's book is one of the best that I have ever read. And I've read all of them!

HMMM...


Could the "GC" in GCRPG stand for Gary Carson??? I wonder...


I must say that it was special of you to highly recommend your own book....


-----Jeff in Mass

Gary's more clever than this.


z

The "Poker player in therapy" is very amusing because it is the therapist that appears to need therapy. But John Feeney's book is a very good book overall and I highly recommend it. It's Schoonmakers's book that I have a problem with. His four player types classifications is too narrow. And would u believe that its all the book is all about?

Nate -- Allow me, sir, to review your review. Lucid and informative in its critique of sections 2 and 3 of IPM, it struggles, and ultimately misses in the attempt to capture the combination of richness and practical utility of the "Poker and Emotion" section in general, and the "A Poker Player in Therapy" essay in particular. This section, hailed by many as the best thing since Velcro may nevertheless not be everyone's cup of tea. Still, it should be noted that one of the "Young Turks" who used to post here (not scott) shared with me that the essay "A Poker Player in Therapy" was for him the most informative in the book. If I may modestly say so, this gives that essay the <blink>***</blink>Ivy League stamp of approval<blink>***</blink>. (Well, maybe not "official" Ivy League, but we're talking about an institution of equal or greater caliber, okay?) Dare I say that when reading a therapy transcript - even a fictitious one - it is sometimes our own unconscious which rebels as threats, deeply hidden, are nudged by the text from their heretofore comfortable slumber. Also, typically, guys just don't like the idea of therapy, ya know? But we agree it's not the finest poker essay ever written. Had you rated it the seventh best ever written we would agree completely.


I give your review an "A", on the strength of the discussion of sections 2 and 3.

n/t

O.k. you highly recommend therapy to all poker players. But since each player is different in personality, and in their levels of emotional maturity and stability, how do you determine who needs it more?


Clearly, people like Svedri, SmoothB and Rounder need therapy. But how about the average Joe like myself? How do I determine whether or not I should continue going to therapy?


And how about those who don't currently go to therapy? Should they go anyway even if it seems that they already are emotionally mature and stable? It seems to me like this is a kind of thing that one can never be objective about.


What is your professional opinion on this issue?

"O.k. you highly recommend therapy to all poker players."


First I should clarify that I didn't actually make such a recommendation in my book. I may have suggested that it could benefit most anyone, but I stated something to the effect that I did not actually feel it should be necessary for most players to enter therapy to deal with their tilt problems. (See, for instance, the second to last paragraph before the therapy exchange.) But a lot of folks, including one reviewer on the net, seem to have read my comments as urging all players to undergo therapy. I suppose it was my error in not spelling out my points more clearly. The bottom line, from my perspective, is that therapy, much like, say, yoga, can benefit most anyone, but is generally only "necessary" when the pain from certain problems becomes too great.


"Clearly, people like Svedri, SmoothB and Rounder need therapy."


Sredni needs no therapy, only a good dish of great pole-cat ferret chow.


"How do I determine whether or not I should continue going to therapy?"


If you're in therapy, determining when to terminate can be tricky. For example, the client may wish to terminate because of a less than conscious desire to avoid some issue which is beginning to emerge. On the other hand his thoughts of termination may be perfectly healthy and timely. There is no absolute answer. It depends in part on your goals for the therapy. With a good therapist, though, a joint assessment of the question should arise and proceed somewhat naturally. Sorry that's kind of vague. It's a big issue to which many professional articles and large sections of books are devoted. Also, I'm no expert on it, am not practicing, and in any case, hesitate to approach any more closely the territory of dispensing psychological advice in this venue.


"And how about those who don't currently go to therapy? Should they go anyway even if it seems that they already are emotionally mature and stable? It seems to me like this is a kind of thing that one can never be objective about."


You're right. It's a judgement call. It depends on what you want to do with your life, what sort of discomfort, if any, you're experiencing, and so on. Certainly an individual's decision concerning entering therapy is often heavily influenced by personality. Anyone thinking of entering therapy should know, as well, that it may at times stir up painful feelings for extended periods of time which otherwise could have remained buried indefinitely. But if it's well conducted, and you persist in resolving the issues involved, you will in all likelihood feel it to have been well worth it in the end.


Finally, I might add that many of my comments are not based on the kind of mathematical or experimental rigor some 2+2'ers might prefer. But the whole therapy field is, I'm afraid, a bit fuzzy, despite much research. Still, there's that thing about the baby and the bath water...

John,


I bought your book a few months ago and really enjoyed it. I thought it was one of the best poker books that I have ever read, and I've read quite a few.


My question involves that old controversy of math vs. other poker skills. Now, I know that it is of course best to have both of everything, and that at the minimum you must have at least a basic grasp on each to be a successful player, but I wanted to ask for your quick opinion as your book doesn't seem to go into math and pot odds much.


I must admit that I have always been a "math challenged" type; you know, A's at English in school, C's and worse in math, etc. For some reason my brain does not do very well at numbers, who knows why. A lot of people here say, "oh it is so simple to calculate pot odds, keep track of the number of small bets, know your outs, etc." I have no doubt that for them this is true, but for many like me it is not this easy, and never will be no matter how much we practice. I do think that this can be compensated for by being stronger in other areas of skill at the poker table. Do you think one can still be an effective player if they do not know the precise pot odds on the turn in a heavily raised pot, for example, but know that "the pot is big, so it's worth a call." It seems to me this could be enough (approximate and intuitive knowledge of pot odds/outs, without calculating the precise figures in the heat of play). Especially if one is strong in strategic areas and reading hands, etc. What do you think? I realize that it is of course better to be able to calculate the precise pot odds, etc. at all times, but some of us simply are not able to do that precisely. How much does this matter if we know the odds approximately but not specificially? I often wonder if all of "the best" players out there know the precise and exact pot odds at all times, especially when I read things like Phil Hellmuth Jr. saying that he has never read a poker book. Of course I assume someone as great as he always knows to the precise decimal, but lesser but still very good players, couldn't they still succeed in the with less than perfect mathematical skills if they were, for example, excellent readers? Thanks for your comments and once again I really enjoy your book. -Tim

Thanks for the nice comments Tim. Your question could easily merit much discussion, but I'll to keep it simple and manageable.


Let's look first at the question of keeping track of pot odds versus odds of making a hand. I am sure you will be able to dispense with this problem fairly quickly if you don't let it overwhelm you. First, just memorize the (rounded off) odds on the flop and the turn of making various hands. (e.g. in hold'em, for a flush draw, it will be 4-1 on both the flop and turn) You do this for every number of outs from one to, say, nine. The rest are going to be worth a call in a limit game in just about all cases. So, for example you know that 6 outs is 7-1, 7 outs is 6-1, and so on.. You can also memorize the odds with two cards to come (e.g., 6 outs is 3-1...), but in a limit game these are less often necessary. To calculate these initially, I think you can find the very simple math in _Getting the Best of It_.


Next there's keeping track of pot size. Three players limp ahead of you, you raise, blinds fold, they call. They check to you on 3, the first player check-raises, one player in between calls and you call. Now the first guy bets on 4 and the second guy calls. It's up to you. Even if you haven't kept track up to that point (and I admit I often haven't), you can just take a few moments to think back and literally count bets. Call time and recall: preflop, 3 players + you = 4. It was raised, so 4*2=8. Add the big blind and that's 9. On the flop it was 3 players*2=6. 9+6=15. On the turn it was 2+2=4 more bets, so a total of 15+4=19 small or 9.5 big bets when it gets to you. So you're getting 19-2 or 9.5 -1 pot odds. (Big enough to call with 5 good outs, maybe marginally big enough to call with a gut draw when you factor in implied odds...) Note that I ignored the small blind. That level of precision is, IMO, unnecessary, even in games where most of it doesn't go down the rake box.


Of course you don't even need to do the little multiplication and addition problems in your head. It may be easier just to count by ones, twos, etc.: 2,4,6,8,9, 11,13,15, 17,19, and there you are. Whatever works for you. You can also try converting it all to big bets from the outset so that you don't need to convert on the turn.


As I touched on just above, factoring in implied odds is the final bit to this sequence. It's just your estimate of how much more you might expect to make once you hit your hand. Simple enough. The question is usually just whether or not it will, on average, surpass what is necessary to make the call. So it doesn't have to be terribly precise. Of course you also need to consider the possibility of making your hand and still losing and adjust accordingly (say, by "discounting" your outs).


Note that the above is typically unnecessary for straight and flush draws, as the pot is usually big enough. If you just *always* called with any straight or flush draw in limit hold'em you'd be giving up only some microscopic amount of profit.


Many other situations just become routine. e.g., say you're thinking of taking one off with overcards on the flop. This has a lot to do with the chance your card will be good when it hits, what you put your opp on, the chance he'll check the turn, the chance your hand is best right now, etc. Typically you end up focusing more on these things than on the precise pot odds you're getting, and it becomes routine to make a quick assessment of how such factors interact in the current hand.


But for some minority of decisions, such a whether to draw to a gutshot in a biggish pot, you just need to practice counting as above.


You ask: "I realize that it is of course better to be able to calculate the precise pot odds, etc. at all times, but some of us simply are not able to do that precisely. How much does this matter if we know the odds approximately but not specifically?"


It's not going to matter much if you can at least arrive at a reasonable approximation. I'd like to see you come closer than "the pot is big" when it comes to a draw of, say 2 to four outs. But even that simple observation (or rather, "The pot is not small.") is probably adequate for 5 outs or more. (Again, I'm talking about a limit game where you're not all in. In big bet games you do need to know the odds with two cards to come, for example, though there are shortcuts even there.)


"I often wonder if all of "the best" players out there know the precise and exact pot odds at all times..."


No, many don't. After a time most situations become familiar. I suppose it's a pattern recognition thing. Though there are individual differences, many top players do not spend a lot of energy keeping close track of pot odds every hand. However, it may be somewhat less necessary in bigger games in which the pot less often gets big enough to make longer-shot draws worth considering.


I should add that the above is hardly even math. It's just counting. Initially it's cumbersome, but becomes simple enough with practice. More interesting math (well, somewhat anyway :-/) often comes into play in analyzing hands away from the table. Counting combinations, calculating the EV for contrasting plays, etc., does require more precision (though often including guesstimates as well) and a touch more math. One of a number of areas where still more sophisticated math is necessary is in many efforts to add to poker theory. A player with a strong math background can construct mathematical models to develop, illustrate, or prove the validity or invalidity of ideas concerning play. It's not my strength, but those with the background do possess a powerful tool.


Hope that helps. If anything still seems unmanageable, just specify what it is and I'm sure I or someone can clarify.

To answer the gist of your question, most good players spend very little time doing mental math at the table. Some basic pot odds stuff, yes, more often some rough "intuitive math" for lack of a better term. (e.g., considering whether a raise with a likely second best hand might be worth it given a large pot) More precise and sophisticated math is more necessary for analyses away from the table. Those analyses do make the aforementioned intuitive math more effective.

John,


Thank you for your response and great comments! They really helped to edify my understanding. A few musings of my own that I've wondered about recently:


Maybe this is just my perception, but as I read posts (not so much on 2+2, but more so on another prominent poker forum), I am becoming aware of (at least in my mind anyway), a mildly hostile math vs. intuition group of camps. Perhaps I am just not reading the posts right, but I have seen quite a few of them where there seemed to be outright hostility expressed between these 2 groups of thought. Basically the "non-math people" express their belief that the math people overemphasize mathematical concepts and their important to winning poker play (by that I mean calculation of precise odds at all time during play, not outside of play). The "math people" tend to respond hostiley in kind, by ridiculing the type of player who does not know the precise odds at all times during the play of a hand. As you have a psychology background, I just thought I would share my impressions of perhaps why this resentment exists, and please correct me if this is off base.


It seems to me that their can be such a thing in poker as a certain amount of natural skill or ability. True, this can be in calculating odds also, but I am speaking specifically of an inborn ability to read people and situations better than others. For instance, I remember reading when Phil Helmuth, as a 20 year old at the University of Wisc., used to go to the student union as a new poker player and regularly win thousands of dollars, despite never having read a poker book and without much game experience. I find it very doubtful that while he was cleaning people out in the student union, he was aware of the precise pot odds and number of outs in his hands. Given this reasonable assumption, I think it is reasonable to assume that true greatness in poker play goes beyond the ability to calculate probability like a machine. As a matter of fact, I think if someone else at that student union had read all the books, was great with numbers, and knew the precise correct mathematical play vis a vis pot odds at all times, he would not do as well as Phil. My point is, that when such a player would realize that he was getting beat by a kid who didn't "know the game" like he did (by his definition), this would be likely to instill quite a bit of hostility and resentment.


I liken this to the chess student who has struggled with the game all his life, has gone to chess seminars, read tons of books on chess strategies, etc., for years. Then he sits down with the 8 year old chess prodigy, and the kid mops the floor with him. This has got to inspire intense rage and envy amongst some people! Obviously, the prodigy does not know the chess theory that this guy knows. But it doesn't matter, the kid just has an intuitive "chess sense" that rises above the years of chess theory and is superior to it.


Of course, most of us are not chess or poker prodigies. But if someone can be blessed with a great amount of this natural intuition (like Phil Helmuth, Johnny Chan, or the 8 year old chess prodigy in my chess example), it stands to reason that this intuition or whatever you want to call it could be present in lesser amounts in others. Someone might "have" 10 percent of what Phil Helmuth has as far as intuition for poker, but this would still be enough to beat me consistently even if they knew less poker theory than I did.


It seems to me that while basic knowledge of pot odds is obviously necessary, it is not as powerful of a skill as reading hands and people. To illustrate this I just think that a good player, if he knows the pot odds dictate folding, will not fold if he "reads" his opponent for being weaker than him. He will raise instead and throw the pot odds out the window. His readings skills in this situation have made the pot odds irrelevant and he casts them aside. Meanwhile the math player who does not have these readings skills will fold every time, confident in the fact that "I made the right fold, it was 3-1 against, and the pot was offering, etc. etc...." Then he will berate (mentally, anyway), the more skilled reader for not folding and "getting lucky," by winning the pot. "You shouldn't have called, the odds didn't warrant it!" he will say smugly. He will think, "I will beat him in the long run, mathematically the odds will catch up to that guy!" Then he gets increasingly angrier and angrier when this does not happen. "That guy is so lucky it is unbelievable," he will think. All the while not realizing that the great reader is aware of the approximate pot odds, he is just deviating from them on purpose when his superior readings skills allow him to detect something that the math player (without equivalent reading skills) cannot see.


I admit, usually the math player is right, most people are not making the "incorrect" calls and folds based on their readings skills, but simply because they do not know any better. But I see a failure to admit among some that math skills and knowledge of odds in poker are just a jumping off point for those that have truly great reading and intuition skills. Put another way, you must know the mold before you can break it.


It seems from the posts that I have read that many see math as the be all and end all in poker, whereas I see it as of course necessary (although not to the nth degree like many suggest), but that the art of reading hands and others intuitively is in fact a skill that is even higher. If you put a great math player up against a great intuitive player, I think the intuitive player will always beat him every time. This is seen in another example from chess, where humans almost always beat computers every time, in spite of the computer always making the correct mathematical play. Obviously, there is a skill higher than pure math, or this would not happen. I know that Deep Blue finally beat humans at chess, but there is no way a human will ever get to be as probability proficient as Deep Blue, at best the top math player will only be as good as one of the lesser computer programs, which are always beaten by the best human players.


Anyway, I just think that this hostility comes from the fact that the "pro math" people feel threatened by those that clearly have some undefined intuitive, natural skill at poker, or chess, etc. They do not want to admit that this can be so. I think it is obvious that it definitely can be. People feel threatened by things like this that they cannot define or overcome by logical explanation. This arouses hostility and resentment, in my opinion, and attempts to belittle.


Perhaps that is why we have never read too much about natural intuitive skill in poker books, because you can't really define it, much less "teach" it. It is like football coaches say, "You can't coach speed." It is either there or it is not.


These observances may be grossly inaccurate by they are just my observations based on many of the argumentative posts I have read and my own thinking on the subject. Thanks again for your comments and your great book. -Tim

Tim -- You are right that there is some hostility in the math vs "people" debate. I think it comes from both sides. Some from the math side undoubtedly comes about for the reason you describe. Another portion comes, I think, from the non-math folks who feel threatened by the math skills of the math folks - skills which they fear they will or can never possess - and argue, I think, to try in a way to undo whatever disadvantage they fear they may be at as a result of the disparity in math skill. They will feel more comfortable if they can convince themselves, and maybe others that math is not too important and that they can therefore better devote their efforts to other areas.


"It seems to me that while basic knowledge of pot odds is obviously necessary, it is not as powerful of a skill as reading hands and people."


This is very true. Reading hands is probably the single most valuable poker skill. But a very important point in all this is that the real value of math in poker is not in knowing the odds of making your hand all the time or in keeping track of pot odds. Those are just rudimentary things, just a beginning. And they need not be extremely precise. Where math has more value is in areas such as those I described in the last post, as well as in helping its practitioner become a more potent logical thinker so that he can attack poker questions more effectively. In fact, applying a little math (mostly away from the table) can help him read hands much better. This does not mean you need to go back to school to learn all the calculus you never learned the first time through. It's true that those with advanced math backgrounds can use them to explore poker in ways others probably can't. But becoming familiar with at least the more common applications of math to poker will certainly help you if only in working through occasional questions you'll have about hands you played.


"I just think that a good player, if he knows the pot odds dictate folding, will not fold if he "reads" his opponent for being weaker than him. He will raise instead and throw the pot odds out the window."


Sure, happens all the time. Again, pot odds is just a basic thing, clearly the main tool for some situations, but taking a distant back seat in others.

John, I agree that the hostility comes from both sides, and that it comes from trying to overcome feelings of inadequacy in the area that that particular individual is weakest in. While I am certainly not hostile toward the "math viewpoint", if I can use such a term, I admit to trying to look for a way to downplay it's significance because I am weak in that area. I can easily envision a math expert who is weak at reading hands trying to do the opposite. I do believe that the perfect poker player would be strong in all areas. Perhaps this is unrealistic as we all have our strengths and weaknesses, but we can at least try and make our weaknesses a little less weak rather than ignore them. To that end I am going to take your advice and buy Sklansky's "Getting the Best of it." Thanks again for the time you took to answer my posts, I really appreciate it as I know you are busy. -Tim

"Sredni needs no therapy, only a good dish of great pole-cat ferret chow."


Oh, I don't know anymore. Lately I have some issues with the "W" word. You know, Weasel.


See I met in her a club where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry cola. C-O_L_A cola.


She walked up to me in her suductive Weasel voice, she asked me to dance, saying her name was Lola.


While I'm the not world's most physical ferret, when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine. Lola lo lo lo lola.


I'm not dumb for a ferret, but I couldn't understand why she talked like a woman weasel, and walked like a man....lo lo lo lola.


Oh...to make a long story short....


Girls will be boys and boys will be girls..its a mixed up muddled up shook up world. lo lo lo lola


We danced all night and drank champagne under electic candlelight....


and I am not the world's most masculine ferret, but I know what I am and I am glad I'm man....


and so is Lola. Lola lo lo lo lo lola.


So you can see.


The "W" word just gets me.


I'm a ferret. I have simple personality structure or what have you.


Thank you Kinks, for helping me thru this with some rock n roll.

Isn't Columbia in the Ivy League? Is he still killing the 20-40 game at Commerce?

He's still playing at Commerce, and in fact co-wrote a review of IPM for the Columbia paper. But it was one of his cronies, at another school, who so much liked that particular chapter.

John, Tell him that Mike from Turning Stone said hello. I saw him at Commerce in early June. Your book and Ciaffone's (Improve your Poker)are the most used books in my collection. I read both at around the same time, after I had about 200 hrs. I read them again after I had about 500 hrs. I just reached 1000 hrs and read them for the third time. After reading them the third time I couldn't believe that they were the same books that I read a year and a half ago. I actually got excited after the third reading. Thanks for writing the book.

Wow, thanks. Thant's nice to hear. And I will pass your hello on to scott.

"Primitive" personality structure, but even so it sounds like you're pretty wound up over her. As Donald would say,


When she speaks it's like the slickest song I've ever heard
I'm hanging on her every word
As if I'm not already blazed enough
She hits me with the cryptic stuff (a la Geary I suppose)
That's her style - to jerk me around



Now the poker part...


First she's all feel then she cools down
She's pure science with a splash of black cat
She's almost gothic and I like it like that



Zat sorta the kinda problem you been havin' Sredni?

I'm glad someone understands. Without the Houdan Hen and Conradin, it's a cruel world for a great pole-cat ferret who for but a brief moment in time stood as a god.


I'm happy too that Mason's new books/software forum is living up to his expecations. Banter such as this was what he envisioned, the god in me senses.


:)


...and as they debated the matter among themselves "x" made himself another piece of toast.


Sredni Vashtar went forth, His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white. His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death. Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.


link to Sredni Vashtar by Saki ("")