[bearly]

i was going to reply and/or expand upon our give-and-take of yesterday. i thought it would be fair to first read some more of your thrusts and parrys to get an idea of what you are about. i think 'bluff' nailed it down pretty well--firm but fair. i gave you some good replies and what happened--(what is your problem?). now here "what exactly is the problem" you are proving bluffs (and implicitly, my)remarks w/ your reactions. just from what i know about you--assuming it is true---i would love to have a one-on-one w/ you about hold'em. and , believe me, i would be doing most of the listening , because i would want to savor every word you said. to be in the company of someone who has actually 'done it' would be better for my poker future (somewhat bleak) than any book. on this forum you are dealing w/many people (and i will include myself) who have actually 'done it'. i have been in the position where i had to get in there w/ some of the finest minds in these fields (logic, philosophy, linguistics) and get my nose busted again and again. that's just the way it is. just like when you make the quantum leap in poker--as you are doing. so bluff's remark: less over-confident posturing, more well thought-out (and simply worded) questions, more listening, and less defensiveness (what is your problem?) would get you going , and you could take advantage of the tremendous resources on this sub-forum. starting w/ sir david and going from there---a lot of brain power here.......................good luck, and find the energy to keep trying.........b