Not a lot of playing lately, as I've been making arrangements to move the morning of the 23rd. Which reminds me, I will probably be dark after this entry until Monday afternoon, when my cable is installed.

My last session was reasonably good, up two buy-ins. When I'm playing well and focused, it seems like the game is reasonably easy. Even if I lose some big pots, it's not the end of the world when my frame of mind is good. This got me thinking: a number of pros have commented that among serious players, everyone's A-game is reasonably good. The secret that divides success from failure is knowing when you're not on your A-game and adjusting, even if the adjustment is to quit for the day or until you're back in the right frame of mind.

Do you know why Chip Reese was the best in the game? Is it because his A-game was so much better than everyone else's? No (although he was certainly as good as just about anyone else). He was the best because his B-game, C-game, and D-game was better than anyone's. By far. All the high stakes players said Chip was the best because he was tilt-proof, and capable of playing well even when he was losing. There aren't a lot of "spots" in the big game. Usually, the only way you're going to win a decent sum of money from a Benyamine, a Berman, an Ivey, or an Antonius is if you get them when they're losing and their game has slipped a little bit. Even the players who know the right moves, maybe even the "best" players can still play badly, if they're not in the right frame of mind. Likewise, there are probably a lot of players who could be winners if they could quit when they're supposed to.

I finished (mostly) Daniel Negreanu's book. It was decent, but hardly groundbreaking. Maybe newer players will get more out of it, but I was already quite familiar with a lot of the material. There are a few gems in there, but it is hardly the revolution in Poker many claimed it would be. It certainly lacked the rigor of any 2+2 title that I would prefer.

I made a post about the HORSE table in the TV forum. Yeah, really sickened by Scotty's behavior, but it had me thinking a lot about the inconsistencies in the way that TV has portrayed players, and in the way Harrah's has enforced their policies. Obviously I'm not the first to say this. It's all over the net. But as I observed first hand, if you are not an insider in the Poker world, you are a complete outsider. One of DeMichele's friends would never have been able to approach the table the way Layne Flack did, and no one would have had to tell the TD to ask him not to do it (which I applaud Erick for doing). No one would tolerate Phil Hellmuth's tirades from an amateur (which, by the way, I think are significantly worse than an outburst from, say, Hevad Khan). Harrah's disqualified a nobody for being a belligerent, drunk idiot at a final table, yet not so much as a reprimand for Scotty. So much hypocrisy, so much to fix.

Anyway, that's it for now. Talk to you guys again Monday!