Get anything good?

Sorry. It was confusing this year being a month later than usual.

No entry for “candlemaker”?

4.9s

You’re too crooked. OX<

There we go, 86.7 flipless.

I had some high 60s going for the immediate landing but decided I’d have to throw some style on it to beat you

Incredible scene.

FBI: Do you like Marx?

Mhmood Mamdani: I haven’t met him.

FBI: No, no, he’s dead.

MM: Wow, what happened?

FBI: No, no, he died long ago. ... He wrote that poor people should not be poor.

MM: Sounds amazing.

www.warscapes.com/conversation...

Yeah, you definitely want to do the full loop, as the tip is the nicest part.

Neat. Haven’t tried that one yet, I guess because it’s far enough up that way that I’d normally press on a little further than do Taylor Head.

Not disputing any of that.

(And Polk’s quip about ICM being the road to being a pussy is an even less technical way of saying the same thing.)

“Future game” is just a less technical way of saying “its own second-order effects” in this context.

ICM doesn’t take into account how ICM considerations will impact future decisions.

Taking that into account would usually have you revising ICM effects downward somewhat.

(Still better to play for ICM than straight cEV but the real answer is probably somewhere between the two.)

The problem with ICM is that it doesn’t consider its own second-order effects. When people are playing for ICM, the average cEV of decisions goes down for small stacks and big stacks are the beneficiaries of that. So there is added value to extra chips partially counteracting the ICM pressure.

Likely two full-time jobs and one part-time, but the part-time one requires a strong grasp on poker strategy, breaking down high-stakes hands. The other two are contributing editor positions and a more general skill set.