| Posted by: KX at November 26, 2002, 8:37 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Greek Viking; I believe it would be pretty hard to make good prediction of how much you´ll wager on average wo running simulations. I don´t have time to write such a program right now. I was thinking bets of about $25 losing less than half the time, but several busts would occur at less than $1000 wagered.
Why would you not consider the HA important?
Wave; Ohh, once again you post your friendly remarks. Once again I ask, what have I done to you?
5 minutes? Then you are a slow writer... Unfortunately I´ve pretty much run out of good bonuses. But since I bet big I get the time to follow this forum which I normally find pleasant and interesting.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Wave at November 25, 2002, 7:04 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Yeah yeah, time is so prescious, KX. According to your well reasoned "small time increases EV" good stuff, why don't you go hunting for more betting large opportunities, instead of keep spending big time here?
Used 5 minutes for this post, ooh, I have already decreased the EV of ....let me see....my gambling revenue.
I am afraid another round has just begin.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Greek Viking at November 25, 2002, 1:42 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
KX. As you say: the advantage depends on how big you bet. What is your condition to lower the average wagered amount to $1.500: bets in the area of $50 and loosing your deposit about half of the time?
For those of us that usually make our bets in the area 2-10$ I think it’s important to underline that you will in reality not take advantage of the bet BIG strategy by increasing your bets to something in the area 10-20$. I think my example is realistic if you understand big bets as something in that area.
For the discussion concerning the bet BIG strategy it’s not important if you assume 99,0% or 99,5% of the wagered amount. But if you expect to lose more than 0,5% when playing a non-rigged average casino you should definitely try to reduce the extent of deviation from basic strategy. But in the real world it might well be correct to raise the figure to 1%.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 25, 2002, 12:48 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Clayman:
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Add to the equation that learning composition dependent strategy takes TIME.
I just play with a card in front of me. Don't have to learn a thing. Takes no time at all.
Basically no point at all in relation to your argument. Just thought it might be a helpful tip.
Thonk I've read maybe 0.03% decrease to HA. Like you say, small but measurable.
If you play with a card in front of you it certainly takes time. So instead of using time to learn the strategy you use extra time to play (and probably learn while playing). Well, I´ve never said it´s wrong to use composition dependend, I´m just saying big bets is more advantageous
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at November 25, 2002, 11:06 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Add to the equation that learning composition dependent strategy takes TIME.
I just play with a card in front of me. Don't have to learn a thing. Takes no time at all.
Basically no point at all in relation to your argument. Just thought it might be a helpful tip.
Thonk I've read maybe 0.03% decrease to HA. Like you say, small but measurable.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 25, 2002, 10:35 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Greek Viking; In my opinion you underestimate the advantage significantly. The advantage naturally depends on HOW large you bet, but in my opinion you could EASILY reach an average of only $1500 wagered at ALL the casinos. (I would even go as far as saying $1000 for the daredevils ).
I would also say that 99,5% is a to optimistic figure. A more representative figure would be 99%.
Assuming this the change would instead be:
Small bets: $8000 profit.
Big bets: $8500 profit.
A difference of $500.
Lets compare this to someone who modifies his playing strategy to composition dependent. Assume he gets an additional 0,1% (probably too much).
Incorrect strategy and small bets bring:
$8000 profit.
Composition dependent strategy and small bets bring:
$8200 profit.
$200 difference.
Add to the equation that learning composition dependent strategy takes TIME. Betting small also takes TIME. Cashing checks also take TIME and in... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Darien-l at November 24, 2002, 6:46 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
OK, this is my first post, so go easy on me Here are my two cents on the "large bets ersus small bets" debate:
A while ago I realized that making large bets when playing for bonuses is far more efficient than making small bets, since it results in more time for the player to play at many casinos, which translates into a significantly higher income per hour. I started making large bets; usually starting off by betting bonus+deposit on the banker in baccarat, then in case of a win finishing off the wagering reqs with smaller bets on blackjack. Of course, I lost the bonus and deposit frequently but ended the session with ~ 2x(bonus + deposit) almost as often.
Soon, however, I ran into a problem. One day, I finished off my wagering requirements at Intercasino but the software wouldn't let me cash out my winnings. I called Customer Support and was told that I had to wager almost 60x the bonus to cash out. The rep explained that I had to fulfill the wagering requirements of my two... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Greek Viking at November 24, 2002, 1:09 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
How important is the advantage if you use the bet BIG strategy?
Let’s take an example, assuming:
- You plan to play at 100 casinos that all offer a $100 100% Match Bonus
- Wager: 10*(d+b) = $2000
- If you bet BIG: at 20 casinos you will bust before you have wagered your $2000
- At casinos where you bust you will on average have fulfilled 75% of your wager=$1500 before you bust
- You expect to lose 0,5% of the amount you wager.
If you follow a bet SMALL strategy you have to wager $200.000 with an expected loss of $1000 to collect your bonus of $10.000. Profit=$9.000.
If you follow a bet BIG strategy you save wager of (20*(2000-1500)) = $10.000 at casinos where you bust. So totally you will only wager $190.000 with an expected loss of $950 to collect your bonus of $10.000. Profit=$9.050.
I agree that from a strictly mathematical point of iew the bet BIG strategy gives you a minor advantage becauce you need to wager less. But from a practical point of ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KX at November 24, 2002, 5:33 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Clayman; We are not
In a fair game it doesn´t matter WHEN you make a big/small bet, there´s no way of accurately predicting when you´ll win or lose.
If you play without a bonus the bet size won´t change a thing...
I´m, as always, refering to the fact that it´s more important to bet BIG when playing most promotions than it is to follow the EXACT correct strategy. EV-wise the big bets will increase EV more than the perfect strategy.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at November 23, 2002, 12:05 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Clayman; It´s not at all totally insignificant, it´s LESS significant than betting large though.
If you say less significant than "proper betting strategy" I couldn't agree more. Most of your gain always comes from making the big bets in advantageous situations. Probably at least 70% of total advantage, maybe more.
By heaven, I think we're agreeing on something!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 22, 2002, 10:44 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Clayman; It´s not at all totally insignificant, it´s LESS significant than betting large though.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at November 22, 2002, 8:06 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Woody0; That is entirely correct. I was refering to the significant amount of posts regarding playing 6-deck strategy at 1-deck tables etc.
For games like Pontoon and Switch the revisions of strategy is of great importance. Actually I´ve come to like both of these games ery much.
Blackjack Switch is a new game invented by Geoff Hall and alot of fun to play. The Wiz just recently came out with the BS for it. It has a HA of only 0.05% in the "Push-22" ersion. I think Playtech offers it. You can play it for fun at "http://blackjackswitch.com/".
Definitely don't use this BS in a "normal game".
Still working on the "what if I played flawless BS of MG SD game at an (older) RTG casino". I just can't believe it's insignificant, though probably less significant than ice-versa.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: eek at November 22, 2002, 1:04 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
bugger.
Thx anyway.
Switch is a card game, that has huge parameters.
[This message has been edited by eek (edited 11-22-2002).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 22, 2002, 1:01 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
eek; I´m sorry, we were talking BJ-related games so I assumed ppl would understand I meant Black Jack Switch. I´m not familiar with the game "switch".
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: eek at November 22, 2002, 12:14 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Where do they play switch?
That is a totally different game KX.
I can win at switch, and if I cant win, I can organise who will be the winner, and who will not win.
Is there a casino with it?
eek
It doesn't matter how much you want it if Im there. And how smart you are.
You're toast.(you cant put in wot God left out)
Are you UK based KX? I have never heard of switch as a cash game before because it is so skillful, and awareness based.
Ive been killing people at switch since I was 12 y.o.
Poker is the nearest game that im aware of.
You have my complete attention sir.
[This message has been edited by eek (edited 11-22-2002).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 22, 2002, 11:21 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Woody0; That is entirely correct. I was refering to the significant amount of posts regarding playing 6-deck strategy at 1-deck tables etc.
For games like Pontoon and Switch the revisions of strategy is of great importance. Actually I´ve come to like both of these games ery much.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Woody0 at November 21, 2002, 7:53 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Hmm... Ppl keep debating minor changes in Basic Stretegy to adapt to different rules in different types of Black Jack games.
Very important when playing the suite of RTG "21" games.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 21, 2002, 11:32 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Nice Caruso. Now we do really agree on two things
This and the goodness of Las Vegas USA / Twin Aces.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at November 21, 2002, 10:40 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
Hmm... Ppl keep debating minor changes in Basic Stretegy to adapt to different rules in different types of Black Jack games.
They do, but mistakenly so. People put much too much store in that. Crypto, RTG, MG - you could stick to one set of generic rules and really it'd make no difference of any kind whatsoever. People respond to the "rigged" whingers saying "Aha! But where you playing the correct set of rules for the given game?" as if it makes any consequential difference. It doesn't.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 21, 2002, 8:27 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Hmm... Ppl keep debating minor changes in Basic Stretegy to adapt to different rules in different types of Black Jack games. Also, some people like to debate composition dependent strategies. Learning strategies like these is in comparison a lot of work and the knowledge brings a much smaller increase in EV of playing a certain bonus than does the "bet big strategy".
So, I still have a hard time seeing why you claim "zero practical applicability" Caruso...
In addition to this it has a number of other attractive benefits as noted previously.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: MrWolf at November 20, 2002, 2:31 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by magnek:
why must you guys debate an issue as pointless as this?
I'm beginning to feel the same way.
Incidentally, can anyone tell me the EV of all these off-topic posts? That's Entertainment Value.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at November 20, 2002, 10:58 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by HKGambler:
Clayman, since you registered in August, ...Take my advice, DO NOT get into such discussions because I'm sure you will gain nothing in the end but confusions.
Thanks for the excellent advice.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 20, 2002, 8:50 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Oh yeah really? Perhaps I have reading problem and I will wear eye-glasses next time.
-If you are going to accuse me then please back it up. Show me the thread and the post that you are refering to...
Good to see this late ersion. Keep it at this current form when quoting in the future.
-Once again, PROVE your accusations...
Need you emphasize 1+1=2 is CORRECT and that it was agreed by Pythagorus?
-I´ve never claimed that the theory is advanced... Still there are ppl not getting it (just read this thread, and read your own posts :-p).
Why didn't you reply me at the ery moment? Pls go to that thread & correct me if you have time.
-This happened a long time ago as I recall it. My guess is that I was satisfied with both the Wiz and GM supporting the theory. Please post the URL to your thread and I´ll have a look.
I´m still waiting for your explanation to your confused post about NOT comparing different wagered amounts... As comparing the different wag... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: HKGambler at November 19, 2002, 8:41 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
I´ve ALL ALONG stated that it is the EV OF A CERTAIN BONUS not just EV
Oh yeah really? Perhaps I have reading problem and I will wear eye-glasses next time.
I´ve ALL ALONG stated that the theory does not apply to all bonus structures. Nothing new there.
Good to see this late ersion. Keep it at this current form when quoting in the future.
In the cases that I have specified the theory IS CORRECT. That is also what GM agreed to above, and it is also what Caruso has finally agreed to.
Need you emphasize 1+1=2 is CORRECT and that it was agreed by Pythagorus?
The thread you started in Jokers Wild made no changes to the facts (and as I recall it your math was also wrong which was shown).
Why didn't you reply me at the ery moment? Pls go to that thread & correct me if you have time.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Toasted at November 19, 2002, 2:24 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Ok, thanks KX - sounds good enough to me.
(and yeah, I just changed it to $194... wasn't thinking when I typed it.)
Personally, I'll still go for the entertainment factor... almost makes you cry when you see your whole balance disapear in one bet
I guess the only contentious point is that hitting the bonuses quickly and jumping to the next one is the reason why the wagering conditions keep rising... I remember when there was 1x or 2x available, now your lucky to find one with less than 10x by the looks of things.
Pretty soon, it'll become like a subscription service for the little bettor - no chance of cashing out, just paying for a few hours of betting
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 19, 2002, 2:12 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Toasted; If you read once again you´ll see that GameMaster agrees on the theory granted the limitations I´ve always explained.
The one thing you do wrong in your calculations is:
* Both strategies start with the same 100+100
-Correct.
* Both strategies need to wager $600 before you can cash out.
-To cash out, yes. But if you reach $0 you don´t cash out... That´s the point!
* The house has the same % edge regardless of whether you bet $1 or $100.
-Correct.
So what's the outcomes here? the $1 bettor has 600x$1 bets before they can cash out whatever is remaining in their account (typically about $594).
-Correct. Or in fact not, but I guess $594 was a typo. With $194 it´s correct.
The $200 bettor has a maximum of 3x$200 bets. Either cashing out $0, $400, $800 ($200 or $600 being possible I guess with a push... with there being only one outcome for $800 - WWW, but multiple outcomes for the lower amounts - i.e. $0 can be L, or WLL).
| | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Toasted at November 19, 2002, 1:44 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Ummm... thanks for responding - I think
Didn't really mean to start an off-topic flame war - LOL!
It's certainly been interesting though. Although I'm even more confused now about which one to believe (about the bonus thing)... everything KX says seems to make sense (oh no! I hear a lot of people saying), but when I break it down into its simplest form it doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever (other than an investment of time s hours of enjoyment).
Say you have a bonus D $100, B $100 wager 3x
* Both strategies start with the same 100+100
* Both strategies need to wager $600 before you can cash out.
* The house has the same % edge regardless of whether you bet $1 or $100.
So what's the outcomes here? the $1 bettor has 600x$1 bets before they can cash out whatever is remaining in their account (typically about $194???).
The $200 bettor has a maximum of 3x$200 bets. Either cashing out $0, $400, $800 ($200 or $600 being possib... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KX at November 19, 2002, 9:27 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
HKGamble; The thing is you´ve tried to get cheap points all along making petite remarks about irrelvant things, instead of trying to grasp the concept.
I´ve ALL ALONG stated that it is the EV OF A CERTAIN BONUS not just EV (there´s no such thing, even though several gamblers seem to think that. The EV always relates to something else. Just like you can´t buy one kilogram or pound without specifiying you want cheese, pastrami or whatever, you can´t define the EV of nothing specified.).
I´ve ALL ALONG stated that the theory does not apply to all bonus structures. Nothing new there.
In the cases that I have specified the theory IS CORRECT. That is also what GM agreed to above, and it is also what Caruso has finally agreed to.
In your last post you stated that it was NOT correct to compare different wagered amounts. That is the ESSENCE of the theory. If you want any credibility in your claims about having "known all along" then please clarify your confused state... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Woody0 at November 18, 2002, 10:29 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by HKGambler:
The true essence is, under the specific model, larger betsize decreases the wagered amount which decreases expected loss.
Exactly.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: HKGambler at November 18, 2002, 8:48 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
HKGambler; Ohh I thought you had understood this part. The reason for comparing different wagered amounts is because the bet size WILL affect the average wagered amount played while playing for a bonus.
It might be easier if Woody0 or GM has another shot at trying to explain this since I´m apparently no good at it (since the thread was hundreds of posts last time and still ppl are confused).
Caruso Allright. Nice to see you finally agree on the theoretical level. It would have been nice with a small apology, but maybe one can not get it all...
KX- looks like you are still obsessed with perk & arrogance, your tone sounds like you FINALLY (the word you kept using as if...) convinced me of something I do not know, pretends that others had been mistaking all along.
First & foremost, the stuff you theorised is only an idea, which I had mentioned it somewhere in the Colosseum type of bonus discussions (aka Hotel Calif... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: sofa_surfer at November 18, 2002, 5:32 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by MrWolf:
Going back for a moment to Toasted's original question about the randomness of MG blackjack, from my perspective I don't have a problem with it.
I've had winning and losing sessions, times when dealer beat my 20 with a BJ or five, six card 21s, lost double after double etc, all the normal complaints about blackjack software. But I've also had good runs with it too.
I think one must be naive, stupid or on the payroll to have absolute faith in a software's fairness since they're not subject to independent and random testing in the way that the gaming control board does in Nevada for example.
Having said that, I'm satisfied with MG's blackjack performance after nearly three years of playing it. RTG is another I'd recommend. Personally I have big doubts about Chartwell and Cytech/Aqua which I no longer play, and Cryptologic I now wouldn't touch without the benefit of a bonus.
Spot on, I agree 100% (after only 12 months experi... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at November 17, 2002, 2:49 pm | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
No KX, I don't dislike you and your fellow "advantage players". My irony wasn't intended to convey dislike in any way.
I'm glad that you and others like you are managing to recoup some of the shedloads of dollars that me and the rest of my motley bunch of GA candidates pump into these shady offshore operations. You, for your part, should appreciate the existence of us "unlike".
Gambling's about the thrill of chasing a big win, the agony of losing, the crazy adrenalin rush you get from sticking out that big bet that really you shouldn't be making but hell, it's only money. Sod winning - where's the fun in that? excitement's what gambling's about. Nothing wrong in paying for excitement - in moderation, of course.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 17, 2002, 8:11 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
TheGamemaster;
OK, nice to see we agree on the theoretical part
Your points are alid. The playing strategy should not be applied by someone who needs the money for food and shelter, it´s much riskier than playing small bets.
I´m not sure I agree about the risk of not receiving payment though. My experience is that large payments are not harder to receive than small ones. I´m pretty indifferent to losing one payment of $100 out of 100 such payments or having a risk of 10% to lose one payment of $1000 out of 10 such payments.
If one believes that it´s a larger risk not to get paid a big cash out then this is definetely a con of the strategy.
The assumption behind the theory is that it involves a player like me who aims to play several hundreds of casinos. In this case the ariance swings will even out due to the amount of casinos played.
Caruso Allright. Nice to see you finally agree on the theoretical level. It would have been nice with a small apology, ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at November 17, 2002, 7:34 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Valid points all round.
I must now acknowledge that I did simply manage to overlook the fact that less wagers = less $$$ lost. It would seem that all this IS theoretically alid, from a number cruncher's point of iew.
As noted by Da Boss above, I think the downside makes the whole enterprise rather INvalid from all the OTHER points of iew, however. Although not generally a member of the "rigged" camp, you would have to invest a lot of faith in the integrity of the software to play this way. You need to be able to stomach GARGANTUAN swings in your bank balance. You have to face the prospect of a possibly higher risk of getting stiffed (noted by GM). Maybe you're safe with $200; maybe not, with $2000. And for what?
The only practical gain is TIME; if you really hate these games you play and you just want to get through them as fast as ever possible - in short, if you're one of my UBW types PLUS you're aware of and prepared for the stupendous downside (as noted above) - ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: The GameMaster at November 17, 2002, 7:00 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Hello, KX.
Yes, I will agree to your points in favor of placing large bets, but you have covered only the pros and not the cons.
In your system, you must finance many new deposits and it may be a while before you get your $$$ back, so it's tying up cash.
You are also relying upon those few casinos where you do make up for all the losses to pay you. A "stiffed" payment of $200 is one thing; a failure to receive $2000 is another matter entirely, at least to me.
This works in the long run but we all know that anything can happen in the short run. The big bettor will have bigger swings in his or her bankroll, so this approach is probably not practical for someone who's willing to commit, say, only $500 to the enture.
Add in the "hassle" factor of having to deal with maybe 10 or 15 casino accounts at a minimum and I question if the extra $$$ gained is worth it. As Caruso said, it ultimately boils down to actual $$$ (or pounds or whatever) earne... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: MrWolf at November 17, 2002, 3:30 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
Going back for a moment to Toasted's original question about the randomness of MG blackjack, from my perspective I don't have a problem with it.
I've had winning and losing sessions, times when dealer beat my 20 with a BJ or five, six card 21s, lost double after double etc, all the normal complaints about blackjack software. But I've also had good runs with it too.
I think one must be naive, stupid or on the payroll to have absolute faith in a software's fairness since they're not subject to independent and random testing in the way that the gaming control board does in Nevada for example.
Having said that, I'm satisfied with MG's blackjack performance after nearly three years of playing it. RTG is another I'd recommend. Personally I have big doubts about Chartwell and Cytech/Aqua which I no longer play, and Cryptologic I now wouldn't touch without the benefit of a bonus.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at November 17, 2002, 1:28 am | | Topic: MGS Blackjack Forum: Winner Online |
HKGambler; Ohh I thought you had understood this part. The reason for comparing different wagered amounts is because the bet size WILL affect the average wagered amount played while playing for a bonus.
It might be easier if Woody0 or GM has another shot at trying to explain this since I´m apparently no good at it (since the thread was hundreds of posts last time and still ppl are confused).
Why don´t you read through Carusos explanatation, in this case he´s got it:
1) He wagers one cent per hand (preferable for all UBWs).
2) He wagers table max ($200).
In case 1) he'll never bust (unless he's playing Casino Bar); he will ALWAYS hold onto his IP (good for UBWs), but he'll have to play a helluva lot. He will ALWAYS wager at least $600 (unless he's playing Casino Bar).
In case 2) he'll frequently bust. He'll frequently play just ONE HAND ($200). But on those occasions, he won't "owe" the DC anything - herein lies the crux. On the upside, he'l... | | Read Entire Entry |
|