Windwalker on Hustler Casino Live?!?!?!?!?!? (3 Viewers)

Poker is uniquely designed to let long-term losers think they might be long-term winners.

It's fine to be a long-term loser, as long as:
  • You're not putting money on the table that you can't lose without a second thought, and
  • You're not fooling yourself into thinking you might be a long-term winner
This seems like it should be an easily avoidable trap, and yet the staggering opulence of Las Vegas is built entirely upon the backs of the people who have fallen into that trap.

Good luck. Have fun. Be wise and be careful.

The only thing I prefer about online poker is that it's usually possible to find out whether you're good.

I am not, at least not playing 100+ BB deep cash. I am winning, but I can barely stay ahead of the rake. But I seem to make profitable shove/fold decisions when I am short stacked. So without the kind of automated recordkeeping that comes with the online experience, I would probably just look at how fast my bankroll grew from $25 to $400 and I would probably think I was just a good player, without realizing that the imbalance existed.
 
I had to unblock him to see whom you guys were talking about.
I've long maintained that forums should not block posters by making their posts invisible, but by replacing the text with lorem ipsum text, or just "blah, blah, blah..." so that the posts referring to the person who is blocked make more sense.
 
Dude... It's a f-ing game. People can spend their money how they like. No one has to confirm to your idea of what should be done in poker.

View attachment 802977
What’s the difference between me and you? Welcome to the jungle. Gets worse here everyday. Learn the live like an animal in the jungle where we play.
 
A lot of judgment on here recently...wow.

My two cents: I've always viewed hold'em as similar to golf. What gets a 2 handicapper to 0 a zero is totally different than what gets a 20 to an 18.

That same 20 looks at a 4 and sees the most amazing player they've ever seen, where that 4 knows they can hold their own against a random golfer generally, but also knows how far from actually good they are. The 20 has no idea how far from actually good that 4 is.

The point of this to all the judgement? Rooting for the 8 who is continually trying to improve their game in the club championship is understandable. Berating the 8 for playing in it doesn't really accomplish anything. And we have no actual idea who the poker equivalents of "plus handicappers" are on here so maybe we should all just chill out a bit.
 
Krish has been repeatedly sitting down with some of the best NLHE players in the world and holding his own. Garret, Dwan, Gal, while simultaneously having to navigate maniacs like Mikki and Lucky (fuck that guy tho...).

I'm no bootlicker, but goddamn, his play on Hustler is not where I'd throw my criticism. He wants to play in that game, and while I don't want to speak for him, you don't get to that level without knowing how to manage your finances.

Disclaimer: I didn't watch last night's stream or read all of the responses here.
 
Last edited:
@SpaceMonkey420 you say you want to help Krish and that you're trying to be his friend, but you're bashing him in a public forum and telling him he's terrible at poker and to go back to 1/2 tables.

Your posts are regularly mean-spirited in your attempts to be a friend and offer advice. Maybe you're just full of tough love, I don't know. But I think there are better ways to be a friend than the method you're utilizing.
 
@SpaceMonkey420 you say you want to help Krish and that you're trying to be his friend, but you're bashing him in a public forum and telling him he's terrible at poker and to go back to 1/2 tables.

Your posts are regularly mean-spirited in your attempts to be a friend and offer advice. Maybe you're just full of tough love, I don't know. But I think there are better ways to be a friend than the method you're utilizing.
Tough love works. I’ve never ex changed one chip or one penny with WW but have talked to Krish since day 1 about some cool topics and even been invited over. Hell
Might even have a secret lingering together… My poker bro’s down half a meal ticket misplaying almost every hand he has while being stroked. It’s all love at this point. I posted here not for Krish, but for his keyboard cheerleaders so they chill with the better luck next time crap. This game takes serious skill. Can’t see that? That’s okay. You can thank me one day when (and if) you get it, and I won’t send an invoice or fake friend request in the meantime. Spread love and LOGIC!!!
 
Lots to take in here.

I’m assuming all comments come from a constructive place, and I welcome them.

I think there’s a general misconception (among some) about my motives in playing, though.

I have absolutely no sense that I’m a better player than any of those that I play on the stream. I think I have decent instincts, but I know my mental game is terrible. I play on the stream because it’s been forcing me to learn and get better, and the stakes are juicy enough for me to actually care. I enjoy playing, and I love everything about poker. I play the stream, but I also play other nosebleed stakes in LA, and they’re all fun to be at. Every game is an adventure for me, and I’m enjoying the process.

I don’t think the reactions would be as extreme were I doing this on a $5/$10 stream and losing 500 big blinds in a session. I think the stakes make it extremely real for a lot of people, and it’s probably uncomfortable to watch.

I appreciate the effort to “keep it real” with me, but I’m just playing a game I can afford to play, and more importantly, afford to lose at, because I’m pretty decent at managing my bankroll. There is zero pressure to watch or support, I’m just doing my thing, and getting help when and where I can to try and get better. I’m not sure why me choosing to use my bankroll in the way I want to use it is so upsetting to some — but again — I accept any and all constructive advice.

I don’t consider @SpaceMonkey420 ’s posts to be anything other than those of someone who doesn’t understand why I would choose to play at stakes that I’m not skilled enough to play at, but suffice to know that I’m OK being a fish for the moment, and am working on not being that in the future :)

This isn’t even my thread, I’ve just been posting on here because I saw the community following along, and I was happy to be part of the conversation.

One unexpected nice thing about being on the show is that it’s gotten me access to some really large games in LA and Vegas, ones I would have never been invited to before.

I’ll be in Vegas for the World Series and cash games for the next 2 weeks, but will be back on the stream after that.
 
Lots to take in here.

I’m assuming all comments come from a constructive place, and I welcome them.

I think there’s a general misconception (among some) about my motives in playing, though.

I have absolutely no sense that I’m a better player than any of those that I play on the stream. I think I have decent instincts, but I know my mental game is terrible. I play on the stream because it’s been forcing me to learn and get better, and the stakes are juicy enough for me to actually care. I enjoy playing, and I love everything about poker. I play the stream, but I also play other nosebleed stakes in LA, and they’re all fun to be at. Every game is an adventure for me, and I’m enjoying the process.

I don’t think the reactions would be as extreme were I doing this on a $5/$10 stream and losing 500 big blinds in a session. I think the stakes make it extremely real for a lot of people, and it’s probably uncomfortable to watch.

I appreciate the effort to “keep it real” with me, but I’m just playing a game I can afford to play, and more importantly, afford to lose at, because I’m pretty decent at managing my bankroll. There is zero pressure to watch or support, I’m just doing my thing, and getting help when and where I can to try and get better. I’m not sure why me choosing to use my bankroll in the way I want to use it is so upsetting to some — but again — I accept any and all constructive advice.

I don’t consider @SpaceMonkey420 ’s posts to be anything other than those of someone who doesn’t understand why I would choose to play at stakes that I’m not skilled enough to play at, but suffice to know that I’m OK being a fish for the moment, and am working on not being that in the future :)

This isn’t even my thread, I’ve just been posting on here because I saw the community following along, and I was happy to be part of the conversation.

One unexpected nice thing about being on the show is that it’s gotten me access to some really large games in LA and Vegas, ones I would have never been invited to before.

I’ll be in Vegas for the World Series and cash games for the next 2 weeks, but will be back on the stream after that.
Krish - You always impress me as a gentleman and a class act.
 
That's probably true. But the number of people who attend meetups is probably like 0.0001% of the total membership here.

He's playing at the highest level against the best players on the planet. The guidance he can get from anyone on PCF is like taking coaching tips from a dad coaching his 8 year old in community hockey and trying to apply it to the NHL level.

obviously it's hard for anyone with little knowledge of poker to distinguish between good advice and bad advice but if you think this is a tough game you've never made a serious attempt to do it professionally.

figuring out who knows what they're talking about requires some judgment on krishes part, sure. does that mean no one here is giving good advice? i've had many people pay me for poker coaching before and i've taught people to grind online cash profitably from scratch. not that i'm here to sell my services but imo a lot of people are offering decent advice. the poker advice is almost secondary though. he has to actually want to get better at poker, and im not sure how committed he is to it at this point (it's a ton of work).

fwiw tom dwan being the best at poker is about as meaningful for this game as if you put a heavyweight champion UFC fighter in a cage against joe blow. you could put the worst pro fighter on a small regional scene in there and they'd destroy someone without experience. tom dwan may be a lot better than your average 5/10nl grinder and those differences matter a lot in the context of playing a huge number of hands at high stakes poker short handed / heads up. but in the context of a live game where you're playing 30 hands an hour it's a rounding error. the money in live poker doesn't come from being the best. it comes from playing against the worst and not punting.

tom dwan complains about GTO robots for good reason. most public high stakes games are packed with serious, well studied grinders. nobody wants to play with them - and he's one of them. and so is jungleman. people play in these games because finding games as soft as this hustler stream, even as low as 10/20, is a rarity.
 
I’m not a crusher. I do think I am well above average in my very modest peer group (1/3 and 2/5 players, $100-$500 tourney players).

In fact the Hustler game does not play that different from a good 2/5 game, except that the stakes are so huge that you have to have a much bigger bankroll to be there and not be phased by River bets the size of many people’s annual salary.

Here's the perspective of someone who "only gambles when the odds are favorable." Translation: I am not a gambler. I can't understand why people play "friendly" home games with $100s of dollars on the table when I'd play the same type of game for no money or any stakes (within my roll edit: AND premium chips of course).

At first I didn't think of giving my 2c but @Taghkanic, your post has inspired me...

Sounds like I was like you 10+ years ago when I used to play live. Back in the day I started with $50 online and ran up my roll enough to play live 1/2 and eventually 2/5 (then I realized I already had a full time job).

I 100% agree with you that this game is no different than a good 2/5 game. Honestly, it's probably better than ANY of the 2/5 games I've ever played in. If I was rolled for these nosebleed stakes I'm confident I could beat it the same way I beat the low stakes games: patience, discipline, identifying patterns, sticking to the math, gambling when the odds were favorable and not getting into spots where I had to make tough decisions.

Someone else posted something along the lines of "what's the reason KRISH wants to play poker?" After a couple of Fridays screaming things like Nnoooooo and WTF watching the live stream I've accepted that it isn't the same reason that I play poker.

Anyway Krish is a baller gambler, I'm an average guy that doesn't gamble, different perspectives are good IMO.

Side note - @Taghkanic how bout the solid h mold pron???
 
That's probably true. But the number of people who attend meetups is probably like 0.0001% of the total membership here.

He's playing at the highest level against the best players on the planet. The guidance he can get from anyone on PCF is like taking coaching tips from a dad coaching his 8 year old in community hockey and trying to apply it to the NHL level.
Really? Just because one plays at a financially high level comparative to the pond they are swimming in doesn’t mean one’s skill level matches their financial where with all.
This is not intended to be a slight or cut to @Windwalker, it takes guts to sit at that table with some of those players and under a microscope.
Playing consistent “winning poker” is more about finding the right game to play it in and not trying to beat players who’s skill levels out match your own.
As @Windwalker mentions, the stakes in this game are financially stimulating to him and the $ doesn’t affect him win or lose. I don’t know the backgrounds of the “pros” who sit in this game but I have spent a lot of time around players with much less who have had to win their next session in order to make ends meet.
This being said, I think it’s tough for many to grasp the skill levels of those who “have” to win verses those who the $ doesn’t affect their lifestyle one way or another.
If you are playing in games that you can always afford to lose in, how good of a player can you actually become? And for the record, there are some great card players here on PCF. Just because they’re not sitting at a $100/$200 doesn’t mean they lack the skill to do so if they had the “where with all.”
@Windwalker, I’m routing for you. It’s pretty cool to see a member of this community taking their shot against these guys.
The only way to truly get better is to sit with the one’s you consider better than yourself.
Best wishes to you going forward with this.
 
tom dwan complains about GTO robots for good reason. most public high stakes games are packed with serious, well studied grinders. nobody wants to play with them - and he's one of them. and so is jungleman. people play in these games because finding games as soft as this hustler stream, even as low as 10/20, is a rarity.

I have been retraining after not playing at all for several years. I am grinding my way through microstakes right now, and an investing in a level of training that is appropriate for beating 10NL--i.e., free training.

I would need a very, very large bankroll to be comfortable playing the Hustler game. But I think it might be beatable with just the training people are giving away to promote their complicated paid training.

Andy Stacks is the only regular who plays an approximation of that "GTO robot" style. Garrett makes some killer reads, but his opening ranges are old-school tight. I can't be sure, but almost everybody seems to be trying to put people on hands instead of ranges.
 
Andy Stacks is the only regular who plays an approximation of that "GTO robot" style. Garrett makes some killer reads, but his opening ranges are old-school tight. I can't be sure, but almost everybody seems to be trying to put people on hands instead of ranges.

Just to be clear (and I’m sure you know all this, but for the general record) ... Just thinking about ranges isn’t in itself a GTO strategy. Ranges also are used in purely exploitative play.

I’m hardly an expert, just an interested student of the game. But as I understand GTO, at the most basic level, ranges are merely a starting point for GTO decisionmaking.

By guesstimating opponents’ ranges from various positions, and knowing your own, you proceed to estimates of what frequencies and sizes are optimal for checking, leading, calling, check-raising, 3betting, etc. in various situations. And it’s not just how often someone takes various actions from those positions, but how big or small the bets and pots are, which inform those guesstimates.

The bigger the sample size of hands with various villains, and the more attention you pay to their habits, the better the guesses. But that’s not GTO, it’s just sound poker... which may be enhanced by an understanding of GTO.

And given that there are trillions of situations, and multiway NLHE is far from solved, no human can ever really play true GTO.

Anyway, point being that the very same range estimates (which again involve a lot of imprecise guesswork, unless you have a giant sample size of hands) can be used for non-GTO play. In fact, I don’t know any serious poker theorists or authors who actually say you should try to play pure GTO all the time.

After all, GTO at its purest is a strategy for ensuring that you can’t lose, long-term. If two players both achieve perfect GTO, it would eventually become a stalemate once they played enough hands to eliminate variance. If one person is playing perfect GTO, and the other is almost-perfect, the perfect player would win—but it would be a very tiny win rate, depending on the gap in their level of perfection.

So pure GTO as practiced by humans unaided by computers is not a strategy for maximizing profit; it’s a strategy for being less exploitable. The main way this seems to have crept into real-world poker is in players attempting to “balance” their ranges and decisions. A simplistic example would be using similar sizing for a huge river bluff as you would use when you have the nuts. But also only using that sizing a certain percentage of them time, according to what you think is correct for the situation.

The best authors, like Andrew Brokos (who has two books on the topic) seem to advocate trying to understand GTO so that you can see the flaws in your opponents' games more clearly, and then adjusting away from GTO in your own play to exploit their errors and make bigger, more consistent profits.

For example, if you have noticed that someone limps far too often from early and middle positions, you might “punish” their wide range out of position by raising their early limps more often than you might otherwise when acting after them. Or limp behind in late position wider than you otherwise might. Or devise some other strategy to exploit a flaw in the game.

Or, if you notice that someone raises their button nearly 100% of the time, you might defend or reraise from the blinds at a wider clip. And then further define and narrow their ranges based on how they then behave in the rest of the hand.

Postflop, you may use ranges to come up with general estimates of how “hard” various textures hit their likely range, based on their preflop action from various positions, and then try to exploit what their perceived ranges are according to the situation.

But once again, that is not GTO per se, just basic thinking poker strategy. Just approaching hands that way does not make me or you or Andy anything like a GTO player—again, at least as I understand it as an amateur.
 
Last edited:
Really? Just because one plays at a financially high level comparative to the pond they are swimming in doesn’t mean one’s skill level matches their financial where with all.
This is not intended to be a slight or cut to @Windwalker, it takes guts to sit at that table with some of those players and under a microscope.
Playing consistent “winning poker” is more about finding the right game to play it in and not trying to beat players who’s skill levels out match your own.
As @Windwalker mentions, the stakes in this game are financially stimulating to him and the $ doesn’t affect him win or lose. I don’t know the backgrounds of the “pros” who sit in this game but I have spent a lot of time around players with much less who have had to win their next session in order to make ends meet.
This being said, I think it’s tough for many to grasp the skill levels of those who “have” to win verses those who the $ doesn’t affect their lifestyle one way or another.
If you are playing in games that you can always afford to lose in, how good of a player can you actually become? And for the record, there are some great card players here on PCF. Just because they’re not sitting at a $100/$200 doesn’t mean they lack the skill to do so if they had the “where with all.”
@Windwalker, I’m routing for you. It’s pretty cool to see a member of this community taking their shot against these guys.
The only way to truly get better is to sit with the one’s you consider better than yourself.
Best wishes to you going forward with this.
I agree - of course table selection matters.

Stakes do matter. It almost seems like the stakes are too low for this guy. He seems to be playing with the level of care similar to that of a casual player sitting at a play money table online. In the beginning he's playing with some fundamentals. But as the night progresses it seems like he gets bored and starts playing any hand and we see the eventual blow up.

The guy can afford to retain the services of a pro with a track record of success vs some folks on a poker chip forum. Seems pretty obvious which route to take if he's serious about getting better. Sure, some advice on here might be ok. But going thru this thread and picking out good advice vs not so good advice is a high noise to signal exercise. Why not pay for continuous 1 on 1 training? This is just an open forum where anyone can claim poker success but not really back it up. Some guy earlier in this thread claims to be a winning player and claims to have been paid to train others. He's been highly critical of Krish's play. Yet a few months ago he was trying to grind me on $3.50 on shipping for some chips. Those two things don't seem to jive.
 
Just to be clear (and I’m sure you know all this, but for the general record) ... Just thinking about ranges isn’t in itself a GTO strategy. Ranges also are used in purely exploitative play.
Yes. I muddied the waters a little by saying only Andy plays something that looks influenced by GTO.

The innovation that GTO brings to range construction is that instead of ranges being built around playing the highest EV hands, and occasionally "mixing it up" to avoid becoming exploitable, the mixing is baked in to provide "board coverage" and to serve as deterrents to people trying to raise you off your hand. It's a shitload more complicated, and it's easy to see why people--especially people playing live--would prefer to try to exploit their villains old-school.

But I don't think a lot of these players are thinking ranges even in the old-school way.
 
I agree - of course table selection matters.

Stakes do matter. It almost seems like the stakes are too low for this guy. He seems to be playing with the level of care similar to that of a casual player sitting at a play money table online. In the beginning he's playing with some fundamentals. But as the night progresses it seems like he gets bored and starts playing any hand and we see the eventual blow up.

The guy can afford to retain the services of a pro with a track record of success vs some folks on a poker chip forum. Seems pretty obvious which route to take if he's serious about getting better. Sure, some advice on here might be ok. But going thru this thread and picking out good advice vs not so good advice is a high noise to signal exercise. Why not pay for continuous 1 on 1 training? This is just an open forum where anyone can claim poker success but not really back it up. Some guy earlier in this thread claims to be a winning player and claims to have been paid to train others. He's been highly critical of Krish's play. Yet a few months ago he was trying to grind me on $3.50 on shipping for some chips. Those two things don't seem to jive.
I think your point of paying for some 1 on 1 training from a seasoned pro is a good one. The only problem I can see with this route is finding the right person for the job.
Some people may be great players when on the felt but don’t have the ability to teach or communicate their abilities to someone trying to learn.

Based on some personal experience, if I had the means to pay someone to teach me how to take my game to another level and they were willing to take me under their wing as a student, I think I would love to get into the poker mind of Ted Forrest.

I say this because this guy as a player has successfully played against the likes of billionaire Andy Beal, has 6 WSOP bracelets and is well versed in many disciplines of the game. In recent years I believe (based on what I’ve read) he has had some financial and legal issues. I don’t know if the opportunity for a guy like Ted to teach a person with the means to pay for (what I would imagine to be expensive) lessons or services, would even entice him to do so.

FWIW, the guy has the ability to be a top notch player in any game he finds himself in. I’ve had the opportunity to play against him in some of the Borgata Open tournaments in Atlantic City over the years. It’s also not uncommon to see him sitting at a $2/$5 table on occasion.
Just some food for thought with this post.

I took this picture of Ted playing $2/$5 cash back in 2016. It’s almost unimaginable he would play these stakes based on his resume but here he is doing so.
05CB6C92-26B4-425A-A964-2C90B98237B0.png
 
Just to be clear (and I’m sure you know all this, but for the general record) ... Just thinking about ranges isn’t in itself a GTO strategy. Ranges also are used in purely exploitative play.

I’m hardly an expert, just an interested student of the game. But as I understand GTO, at the most basic level, ranges are merely a starting point for GTO decisionmaking.

By guesstimating opponents’ ranges from various positions, and knowing your own, you proceed to estimates of what frequencies and sizes are optimal for checking, leading, calling, check-raising, 3betting, etc. in various situations. And it’s not just how often someone takes various actions from those positions, but how big or small the bets and pots are, which inform those guesstimates.

The bigger the sample size of hands with various villains, and the more attention you pay to their habits, the better the guesses. But that’s not GTO, it’s just sound poker... which may be enhanced by an understanding of GTO.

And given that there are trillions of situations, and multiway NLHE is far from solved, no human can ever really play true GTO.

Anyway, point being that the very same range estimates (which again involve a lot of imprecise guesswork, unless you have a giant sample size of hands) can be used for non-GTO play. In fact, I don’t know any serious poker theorists or authors who actually say you should try to play pure GTO all the time.

After all, GTO at its purest is a strategy for ensuring that you can’t lose, long-term. If two players both achieve perfect GTO, it would eventually become a stalemate once they played enough hands to eliminate variance. If one person is playing perfect GTO, and the other is almost-perfect, the perfect player would win—but it would be a very tiny win rate, depending on the gap in their level of perfection.

So pure GTO as practiced by humans unaided by computers is not a strategy for maximizing profit; it’s a strategy for being less exploitable. The main way this seems to have crept into real-world poker is in players attempting to “balance” their ranges and decisions. A simplistic example would be using similar sizing for a huge river bluff as you would use when you have the nuts. But also only using that sizing a certain percentage of them time, according to what you think is correct for the situation.

The best authors, like Andrew Brokos (who has two books on the topic) seem to advocate trying to understand GTO so that you can see the flaws in your opponents' games more clearly, and then adjusting away from GTO in your own play to exploit their errors and make bigger, more consistent profits.

For example, if you have noticed that someone limps far too often from early and middle positions, you might “punish” their wide range out of position by raising their early limps more often than you might otherwise when acting after them. Or limp behind in late position wider than you otherwise might. Or devise some other strategy to exploit a flaw in the game.

Or, if you notice that someone raises their button nearly 100% of the time, you might defend or reraise from the blinds at a wider clip. And then further define and narrow their ranges based on how they then behave in the rest of the hand.

Postflop, you may use ranges to come up with general estimates of how “hard” various textures hit their likely range, based on their preflop action from various positions, and then try to exploit what their perceived ranges are according to the situation.

But once again, that is not GTO per se, just basic thinking poker strategy. Just approaching hands that way does not make me or you or Andy anything like a GTO player—again, at least as I understand it as an amateur.
Holy crap. I just got done an all night poker session and didn’t think about any of this at any time during night. I don’t even know what GTO means. Hahaha.

And Andy is a super nit at least on the steam. I have heard he plays looser off camera. Still, I don’t know why anyone would want to play with him.
 
I think your point of paying for some 1 on 1 training from a seasoned pro is a good one. The only problem I can see with this route is finding the right person for the job.
Some people may be great players when on the felt but don’t have the ability to teach or communicate their abilities to someone trying to learn.
Totally agree. I think that's always the tough challenge... in pretty much any field that requires effort/study.

You can have individuals who are amazing at what they do and are subject matter experts but have no ability in training or teaching others. Teaching is an important skill that many people overlook.

Perhaps some of the learning may not be as formal as 1 on 1 coaching. He's now somewhat poker famous and will be rubbing elbows with some elite players. It might be some informal discussion over lunch/dinner/drinks about specific hands.
 
OK - I gotta ask this - lol.

GTO, I am not well versed in it, but understand it in concept at 100k feet. Here is my question. Isn’t GTO and exploitative strategies essentially what the old school pro’s (Brunson, Unger, and then early modern pros, Helmuth, etc) have been doing for years. Understand your players, their weaknesses, adjust your play accordingly. Understand odds, probability, and reading your opponents, etc, all honed over thousands of hours on the felt.

Is GTO pretty much “this” just wrapped in an “algorithm” that can be packaged & sold as a “model for play”.

It seems like GTO strategy is a math problem designed to optimize on-line play when you are playing in 3+ tables at a time and it allows you to optimize play averaged across a certain number of hands when you have to make quick decisions based on limited information.

In the end, how truly different or better is GTO from core and fundamental strategies found in Slansky’s Theory of a poker when playing live?

Disclaimer: I am no strategy pro by any stretch, I’m a “decent” casual player who at one time studied poker strategy fairly seriously - many years ago (hence reference to Slansky - lol)

I am truly curious as maybe I am missing something. This has bugged me for a while - lol.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom