I will go through the flaws in the common complaints briefly, and only because they are so pervasive that I feel the need to refute them.

1.  The software is rigged against them or to ensure more rake.  Most poker software is inspected by 3rd parties to ensure fairness and there has never been any case that they have been tampered with or that they have  malfunctioned.  Many people have played a statistically significant number of hands (I have played over 10 million hands in my career) and these hands and boards can be imported into a database in order to ensure they are occurring at the correct frequencies.  People have done this and the random number generator has never been found to be unfair in any way.  Since hand histories are available and people can compile a statistically relevant number of hands, if there were irregularities, they would have been found.

2.  The “cashout curse,” is when people lose soon after they cash out their winnings.  The best explanation I have heard for this phenomenon  is regression to the mean.  This is when a losing player runs above expectation (is lucky and wins) and then cashes out.  When they then return to expectation (by losing) they view losing as something anomalous, because now they believe themselves to be winners who have cashed out.  The easiest way to resolve this internal conflict is to blame it on the software being rigged against people who cash out, rather than to admit that they are not as skilled as they believe.

3.  Statistically unlikely events.   I smile every time I get aces on the same table in back to back hands, because I know how many players would say the software is rigged because it is so rare (about 48,000 to 1 against).  In actuality, I play more than 25,000 hands a week on average, so while it is unusual for me to have aces in back to back hands, it comes up about every 2 weeks.  Even I have been a professional for a long time, I sometimes feel like I have lost every hand for a few days in a row.  In reality, when I feel like I am getting unlucky, I tend to forget the hands I win and focus on the hands I lose.  The truth is that variance occurs and that relative to my winrate, sometimes I lose more than I should and sometimes I win more than I should.  Overall, it is exactly as expected.

The irony of the parallel between the 2016 Presidential Election and the people who complain about online poker being rigged is not lost on me.   For the past several weeks Donald Trump has started to forcefully call the election, the voting and the media rigged against him.

First, Trump saying that he might lose because the election is rigged is not a sound argument because that would require the coordination of thousands of local, state and federal election officials, who have both Republican and Democratic party affiliations.  Polls in Pennsylvania show Trump down approximately 10 points and predict he has a less than 10% chance of winning.  This independent data serves a check against claims of widespread voter fraud in same way I can evaluate my hand histories to ensure that the random number generator is operating correctly.  The most likely explanation for Trump losing is not that the polls, media and election are rigged, but that voters are favoring Hillary Clinton by a significant margin.  It is highly unlikely that significant voting fraud will take place since there have been several studies who have determined that it is minimal(under 100 cases in the last 3 elections). Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of widespread conspiracy in the same way that your friend getting aces twice in a row doesn’t mean that the software is rigged.

Second, when Trump is suspicious of Republican candidates’ poor performances in inner city districts comprised of mostly minorities, he fails to consider that: a) The districts are small, as small as a few hundred people.  b) The districts are comprised of people and demographics who tend not to vote for Republicans.  c)Trump is polling in the low single digits with minorities.  So, it is not an anomaly that he would get few votes in a district where the polls say people are not voting for him and the demographics predict he should be doing poorly.  I am sure Trump isn’t suspect of rural Wyoming districts where he is winning nearly 100% of the vote.

Third, Trump’s complaint that the media is rigged is bogus.  The media’s hyperfocus on him has resulted in enough attention to get him this far.  He achieved unprecedented fame and recognition simply from being wealthy. He was in the tabloids when he was younger, on the Apprentice, and now, every news channel covers his rallies, which gives him a platform to expand his audience.

Trump’s expectation in the primaries and in the presidential campaign was poor because of his lack of experience, lack of knowledge and his many scandals.  Most other politicians would have lost their support long ago, and the fact that none of his outlandish and offensive statements or actions were enough to squash his campaign meant that he was surely “running above expectation.”  Until the last few weeks, the media coverage has been to his “yuge” benefit, so he is starting to sound a lot like someone who is complaining about the “cashout curse.”  Over the past few weeks, he has returned to his expectation, in which people are horrified and unlikely to vote for him based upon what he has said and done is merely reversion to the mean.  It is not statistically surprising.

In addition, Trump has pursued a strategy that is unlikely to earn him enough votes to win the election.  His attacks on Republican allies, attacks on women and minorities and his reluctance to encourage the voters on a local level, do not appeal to voters he desperately needs to win.  He has doubled down on his core of support to the almost to the exclusion of others and his core does not contain enough voters for him to win.  Touting irrelevant statistics like online click polls and the number of people at rallies as proof Trump is winning are akin to measuring poker earnings by how often your opponent folds to your bluffs.  In the past, and hopefully in the future, anyone who behaves like Trump and has views like his will reach their expectation sooner and not be considered a serious candidate for President.

http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/06/29/wimbledon-roger-federer-marcus-willis-best-moments-highlights

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/marcus-williss-very-brief-wimbledon-fairy-tale

When I saw you busted just short of the final table of the World Series of Poker last year I was disappointed because it would have been great for poker and poker legalization across the United States.  You are one of the most recognizable figures in poker, and have always maintained a smile on your face while making the game seem fun and enjoyable to the masses.  Hats off to you!

When I first saw the report of your final hand, where you called preflop with A4 and checkraised all in on an AdKdT board it seemed clear to me that your hand was an obvious shove preflop.  When I saw the explanation of your mistake of this hand and 2 others on your blog, I was pretty shocked to see the clear mistakes in reasoning and I feel compelled to point them out.  The italicized are your words and the bolded are mine.

“Hand #1 Justin Schwartz threw out a 500k chip in the cutoff with 80k-160k blinds and didn’t say anything. I know limping is part of his game plan, but he had smaller denomination chips that he could have called with. My thinking was that he did this on purpose to make it look like he meant to raise so that the rest of us left in the hand would be less likely to attack his limp.
I picked up 7d 8d on the button and limped. This is exactly the type of hand that plays well post flop and I didn’t think it was necessary to isolate Justin. The small blind folded and the big blind checked his option.
The flop came Kd 7s 6c and both players checked to me. Here is where the mistake comes: I bet 250k. The big blind folded, and a short stacked Justin check raised to 600k. I called with lots of back door potential with a 3 card straight, 3 card flush, and a pair.
The turn was the 3 of clubs and he went all in for about 3 million. I didn’t think about it for very long and folded my pair.

So what is the mistake? My bet sizing on the flop allowed Justin enough room to check raise me as a bluff. If I bet 450k he would have to risk a million or so to bluff me and that wouldn’t have left him enough wiggle room. By betting just 250k in a spot where I could easily be bluffing myself, I opened the door to get outplayed. I found out later that he had QT of clubs so he turned a flush draw but I was still ahead. I don’t think folding the turn is a mistake, besides, he had 15 outs to beat me, but that could have been avoided had a I made a more substantial bet on the flop.”

Your call preflop is fine, and kudos for paying attention to your opponent.  However, if you believe there is a decent chance that you will be check raised as a bluff on the flop (though that is probably results oriented thinking), then perhaps checking back or 3 betting his checkraise bluff is the correct play.  You are probably betting pretty wide when checked to in that spot, so you want it to cost you less when you bluff/bet with weak hands, not more.

Calling his checkraise because you have “a 3 card straight and 3 card flush” is silly, because with your small ball style, the last thing you want to have to do is call a big turn bet when you turn a draw (hello variance!) or to get bet off your hand on the turn.  In most of the possible turn scenarios, you lose 350k chips when you call the flop raise and fold the turn, and in some you wind up calling again with a draw (hello variance!) and fold when you miss.  The only time it really works is when you make 2 pair or trips and he bluffs it off(and doesn’t have you beat or outdraw you), which happens very rarely.  It’s obvious you weren’t deep enough to start making moves like this and you are not playing Pot Limit Omaha where he is suddenly going to get scared and check fold a strong hand on the turn or river because a scary card comes.

Hand #2 Blinds at 150k-300k Alex (short stacked) raised from middle position at a 5 handed table to 600k and I defended the small blind with Ac 6c and we went heads up to a flop of 10-10-3. I checked, he bet just 350k and I called. The turn was a 9 and we both checked, and once again it went check check on the Jack river.

So what is the mistake? This one is a little more subtle so think about this one for a minute…

Some would argue calling preflop is a mistake. I disagree with that, and that’s not the mistake. When I checked and he bet 350k I felt like I had the best hand, but wasn’t certain. The play was to check raise to one million and put the pressure on Alex to guess. A 10 is a card that is very likely to be in my hand (9T, JT, QT, KT, AT) so even if he had a hand like 88 he may consider folding. Truth is though, he rarely has a hand like that and bets only 350k. To call my check raise he would have to call more than 25% of his stack and then be in no mans land on the turn whether I bet or check.

Turns out he had Q9 and hit the 9 on the turn to beat me that hand. Many would look at the hand and think “unlucky.” I don’t see any value in that. What’s the point in labeling it as lucky or unlucky? Did I play the hand the best way that I could? No. There is value in analyzing your plays, not your variance.”

You actually played this one well and it was unfortunate that he hit a 9 on the turn to win the pot.  I wouldn’t call it “unlucky,” as that is going to happen roughly 25% of time the hand plays out the way it did, not including the times he a)has you beat or b)bluff you off your hand.

You should not be checkraising this hand to “put pressure on him to guess.”  You are unlikely to get him to fold anything you don’t have beat, and saying a ten is “very likely to be in your hand” (which it is not, use Pokerstove to count the combinations if you need) is silly.  If your range is somehow has a lot of tens in it, then calling your range should be enough to ensure you don’t get bluffed too often.   It’s interesting that you want to checkraise him to “put pressure on him to guess,” while representing a very narrow range out of position.  

You probably would happy with the way this hand played if you had won it.

“My last hand was the A4 vs J3dd hand on an AKTdd flop. Some will argue that against a player who opens 100% of buttons in that spot, that moving all in preflop is a better play. I think for most people that is absolutely true, but not for me, and not in that situation. The reasoning for that is a little lengthy but I’ll try to explain it in brief the best I can:

My goal was to win the tournament not make the final 9. I knew that Joe was abusing the bubble and the other players were not fighting back. I felt fine playing both in position and out of position against his very weak range post flop. My strategy wasn’t to just guess when he had a hand preflop that was strong enough to call a reraise, it was to see flops with him and eek out value wherever I could and rather than double up in a flip situation, GRIND my way to a double up.

It was working. I was able to go from 4 million in chips to 9 million without being in an all in situation. I was clawing my way back into the match by seeing flops and moving in with some hands when necessary.

Once I got over 8 million it allowed me to start defending my blind a bit more liberally against Joe. A few rounds in a row I had defended the blind, once with an all in reraise with KT, a much better hand to move all in with than A4, by the way, considering how he was playing.

So the reason I chose to call with A4 rather than reraise was threefold:

1) It balances my calling range from the blind a little bit
2) I WILL get extra value post flop when I hit an Ace. He can’t check an Ace
3) I avoid getting it all in preflop in spots where I will almost certainly be a 2-1 underdog when called

Once the flop came out, the hand played itself and it wasn’t meant to be in the end. Had I won that pot, though, I would be sitting on a very healthy stack of about 14 million. That’s the way I do it. Chop away, chop away, chop away, see flops, try to get it in good when necessary, and then hopefully the hand holds. It didn’t this time, but I’m quite happy with how I played overall and stuck to my game plan throughout.”

Almost everyone’s goal is to win the tournament, not to make the final 9.  Making a poor play and blaming it on “trying to win” is a cop out.

You might feel fine playing against him postflop when he(and you) have weak ranges, but there isn’t really enough room to maneuver with a hand that flops as poorly, and has poor equity on so many flops.  You don’t need to balance your range in this spot, since it will a)probably not get to showdown b)you won’t be in this situation often c)he won’t know what you had.  In addition, when you do flop an Ace, you will get a small continuation bet out of him, but likely not too much else that you want (you want a bet, but if he barrells off, that’s not great for you).  You do much better in the long term shoving against a guy that is opening that wide(and who may or may not call marginally) then hoping to flop well and win a bet.  

All of this analysis is completely moot, since as soon as you flopped an ace, you checkraised allin, rendering all of your analysis of small ball, eking out value and grinding completely moot.

For the record, if you just call the flop, which you absolutely should, you will be put to the test on the turn when he shoves this hand.

I’d love to hear your thoughts of my analysis.

Best of luck this year!

-Jason

The idea that skill and gambling are two distinct realms and that an activity must fall into one or the other is incorrect because almost every activity has both elements of luck and elements of skill.  Take driving for example.  Driving more safely is a skill that can be learned, however every time someone gets behind the wheel, there is a chance that they might get into an accident.  Another driver could be distracted, fall asleep, or make a mistake that causes an accident that the safe driver cannot avoid.  In addition, there are unforeseen things that could happen such as the safe driver’s brakes malfunctioning, them sneezing and taking their eyes off the road, as well as a hundred other things could go wrong.  In other realms, some would call driving to the store to get milk “gambling with your life,” since over 30,000 people are killed yearly in vehicular accidents.

So what is the above example trying to show for the skill vs luck argument?  First, it is important to acknowledge that there is both luck and skill in driving, since most people suffer from the Black Swan Effect, which is the tendency to underestimate the likelihood of highly improbable, “unlucky” events, like accidents and to explain them away once they happen.  Most people only consider luck (or lack thereof) when they get into an accident, and consider it their skill when they avoid accidents without evaluating the risk from a broader perspective.  It is important to think of risks as ever present, and that each time you drive, you are making a calculated decision that assesses and accepts that risk. You can take steps to reduce the risk of activities, but you will never reduce them to zero.

For example, you can reduce your risk of getting into an accident by increasing your driving skill by taking driver safety classes or by having your brakes checked regularly, but that will only reduce the likelihood of getting into an accident, but not guarantee it.  In the same way you might prefer not to drive at night on the 4th of July (lots of drunk drivers and increased risk of getting “unlucky”), when you drive home after the fireworks, you are merely increasing your risk of getting into an accident not guaranteeing it.

So, where do you draw the line between something that is skill based and luck based? Since there is a measurable chance you could be a fatal accident, does this mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to drive? Drive excessively? Be forced to take 5 hours of driver safety? 50 hours? 500 hours?  Where is the line drawn?  I don’t want to comment on where I think the line for drivers should be drawn, but I will say that most things that people consider to be skill based have much more of a luck element then most people realize.  You got the job you interviewed for? That means that someone who was better qualified than you didn’t apply and that the subway didn’t break down on the way to the interview so you got there on time.

How does this apply to Daily Fantasy Sports and also to poker?  It can often seem that there is an overarching amount of luck involved, and in one hand, one game or one event there surely is.  In one week of Fantasy Football, there may only be only a 55% chance that the “better team” or “better player” will win and surely you can point to anecdotal evidence where you won or lost at the last second due to a “lucky” or “unlucky” play.  However, the 55% number by definition shows that there is skill involved since if it were pure luck, then all players would have a 50% chance of winning. The player with a 55% winning percentage will have a significant edge if many games are played.  People with more skill (the person winning 55% in the above example) increase the likelihood of winning money in the same way that taking a driver safety class,decreases the likelihood of getting intp an accident.  That doesn’t mean that you won’t get into an accident the day after you take the class, in the same way that picking Tom Brady doesn’t mean he won’t throw 3 interceptions.

You must  evaluate the luck vs. skill argument from a long term perspective because in one game or short period of time there is a lot of luck.  Anecdotal evidence does not substitute for long time framed reasoned analysis.  You wouldn’t say football is a game of luck because Tom Brady threw 3 interceptions.  You would say that there is a lot of skill involved because the Patriots are 12-3 and because Brady has been a successful quarterback and had good statistics for years. If Daily Fantasy Sports does not have an element of skill and is purely gambling, then your wife should win at fantasy football as often as you you do, and all of your sports watching and analysis has been for nothing.

Huffington Post

Bonus: Jon Stewart on Chris Christie

Playing $1/2 6max no limit.  I raise 99 in first position to $6 and get called on the button by a very weak recreational player(60/20 for those interested in stats) and a poor playing regular(27/12) in the small blind.

The flop comes 9h9s6c giving me four 9′s.  The small blind checks. Since neither of the two players were likely to have anything or to call with nothing(float), and the button was likely to bet when checked to, I elected to check.  Unfortunately the button checked behind.

The turn is the 6h.  The small blind checked and I bet $6 into $19 hoping that my opponents would either call me with Ace high or a pair, or try to bluff me, since it doesn’t look like I have too much.  The button folds and the small blind calls.

The river is the 5h, so the final board is 9h9s6c6h5h and the small blind open shoves for $190 into the $31 pot.  I call, he shows a 8h7h for a straight flush and I lose.

The point of the story isn’t to complain about how unlucky and rare it is to lose with four 9′s, but is to wonder what the heck the small blind was thinking and how we can use his mistakes to better our play in the future.  Here is the way he should be thinking about the hand on the river from his point of view (forgetting about ways to take alternative actions previously):

“It looks like my opponent doesn’t have much, so betting a large amount is likely to make him fold the vast majority of his hands.  If he did have something like AA that checked behind the flop or a flush, there is no way he can call a huge amount(6 times the pot) on the river with so many hands that he loses to.  My best bet is to bet something small in the hopes that he thinks I am bluffing either with something like T8, a pair under 6′s that got counterfeited or ace high.  If I bet a small amount and he does have a 9 or maybe even a 6, he is likely to raise and I can reraise and get all the money in, the same as if I had shoved.  Plus, if I bet small, there is a chance he might decide to bluff me.  If I shove all in, I take away all chance for him to call me with weak hands (since he knows I would never do this with a bluff) and he also cannot bluff me.  Clearly, the best play is to bet small, pray to be raised and expect to be called sometimes.”

His actual thinking went something like this:  ”I made a straight flush!  I am going to push all in and hope to get called because I cannot be beaten.  Wow, I can’t believe someone called me, didn’t he realize I had a straight flush?  What an idiot!”

Before I called, I remember wondering what he possibly could have(given that I had all the 9′s, his most likely shoving hand) and that whatever hand he had, he misplayed it.  For instance, if he had four 6′s, he should use the same logic I outlined above for when he had a straight flush and he should never be bluffing all in when a smaller amount would have done the job done with a similar frequency.  Fortunately for me, this short term variance where people grossly misplay their hands and still win occurs frequently.  Over time though, playing my hands more correctly than my opponents leads to better outcomes for me and is the reason I have been a successful professional.

For the record, on the river it’s still a good call by me because he would do this with one combination of four 6′s and one combination of 8h7h.  This means I win 50% of the time, and need to call $190 into $411, which only requires me to win 46% of the time to break even.

They could not give a time frame for PokerStars coming to New Jersey, since their licensing is still being processed, but as  soon as it is (I have read sometime in October) they expect to hit the ground running.  They have experience in implementing single country PokerStars brands and they expect to be able to improve on many of the areas which the current sites lack, namely depositing problems, software malfunctions, customer service and the rewards programs.

With so many of the major problems improved, I believe that they will be are able to pick up significant market share and I look forward to playing on PokerStars New Jersey as soon as it becomes available.  I hope that they can show other states what is possible when internet gaming is run the right way and thereby encourage internet poker to be more accepted in the United States.

My reply lately has been to ask why these players aren’t in Ivey’s Room in the Aria Las Vegas where the buyins are hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Clearly these players exercise some choice in who they play, and their willingness to play anyone extends only to playing people they believe they have an edge over.  In fact, many of these players do not play every available game online in New Jersey, but are using criteria for game selection that is not primarily concerned with profitability.  Though I find it irritating to be berated, especially by people with whom I have been friendly, I believe that they are less skilled in achieving the end goal of playing poker professionally: making money.

I believe there are 2 sets of essential poker skills, hard skills and soft skills.  Hard skills encompass everything related to playing a poker hand like whether or not to bet, how much to bet or whether you think your opponent is bluffing.  Soft skills are everything else involved in playing poker, like being in the correct mindset, where to sit at the table and how not to tilt.  You need both sets of skills to be a successful professional.  For example, someone who is great at betting, but who tilts off their whole bankroll when they take a bad beat, has soft skills that counteract their hard skills to the point that it is going to be tough for them to be a long term winner.  

There are many, many situations that occur at the poker table, and as a professional, it is my job to know which ones are profitable and to try to put myself in those situations.   I have spent thousands of hours doing analysis in order to figure out where the money is made and how best to make it.  For example, there are many players who I would not like sitting on my left (acting after me) but who I am happy to have on my right (acting before me).  Does that mean that I will never sit with them on my left?  Of course not, but there needs to be a something positive that counteracts the money I lose (or cannot make) because of the tough player on my left.  If you are not consistently not discerning about these small edges that frequently occur, they quickly add up  and really eat into the bottom line.

Before I play a hand, I try to determine whether or not it is profitable for me to play in a game.  Into that calculation goes some of the following: am I a favorite in this game?, will it distract from my other games?,  do I have enough games going now?,  will I learn something from playing here?,  will the game start if I play heads up?, in addition to many other things.  I do the mental calculation to figure out if  I think it is profitable, and if it is, then I play, if not, then I don’t.

Often when I do start a game and the weaker player sits, I find myself in a poor position and not able to make money, while someone else who sat later will get one of the more profitable seats and therefore reap the benefits of my playing heads up to start games.  I don’t generally play in a game with 5 other tough regulars, not because I don’t think I can win in the game, but because its not worth my time and mental energy to win at a small rate (and endure a lot of variance),  when I could be focusing my attention on more profitable scenarios.  If my opponent does x, and I have trouble reacting to x, I am not going to go out of my way to play them heads up, a.k.a. giving them money.  Once I figure out a good way to counteract what they are doing, I might play them heads up to challenge myself and see if my solution works.

I play poker to make money, not for ego or to show the world who the better player is.  In fact, if one of the people who berated me had asked me nicely, I probably would have talked poker with them and we could have discussed how I think we match up against each other.  If other good players want to battle each other by “playing anyone” and distract themselves from the games I am in, go for it!  If I sit out against you heads up, please don’t be mad at me, take it as a compliment that I thought you were good enough to not be worth my time and energy to play.

I immediately emailed support on July 6th (before the sale was over) informed them of the problem and told them that I wanted to purchase the bonuses at the discounted price, and asked if they could do it for me manually. That was over a week ago and I have since inquired 2 additional times and have been told twice that the issue has been escalated to a supervisor and that I should have an answer soon.

I have lost what little faith I had in Party Poker and Borgata Poker. I have been playing on Party Poker(and Borgata Poker, which shares a player pool) since December and each time I have had a problem, I have been told it will be escalated to a supervisor and I have not heard back from them. It has now been nearly 8 days since my original email and given their history of ignoring problems, I would like to make this issue, along with many of the others that I have experienced over the past few months, public.

Here are just a few of the problems:

1)When I caught a player cheating by playing on the same table under a different screen name, I informed them and to my knowledge, there was nothing done about it.

2) The geolocation software, which ensures that the players are in NJ while playing, intermittently cannot locate me in NJ and therefore disconnects me from my games frequently. Because of a Party Poker software glitch, I must leave the table(losing my seat) in order to be geolocated in NJ. This does not happen on the 2 other main sites.

3)Their software crashes on me at least twice a day, they refuse to fix it and the reimbursements that I have asked for have also been escalated to a supervisor and ignored.

4)There is a phone number to call for support but no one ever answers it.

5)The security email that ensures that you are the one logging into your account(as mandated by NJ law) often arrives 5-8 hours after logging in, providing no security and ensuring that if your account is hacked, nothing can be done.

6)There are more software glitches than I can name, from prizepools being wrong, to clicking on the lobby making the software freeze, to the login window not opening until you restart the software several times.

Because of the limitation on the number of available games, I am forced to play on Party/Borgata in addition to WSOP/888 Poker and I understand that I make more money using their crappy site than if I boycott them.

Back in 2006, I made a conscious decision to no longer play on Party Poker because of their horrendous customer service, terrible software and lack of concern for their players. I chose to go with PokerStars, who left no stone unturned in attempting to become the best site out there for the players and whose reputation for customer service is impeccable. It is unfortunate that the politics of gambling in NJ has forced me to resume playing on Party/Borgata.

I know there are many out there who have expressed similar complaints about Party Poker NJ and who are excited for PokerStars to enter the market.

I have heard that PokerStars might be granted a license to operate in NJ soon. Be very afraid Party/Borgata, because I will be moving there and I am definitely not alone.

The Spartan Race was super fun and a really great experience.  I would definitely do another one!

The course was very hilly and at every point on the course, it felt like I was either a)climbing up a hill b)trying not to fall down a hill or c)doing an obstacle.  I think the course was steeper than hiking up Table Mountain (which I did 5 years ago) and very, rocky.  I had to be constantly vigilant to be sure that I stepped down correctly and, for me, it made it more about completing the race, than actually racing.

I was proud that I was able to complete most of the obstacles and that my hard work paid off in a few important spots like climbing the cargo net and getting over the 8 foot wall.  I will recap some of the obstacles along with my predictions.

I will finish(98%) I was really happy to finish and it was pretty cool to be in the top 18% of competitors.  The chances of me finishing were probably lower than estimated given given the rocky uphills and downhills.

Rope Climb(30%) I made it about halfway up the rope, and my lack of practice really hurt me.  I think that if I was used to the climbing technique, and to the doing the descent, I could have made it.  Next time I will!

Monkey Bars(50%) This year they decided to make the monkey bars uneven, which I had not trained for, and do not think I could have done.  As it was, my hand slipped so I did 30 burpees and was on my way.

Monkey Net Cargo(15%)  It didn’t seem to be as hard as I thought, though I only made it about 3 lengths before my hand slipped and I fell into the mud.  I think I actually underestimated my chances of completing it.

Barbed Wire Crawl(100%) It wasn’t wasn’t as long or bad as I thought it was going to be and I think I moved through it pretty efficiently.

80lb Stone Carry(75%)  The stone was heavy and awkward, but once I got it up, I was able to get it across and back without too much trouble.

Wall Climb (80%) I needed every one of my practice pullups to get myself out of the mud and up the wall.  It was a great feeling though, because my hard work paid dividends and I pushed myself hard.

Spear Throw (30%) I had one throw and I missed.  More burpees.

Other Obstacles: The Cargo Net Climb was really high(also overlooking a massive downhill) and I am not a fan of heights.  I moved slowly and was extremely careful not to fall.  I am interested to see how the picture of me taken in mid-climb looks.

The Sandbag Carry was straight uphill and heavy.  Probably the toughest obstacle because it required continuous perseverance with a heavy burden.

The Log Carry was big and awkward(I choose my log poorly) and I dropped it, nearly breaking the feet of the people behind me.  The hill wasn’t so steep though and the course was short, so it wasn’t too bad.

The 6 foot, 7, foot and 8 foot walls were pretty easy and I was so happy that I was able to complete them without any assistance.  I made the 8 foot wall by my fingertips and was able to pull myself up.

The organization of the race is top notch.  The route you need to follow is obvious in order to register for the race, get your number, timing chip etc.  There were plenty of showers, changing areas and tents all of which were closely located and easy to find.  The course was well marked with signs and there was no way to get lost.   However, because of the staggered start (200 people leave every 15 minutes), and the one person width trails that caused bottlenecks at a few points, it didn’t feel as much like a race for me as I had hoped it would.

As Coach Flex said, “Now that you have one under your belt, you know what you need to work on and how to get better.  Then you get after it.”  Good words to end this blog with!