The Long Run - And Other Fiction
- Thread starter StandardDeviant
- Start date
Frog's Tongue in Cheek?
I believe Snyder said this was tongue in cheek.
We know this, at some point when you walk into a casino you will walk out with less money.
If you play correctly; if you play long enough, the more likely good things will happen!:joker::whip:
Short run matters; if you mess that up, there is no long run.
Long run matters, one wants to get there so winning is more certain.
Would you rather play 100 hands an hour or 1 billion?
I believe Snyder said this was tongue in cheek.
We know this, at some point when you walk into a casino you will walk out with less money.
If you play correctly; if you play long enough, the more likely good things will happen!:joker::whip:
Short run matters; if you mess that up, there is no long run.
Long run matters, one wants to get there so winning is more certain.
Would you rather play 100 hands an hour or 1 billion?
A great article, though. It took a minute to re-adjust to the reality of things after my way-above-EV trip to the BJ Bash when I was in Vegas last week losing max bet after max bet. I must have been about 100 units or so down when I realized that this is exactly why most APs never make it. It really tests your mettle when you're having so many back-to-back losing sessions; you begin to doubt your own ability. But after a bit of assessment and reflection, I sucked it up and went back to work, crushing session after session—with the exception of my customary huge loss at NY NY at the end of the trip, which has become a new tradition for me—until I left much closer to my expected trip results. On the negative side, for sure, but not a hopeless loss. It's not for everyone.
Of course we play to make money, but we make money by playing with a mathematical advantage. My point wasn't that we should be thrilled after a loss or that we should lose money and not re-evaluate our game. My point was that we should always play the game that maximizes the geometric growth rate of our bankroll (or our utility, if you want to get into that), within our personal levels of risk tolerance. If we are in a game that is within our acceptable risk levels, a loss will not be devastating. It may cause us to resize our betting unit, but it shouldn't be wiping us out.
If we are up or down for the shoe, the session, the trip, or lifetime, it shouldn't affect our play except that we should adjust to the conditions going forward. That means we will take into account our current bankroll (including any wins and losses from previous play), what games are available to us (maybe better games or different heat levels at a different betting level, etc.), and any other factors that go into determining the best play going forward. I did not mean that we don't care if we ever make any money. Obviously we do. What I meant was that whether you won or lost previously, it's already happened and it has no bearing on your expected results going forward. If we start with $15k and lose 5k, we play one way. Given otherwise identical conditions, if we start with $5k and win $5k, we should play the same going forward. Either way, we are at a $10k bankroll and some set of playing conditions. The path that lead to our current situation is irrelevant to how we should proceed.
We clearly care emotionally what our results are, but once something has happened, it is in the past and it doesn't affect our future situation. What "Results don't matter" really means for poker is is slightly different from what I described above, but it still applies to blackjack as well. What it means in poker is that a good or bad result doesn't tell you if you made the right or wrong move. It doesn't play into your analysis of the situation. To put it in blackjack terms, if you get a max bet out on a great count and lose, you didn't make the wrong move, so long as your max bet was correctly calculated for your bankroll and risk tolerance to begin with.
More to my point regarding quitting a shoe once you have won your average per shoe EV, what sagefrog is not considering is that your EV from now until the end of the current shoe changes as the shoe progresses and does not depend upon your previous results. That's what I was really trying to say. If the true count is very positive, the EV for playing out the shoe is also going to be positive, so leaving because you have won a set amount of money is wrong. You are still walking away from a +EV situation, and absent other circumstances, no true AP would do such a thing. Likewise, if the count tanks, we wong out because playing the rest of the shoe would be -EV, or at least less +EV than moving to another table (depending on your wong-out requirements). We evaluate whether we want to stay or not by the EV of playing out the shoe, and our previous results during that shoe should have nothing to do with it. If you use a sim to calculate your average EV/shoe and quit a shoe when you hit that number, you won't see the results the sim suggests because you are playing a different game with significantly fewer +EV hands.
If we are up or down for the shoe, the session, the trip, or lifetime, it shouldn't affect our play except that we should adjust to the conditions going forward. That means we will take into account our current bankroll (including any wins and losses from previous play), what games are available to us (maybe better games or different heat levels at a different betting level, etc.), and any other factors that go into determining the best play going forward. I did not mean that we don't care if we ever make any money. Obviously we do. What I meant was that whether you won or lost previously, it's already happened and it has no bearing on your expected results going forward. If we start with $15k and lose 5k, we play one way. Given otherwise identical conditions, if we start with $5k and win $5k, we should play the same going forward. Either way, we are at a $10k bankroll and some set of playing conditions. The path that lead to our current situation is irrelevant to how we should proceed.
We clearly care emotionally what our results are, but once something has happened, it is in the past and it doesn't affect our future situation. What "Results don't matter" really means for poker is is slightly different from what I described above, but it still applies to blackjack as well. What it means in poker is that a good or bad result doesn't tell you if you made the right or wrong move. It doesn't play into your analysis of the situation. To put it in blackjack terms, if you get a max bet out on a great count and lose, you didn't make the wrong move, so long as your max bet was correctly calculated for your bankroll and risk tolerance to begin with.
More to my point regarding quitting a shoe once you have won your average per shoe EV, what sagefrog is not considering is that your EV from now until the end of the current shoe changes as the shoe progresses and does not depend upon your previous results. That's what I was really trying to say. If the true count is very positive, the EV for playing out the shoe is also going to be positive, so leaving because you have won a set amount of money is wrong. You are still walking away from a +EV situation, and absent other circumstances, no true AP would do such a thing. Likewise, if the count tanks, we wong out because playing the rest of the shoe would be -EV, or at least less +EV than moving to another table (depending on your wong-out requirements). We evaluate whether we want to stay or not by the EV of playing out the shoe, and our previous results during that shoe should have nothing to do with it. If you use a sim to calculate your average EV/shoe and quit a shoe when you hit that number, you won't see the results the sim suggests because you are playing a different game with significantly fewer +EV hands.
Hi Stan Dev
You make alot of good points. To me "LONG -Run" is theoretical, as you say. To me, it is a "limit", that no mortal will ever, or can, reach.
As mortals, all we can do is figure out ROR over a specific number of rounds played.
I think maybe you asked who actually plays a million rounds the same way with the same orig roll in the exact same game playing the exact same way?
Answer, no one does or can. But all one can do is try as best as one can.
All one has is one sim, assuming a very many specific assumptions. A sim cannot adjust to a 76% pen level if it is a sim that assumed a 75% level kind of thing, etc.
The good news is that one can run as many sims as one wants assuming as many different assumptions as one wants. From pen level, counting system, use of how many indexes, back-counting, playing-all, wonging-out, playing more than one hand vs a dealer upcard etc.
And, also, one can combine the "expected" and "SD" from as many diff sims as one chooses to, to "know" how far one is from expected for however long one played according to each different sim.
You sort of lost me a little on a bunch of your earlier stuff about SD being within x% of EV.
Also, like when you say x hours at y hds/hr, maybe it's just me, but all I have ever cared about is number of rounds physically played as opposed to how many hours it took me to play them.
Saves me the trouble of estimating how many "rds" I played if all I know is how many hrs I played.
And to you and maybe whoever else it was, take, say, Don's Table 10.51 for a 4.5/6 DAS S17 LS game. His tables don't do a 1-15 spread so I can't either. But a 1-16 play-all spread gives an N0 of 27489 rounds (Long-run according to some). 275 hrs assuming 100/rds/hr. It also gives an N0 of 2877 physical rds if back-counting and spreading 1-4.
Was it you who seemed to equate a use of a sim to a "religion"? As if it was some kind of quack religion?
Let me guess, you don't now have or have ever used a sim for any reason whatsoever?
All the while playing a measly 15000 rds of BJ while counting?
How does that work, if so?
And, as an aside, while playing VP, was it JOB?, anyway, why don't you also, simply as an AP thing, attempt to figure how "lucky" you actually were finishing how much ahead over how long?
I only shoot out this cr*p because I love you to death because of your questions and attitude, so try to not get too mad at me.
You may think the logical thing is to increase unit bet as one roll increases, and I'm not arguing the point, but, as you say, it certainly changes one's ROR from that point forward.
Not that it matters but, probably because of my internet play, always with a roll of whatever but, always, more or less, same number of units, I never had to deal much with the question of increasing $unit size. I just always made sure I had a sh*t-load of units and took it from there knowing how much "time" I had to use before I could cash-out lol.
So, I just ain't like you and others having to worry about what you are worrying about. So, feel free, absolutely, to take my "theory" with a huge grain of salt.
It's weird - I know exactly what I'd do if I were you. But I choose to not to do it for whatever reasons.
Good luck to you.
If it happens you don't have a sim, vaya con dios.
You make alot of good points. To me "LONG -Run" is theoretical, as you say. To me, it is a "limit", that no mortal will ever, or can, reach.
As mortals, all we can do is figure out ROR over a specific number of rounds played.
I think maybe you asked who actually plays a million rounds the same way with the same orig roll in the exact same game playing the exact same way?
Answer, no one does or can. But all one can do is try as best as one can.
All one has is one sim, assuming a very many specific assumptions. A sim cannot adjust to a 76% pen level if it is a sim that assumed a 75% level kind of thing, etc.
The good news is that one can run as many sims as one wants assuming as many different assumptions as one wants. From pen level, counting system, use of how many indexes, back-counting, playing-all, wonging-out, playing more than one hand vs a dealer upcard etc.
And, also, one can combine the "expected" and "SD" from as many diff sims as one chooses to, to "know" how far one is from expected for however long one played according to each different sim.
You sort of lost me a little on a bunch of your earlier stuff about SD being within x% of EV.
Also, like when you say x hours at y hds/hr, maybe it's just me, but all I have ever cared about is number of rounds physically played as opposed to how many hours it took me to play them.
Saves me the trouble of estimating how many "rds" I played if all I know is how many hrs I played.
And to you and maybe whoever else it was, take, say, Don's Table 10.51 for a 4.5/6 DAS S17 LS game. His tables don't do a 1-15 spread so I can't either. But a 1-16 play-all spread gives an N0 of 27489 rounds (Long-run according to some). 275 hrs assuming 100/rds/hr. It also gives an N0 of 2877 physical rds if back-counting and spreading 1-4.
Was it you who seemed to equate a use of a sim to a "religion"? As if it was some kind of quack religion?
Let me guess, you don't now have or have ever used a sim for any reason whatsoever?
All the while playing a measly 15000 rds of BJ while counting?
How does that work, if so?
And, as an aside, while playing VP, was it JOB?, anyway, why don't you also, simply as an AP thing, attempt to figure how "lucky" you actually were finishing how much ahead over how long?
I only shoot out this cr*p because I love you to death because of your questions and attitude, so try to not get too mad at me.
You may think the logical thing is to increase unit bet as one roll increases, and I'm not arguing the point, but, as you say, it certainly changes one's ROR from that point forward.
Not that it matters but, probably because of my internet play, always with a roll of whatever but, always, more or less, same number of units, I never had to deal much with the question of increasing $unit size. I just always made sure I had a sh*t-load of units and took it from there knowing how much "time" I had to use before I could cash-out lol.
So, I just ain't like you and others having to worry about what you are worrying about. So, feel free, absolutely, to take my "theory" with a huge grain of salt.
It's weird - I know exactly what I'd do if I were you. But I choose to not to do it for whatever reasons.
Good luck to you.
If it happens you don't have a sim, vaya con dios.
can't really argue with that, mainly if the count is positive i'd probably not abandon the shoe, errhh well i might. depends, i usually have goals in mind sort of thing and it's usually not the long term. then i'm no pro, my emphasis is recreation while hoping to reach some goal, sort of thing.
i guess i am confused though on one point. like say a shoe is gonna give you X number of rounds, sort of thing. ok, those X rounds can represent some expectation (EV). just seems to me if you reach that EV or above before the X rounds are completed that there is no harm (or risk) if you call it quits for that particular shoe.
:whip:
edit: lol, woke up the next day and had a question...
like ok, a shoe is an independent event, no?
a shoe is gonna give you X number of hands give or take, no?
X number of hands represents Y EV..... ok?
so if you reach Y EV in < X hands, wouldn't that mean you have no reason to expect to have better results for that shoe, for the case where you would play on?
i guess i am confused though on one point. like say a shoe is gonna give you X number of rounds, sort of thing. ok, those X rounds can represent some expectation (EV). just seems to me if you reach that EV or above before the X rounds are completed that there is no harm (or risk) if you call it quits for that particular shoe.
:whip:edit: lol, woke up the next day and had a question...
like ok, a shoe is an independent event, no?
a shoe is gonna give you X number of hands give or take, no?
X number of hands represents Y EV..... ok?
so if you reach Y EV in < X hands, wouldn't that mean you have no reason to expect to have better results for that shoe, for the case where you would play on?
Last edited:
sagefr0g said:
can't really argue with that, mainly if the count is positive i'd probably not abandon the shoe, errhh well i might. depends, i usually have goals in mind sort of thing and it's usually not the long term. then i'm no pro, my emphasis is recreation while hoping to reach some goal, sort of thing.
i guess i am confused though on one point. like say a shoe is gonna give you X number of rounds, sort of thing. ok, those X rounds can represent some expectation (EV). just seems to me if you reach that EV or above before the X rounds are completed that there is no harm (or risk) if you call it quits for that particular shoe.:whip:
i guess i am confused though on one point. like say a shoe is gonna give you X number of rounds, sort of thing. ok, those X rounds can represent some expectation (EV). just seems to me if you reach that EV or above before the X rounds are completed that there is no harm (or risk) if you call it quits for that particular shoe.
:whip:
This is what I was trying to explain when I said "Results don't matter." It doesn't matter if you won or lost in the previous hands. You still have to view the remaining portion of the shoe as an independent event, given certain starting conditions. Those starting conditions include the game conditions (rules, penetration, current position in the shoe, current count, etc.), but your previous results have no impact on what will happen going forward. If you are not comfortable putting out the big bets after you've won a certain amount in a shoe, then try playing with a smaller max bet and recalculating your bet ramp, etc. But please don't walk away from a shoe when the count is good
If your goal is recreation rather than optimizing risk vs. profit, then of course you may play thing differently than me, but I feel that if you aren't comfortable with the bigger bets, then you can probably get a better balance of risk and reward by recalculating a betting ramp that you are comfortable with rather than walking away from your best opportunities. (Run-on sentence? :laugh
QFIT said:
Well, it can if it was created by CVCX. Just click the penetration spinner to change from 75% to 76% and all the results instantly change. Or look at the chart of all penetrations at once.
Just click the penetration spinner to change from 75% to 76% and all the results instantly change. Or look at the chart of all penetrations at once.
You should make one of them spinners for every assumption behind the sim lol.
Does it change $unit size too when spun to a very high level of pen all the while suggesting optimal spreads?? Never mind, of course it must.
BEA-utiful. A pen spinner.
The only thing I have ever wondered about your software is, since it does absolutely everything else and more I could ever imagine, never imagined a pen spinner lol, may I expect a release in spring 2012 to cure the common cold lol?
Can one also see how the Freq, Adv % and SD columns change?
Whatever, very nice feature saving an OCD guy like me from running separate sims lol.
A pen spinner. I got see a few pics of that lol.
Nynefingers said:
That's where you're not quite right, sage. If your average EV per shoe is $Y, then that means that some shoes will be worth more than $Y and some will be worth less than $Y. If you play-all for the shoes that it turns out end up being worth less than $Y, but then you leave the other shoes at $Y profit rather than playing them out till the end, it will end up dropping your personal average EV to less than $Y. If the predicted average EV is $Y, you'll only see that in practice if you take full advantage of the good shoes. Imagine if you did a sim for playing the last half of a shoe (rather than a full shoe) with a true count starting at +2. Certainly, you would see that playing those half shoes would have a great +EV. Who cares that you've already made $Y in the first half of the shoe? That doesn't matter. What does matter is you have another great +EV opportunity to play the rest of the shoe. In addition, that remaining +EV is a part of what makes up the $Y EV for each shoe. That's why your personal EV is less than the calculated EV if you leave in these +EV situations. It's also why your personal EV will go up if you wong out in -EV situations, since your play-all calculations assume you will do just that: play all.
This is what I was trying to explain when I said "Results don't matter." It doesn't matter if you won or lost in the previous hands. You still have to view the remaining portion of the shoe as an independent event, given certain starting conditions. Those starting conditions include the game conditions (rules, penetration, current position in the shoe, current count, etc.), but your previous results have no impact on what will happen going forward. If you are not comfortable putting out the big bets after you've won a certain amount in a shoe, then try playing with a smaller max bet and recalculating your bet ramp, etc. But please don't walk away from a shoe when the count is good
If your goal is recreation rather than optimizing risk vs. profit, then of course you may play thing differently than me, but I feel that if you aren't comfortable with the bigger bets, then you can probably get a better balance of risk and reward by recalculating a betting ramp that you are comfortable with rather than walking away from your best opportunities. (Run-on sentence? :laugh
This is what I was trying to explain when I said "Results don't matter." It doesn't matter if you won or lost in the previous hands. You still have to view the remaining portion of the shoe as an independent event, given certain starting conditions. Those starting conditions include the game conditions (rules, penetration, current position in the shoe, current count, etc.), but your previous results have no impact on what will happen going forward. If you are not comfortable putting out the big bets after you've won a certain amount in a shoe, then try playing with a smaller max bet and recalculating your bet ramp, etc. But please don't walk away from a shoe when the count is good
If your goal is recreation rather than optimizing risk vs. profit, then of course you may play thing differently than me, but I feel that if you aren't comfortable with the bigger bets, then you can probably get a better balance of risk and reward by recalculating a betting ramp that you are comfortable with rather than walking away from your best opportunities. (Run-on sentence? :laugh
again most everything your saying seems orthodox, so no argument on the theory side, especially for a pro or an AP that wants to follow an established game plan that 'works', sort of thing.
just i'd say me personally i'm not gonna get in that box, lmao.
but that box is full of knowledge, information and advantage, i'll take some of that, lol. so i can see where you'd think i'm not quite right, cause well yeah what i'm saying doesn't follow the orthodox methodology.
a quick story if i may. my wife and i just wrapped up two days of trying the AP stuff. sort of in a nutshell, just me maybe, my bankroll is small as it is maybe is circa 76% money that once belonged to the casino's and is now mine. and small as it may be, i'm pretty sure i could take that roll and at my normal rate of play, just play basic strategy for the rest of my time on earth for which i'd still have the capability to play basic strategy that i'd never lose it all. so really as terrible as it is to say, as hair raising as it must sound to an AP pro, i'll just say it wouldn't break my heart if by the end of my playing career i lost my entire bankroll, cause truth be known if that were to happen it would only be about $300 of my original money. i think you mentioned utility in this thread some where, well see utility has some bearing on this stuff from my perspective, cause well, i'm young and easily confused, erhh 60. like for investments, 5% in stocks, the rest in bonds sort of thing is cool, but if i was younger it might could be different sort of thing.
so anyway, the wife and i racked up some nice coin playing blackjack these couple of days. let me just say so much coin, that strictly orthodox counting to bring in that kind of money, well it would have taken quite a few more days of play than it actually took us. so i know, that's just standard deviation money to an AP, sort of thing of the big long game sort of thing.
well, i'm not in that box, lol, not really sure what box i'm in, what i try and do is to be one of those 'thinking AP's' that the Stealthy Won refers to. like ok, to my mind i look back on that play and that money won over those two days and over the previous four years and i say to myself, you know what, far as i'm concerned that didn't even happen, that's water under the bridge, that has about as much statistical significance as the next roll of the dice, lol. all that far as i'm concerned is an independent event and the long run, what ever that is starts tomorrow when i play again but really all i'm gonna care about is that tomorrow when it happens, that long run is something that if need be i can deal with when ever. but i do care about the bottom line as dumb as that may sound.
so on with the story, lmao, so we won that money, with rfb and entertainment on the side, and i play some video poker and lose forty bucks.
ok so i want it back. so the wife goes and plays some more blackjack and does in fact win that forty back. it took a couple of hours and there was only one opportunity to raise our bets and hope for the advantage to play out and guess what? we lost those bets, thing is just basic strategy and time and standard deviation brought us back from being $50 down to the final getting the forty bucks back. so but during that time, i just wanted that forty bucks back, i'm biting my nails, i'm knowing the odds, knowing we could easy lose everything we had previously won, and that's what i was caring about. but my wife, she is just merrily playing along, having fun as she put it, lmao. and i'm the guy that when i play, i stiffle my emotions to the point where i might as well be a rock. so what ever, that long run stuff is ok far as i'm concerned but i hardly give it a second thought, it's the now, it's the today that i care about and goals for the day, sort of thing.
that said, when i play the game, i could care less about winning a hand or losing a hand or tying a hand, cause i know i'm gonna win X hands and lose Y hands and push Z hands over time, sort of thing. i just care really about having the opportunity to take a shot at those hands that have an advantage, hoping for the snapper or double down that plays out, lol, but i do have goals for a given days play and if i reach them, well thats good enough for me.
so much for the story.
ok now about this EV stuff. here is how i look at that.
too me it's just simply knowledge. it's if we allow for complete ignorance other than AP orthodox counting methodology, it's the limit of the knowledge we have for some event (say a shoe) we are observing.
like ok again, take one individual shoe, and say we are gonna consider that shoe. that shoe is gonna represent some likely number of rounds and that number of rounds is gonna represent some expectation should we happen to look at it from the perspective of a card counter. and yes EV isn't the extent of our knowledge, like we can know standard deviation as well and risk stuff.
the thing though is, far as i'm concerned when i look at a shoe, i look at it as an independent event from all other shoes, an independent event that falls with in a range of true counts that can present for billions and billions of shoes where said range of true counts will fall into some normal range as far as how they will present in the long run.
the point that interests me is looking at one shoe at a time, or really just one shoe, is that in our ignorance as say a card counter, there is some EV some expectation that we can say ok, i know what that number is.
then as far as i'm concerned i can decide from there what i want to do or not do when it comes to results and goals, no big deal really, lol.
As Long as the Shoe Fits Wear it, It's a Long Run
Sure, I consider individual shoes all the time:joker::whip:
When to watch, when to play and when to leave.
The danger would be if one is in a play all or near play all situation and if they win a certain $ amount they leave a shoe, even if still positive. If one does this enough they may be playing a losing game.
Sure, I consider individual shoes all the time:joker::whip:
When to watch, when to play and when to leave.
The danger would be if one is in a play all or near play all situation and if they win a certain $ amount they leave a shoe, even if still positive. If one does this enough they may be playing a losing game.
In other words, assuming you have more or less been playing the same way in the same way up until now, you have doubled your orig roll and then doubled that already doubled roll. From this point forward, should you choose to continue to play in the same way from this point forward, your orig ROR is now ROR^4. If orig risk was 5%, its now maybe 1 in 160000 you could lose your roll if you played a really really longtime (basically forever). Like you say.
You tell me how many Stan dev's it would take for you to lose your entire, including orig roll, roll from here forward lol. You choose what "from here forward" means lol. Say 500,000 more hds. Say 1MM more hands if you want.
I wear belts and suspenders (plural) for pants beginning with a waistline around my neck lol.
If you do not think you are in the "long-run" now, you must be wearing pants I wouldn't be caught dead in lmao.
If you are not in the long-run now you tell me what your definition is lol.
Just throwing out my cr*p - I didn't completely understand KewlJ's long-run definition either. He's playing, I think, having also to pay expenses.
I don't know, it sounds to me you are maybe both, comfortably, in the "long-run"?
That's OK - but just stop with this modest "pretty sure" cr*p. You may as well be that blonde Miss America on FOX, what's her name, having won such title by beautifully playing the violin, who also was valedictorian in highschool, who graduated with Honors from Stanford and also went to Oxford University in England. Yet, somehow, for some reason I don't get, feels compelled to pretend on nat'l TV she must "google" the definition of "czar". It's embarrassing. I can't imagine what she must feel like having to pretend on nat'l TV she is a blonde bimbo idiot. Don't downsize yourself.
Sorry - a little crazy tonite lmao.
You tell me how many Stan dev's it would take for you to lose your entire, including orig roll, roll from here forward lol. You choose what "from here forward" means lol. Say 500,000 more hds. Say 1MM more hands if you want.
I wear belts and suspenders (plural) for pants beginning with a waistline around my neck lol.
If you do not think you are in the "long-run" now, you must be wearing pants I wouldn't be caught dead in lmao.
If you are not in the long-run now you tell me what your definition is lol.
Just throwing out my cr*p - I didn't completely understand KewlJ's long-run definition either. He's playing, I think, having also to pay expenses.
I don't know, it sounds to me you are maybe both, comfortably, in the "long-run"?
That's OK - but just stop with this modest "pretty sure" cr*p. You may as well be that blonde Miss America on FOX, what's her name, having won such title by beautifully playing the violin, who also was valedictorian in highschool, who graduated with Honors from Stanford and also went to Oxford University in England. Yet, somehow, for some reason I don't get, feels compelled to pretend on nat'l TV she must "google" the definition of "czar". It's embarrassing. I can't imagine what she must feel like having to pretend on nat'l TV she is a blonde bimbo idiot. Don't downsize yourself.
Sorry - a little crazy tonite lmao.