Quick Stud 8 question

On Jul 23, 12:44 am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am down a couple hundred big bets and I am really uncertain if it is my
> play or the usual run of bad luck that I experience when I change games or
> levels.

Post a hand history of a full playing session.
(Not selected bad beats). Then people will
be able to tell you if you are playing badly
or just getting unlucky.

> Generally 80% of my playing hands are three babies that will make a
> straight at worst, usually to a 7. I read if you make four babies on
> fourth street, you have an 80% chance to make low.

Perhaps you should stick to reading accurate information!

> I generally play it out if I make 4 babies on 4th or 5th street,
> especially heads up or when I am the only one that appears to be going
> low. Should I be folding these?

If you are drawing to half the pot, then you will
sometimes get your money back, and sometimes
lose it all. Obviously this is a long term loser.
You should fold if you don't have
outs to scoop the pot, unless odds are very
favourable for drawing to half the pot.
This applies preflop too; 863 is a horrible
starting hand.

It sounds like you are overvaluing low hands.
A low draw heads up is bad; a low draw is
much better in a multiway pot in which nobody
else has a better low draw.

HU, four low cards are not a monster, 8632 is
50/50 with a pair of kings. And if you don't
make your low on 5th then you are a 2-1 dog
to draw out on the remaining two streets.

You've got to give up low-low-low-low-brick
unless it is a low draw that can scoop,
e.g. 6543, or Axxx if you think that a pair
of aces will be good for high -- in which
case you call. Even 6543Q is still only
50/50 against the pair of kings. Good
players will charge you the maximum to
draw to your low.

Pop quiz - with your low draw, would you rather
be heads up vs. a high, or heads up vs. a worse
low draw?

> Almost all of the time I am the aggressor and one or two people just won't
> go away and I usually brick out or get rivered and there goes 5 BB. Then
> it is wait 5 to ten hands for decent starting cards, repeat cycle.

When playing calling stations, you should not
bluff. Value bet when you are pretty sure you
are ahead, check/call if unsure and you have
good pot odds to call. It's OK to show weakness
if you actually are weak. You'll either get a free card,
or the opponent will bet and then it costs you
the same as if you'd bet out. Plus this can
give you the option of check/raising your
good hands. I've seen people get in
check/raises on 5th, 6th, and 7th, and scoop!

Finally, the swings are big in this game.
You can play perfectly and lose 60BB in
a session, especially against calling stations.
I recommend reading the section in SuperSystem 2
on this game, it is well laid out and teaches all
the important concepts.
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22 2008 10:29 AM, Old Wolf wrote:

> On Jul 23, 12:44 am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I am down a couple hundred big bets and I am really uncertain if it is my
> > play or the usual run of bad luck that I experience when I change games or
> > levels.
>
> Post a hand history of a full playing session.
> (Not selected bad beats). Then people will
> be able to tell you if you are playing badly
> or just getting unlucky.
>

I wouldn't expect someone to pour through one of my sessions.

> > Generally 80% of my playing hands are three babies that will make a
> > straight at worst, usually to a 7. I read if you make four babies on
> > fourth street, you have an 80% chance to make low.
>
> Perhaps you should stick to reading accurate information!
>

This doesn't say what is accurate or why this is inaccurate, so I don't
know what to do with it.

> > I generally play it out if I make 4 babies on 4th or 5th street,
> > especially heads up or when I am the only one that appears to be going
> > low. Should I be folding these?
>
> If you are drawing to half the pot, then you will
> sometimes get your money back, and sometimes
> lose it all. Obviously this is a long term loser.
> You should fold if you don't have
> outs to scoop the pot, unless odds are very
> for drawing to half the pot.
> This applies too; 863 is a horrible
> starting hand.
>

I play babies that will make straights 80% of the time. That means
consecutive cards and one or two that only need two cards to make a
straight. example A 4 5
2 4 6 1 2 4 etc

> It sounds like you are overvaluing low hands.
> A low draw heads up is bad; a low draw is
> much better in a pot in which nobody
> else has a better low draw.
>

They start out multiway but often are HU by the time you get to sixth
street. My question was do you fold at this point when you have invested a
couple big bets or do you stick with it?

> HU, four low cards are not a monster, 8632 is
> 50/50 with a pair of kings. And if you don't
> make your low on 5th then you are a 2-1 dog
> to draw out on the remaining two streets.
>


> You've got to give up low-low-low-low-brick
> unless it is a low draw that can scoop,
> e.g. 6543, or if you think that a pair
> of aces will be good for high -- in which
> case you call. Even 6543Q is still only
> 50/50 against the pair of kings. Good
> players will charge you the maximum to
> draw to your low.
>

So, if you start with 2 3 6 and catch an 8 on fourth street, you should
fold when you get a brick on 5th when HU? Maybe something I need to do.

> Pop quiz - with your low draw, would you rather
> be heads up vs. a high, or heads up vs. a worse
> low draw?
>

Well, when I am HU with high, I fear they will make a wheel or back into
trips, a flush, or I will brick out to a single pair. When I am low, I am
begging for a good card. Statistically I suppose that high has the better
of it. Again, the problem is that you start out multiway but end up HU by
6th street and you hate to piss off several bets.

Again, something to consider.

> > Almost all of the time I am the aggressor and one or two people just won't
> > go away and I usually brick out or get and there goes 5 BB. Then
> > it is wait 5 to ten hands for decent starting cards, repeat cycle.
>
> When playing calling stations, you should not
> bluff. Value bet when you are pretty sure you
> are ahead, check/call if unsure and you have
> good pot odds to call. It's OK to show weakness
> if you actually are weak. You'll either get a free card,
> or the opponent will bet and then it costs you
> the same as if you'd bet out. Plus this can
> give you the option of check/raising your
> good hands. I've seen people get in
> check/raises on 5th, 6th, and 7th, and scoop!
>

No bluff, just trying to build a pot I expect to scoop.

> Finally, the swings are big in this game.
> You can play perfectly and lose 60BB in
> a session, especially against calling stations.
> I recommend reading the section in 2
> on this game, it is well laid out and teaches all
> the important concepts.

Thanks for you input, I will try to think a little more about folding four
babies with a brick on 5th if I need two perfect cards to scoop.

“People who matter are most aware that everyone else does too.” Malcolm
Forbes

_____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22, 8:44 am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since all my distinguished colleagues on RGP have said that stud 8 is
> truly a game where the most skillful player wins, I decided to give it
> another go.
>
> Not to good.  
>
> I am down a couple hundred big bets and I am really uncertain if it is my
> play or the usual run of bad luck that I experience when I change games or
> levels.  
>
> Naturally, I have had a few donkey hands where I get in a pissing match
> with somebody on the button that raises my bring-in where there are just
> the two of us, but other than that it *seems* like pure bad luck where I
> am getting rivered, split, bricked out, or no action.
>
> Generally 80% of my playing hands are three babies that will make a
> straight at worst, usually to a 7.  I read if you make four babies on
> fourth street, you have an 80% chance to make low.  Well sports fans, it
> ain't happening for me.
>
> I generally play it out if I make 4 babies on 4th or 5th street,
> especially heads up or when I am the only one that appears to be going
> low.  Should I be folding these?  
>
> Almost all of the time I am the aggressor and one or two people just won't
> go away and I usually brick out or get rivered and there goes 5 BB.  Then
> it is wait 5 to ten hands for decent starting cards, repeat cycle.  
>
> Ironically, the times I have logged winning sessions, it has really been
> the same kind of frustrating situations reversed that have been happening
> to me.  Like somebody pushing pocket aces with a low draw and not
> improving and I back into  to two small pair and scoop.  What I am saying
> is that the winning hands are just goofy a lot of the time.
>
> Maybe I am just fooling myself and I am just playing bad.  It occurred to
> me that I should go back and review all the hands I played last night
> before I play today to see what I could have done differently.
>
> Man on a stud 8 mission.
>

As Howard said elsethread, Russ posted some good Stud8 thoughts on the
newsgroup at one point. Someone else pointed to Sklansky's advice on
no-qualifier and said it might be good to read it and see what still
applied to Eight-or-Better. That sounds interesting as an exercise in
logic, etc, but I would go with Russ's articles as a good basis. I
only play Stud8 in mixed games. It was my worst game of the bunch and
I was one of the worse Stud8 players at a typical table before I read
the articles. Now it is still one of my worse games but usually almost
everyone at the table is worse at it than I am.

--
Will in New Haven
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 23, 4:03 am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Generally 80% of my playing hands are three babies that will make a
> > > straight at worst, usually to a 7. I read if you make four babies on
> > > fourth street, you have an 80% chance to make low.
>
> > Perhaps you should stick to reading accurate information!
>
> This doesn't say what is accurate or why this is inaccurate, so I don't
> know what to do with it.

Well, first of all the chance of making the low
depends on how many outs you have. If several
low cards are already dead then you are much
less likely to make your low than if you have a
full 16 outs thrice. You should observe the upcards
of course, and sometimes you can deduce from
how someone played that they probably have a
couple of low cards in the hole.

With 16 outs then you will make your low 80%
of the time. But this is very rare, typically it will
be more like 12 outs which is about 65%.
(i.e. you brick out almost twice as often).
And if you catch a brick on fifth, then I assume
you already know how likely you are to hit
12 outs on two remaining streets, from holdem
- but you only get half the pot when you do!

Note that even making half the pot 80% of the time
still gets scooped 20% of the time, roughly,
so if you yourself are not going to scoop 20%
of the time then it is a bad proposition. (6432Q
would be an example of a bettable hand with 16
low outs, if no fives are dead, because 4 outs
twice gives you 20% chance to scoop and you
might also scoop with a runner runner combo).

> So, if you start with 2 3 6 and catch an 8 on fourth street, you should
> fold when you get a brick on 5th when HU? Maybe something I need to do.

Generally yes. (Specific situations might differ).
With 236, you want to catch a 4 or a 5 on 4th or
give it up. You would fold 236 if several 4s or
5s were already dead. 2368 is marginal because you
are drawing to half the pot. You would only see 5th
if you get a free card, or if you're the only player
going low and there are at least two players going
high (and you check/call it, you do not want to put
money in with the worst hand, and knocking out all
but one of the high hands would be a disaster
unless you fill up on 5th).

> Well, when I am HU with high, I fear they will make a wheel or back into
> trips, a flush, or I will brick out to a single pair. When I am low, I am
> begging for a good card. Statistically I suppose that high has the better
> of it. Again, the problem is that you start out multiway but end up HU by
> 6th street and you hate to piss off several bets.

If you're high then your play is dictated by the
opponent's board. If they are showing 75J2 then
they are most unlikely to make a straight, so
you bet 6th in case they haven't filled up yet;
and check/call river. If they show 752 and bet
then you fold if the pot is small and call down
if it is large or if the player always bets a 4-card
low on 5th. However, if they are showing 654
and they bet 5th then you fold unless you have
2 pair or better already in which case you have
to crying call to river.

(The above paragraph all refers to heads up play.
You'd instamuck your pair if there were a chance
of being caught in a raising war between two low
hands, or if someone else was going high and
might have you beat. Having the second best
high hand is a cardinal sin).

> No bluff, just trying to build a pot I expect to scoop.

You're not scooping much with 2368
You jam 2356 on 4th of course, and probably
bet 5th if it's checked to you, but
you don't want to raise 5th with a brick unless
it is a multiway pot. You can raise 5th with
3456Q though (with no 2s or 7s dead) because
you still have 8 outs to scoop which is about
a 30% scoop chance, plus backdoor scoops.
(But not if your opponent may have a full house
or a flush already, just check/call).

> Thanks for you input, I will try to think a little more about folding four
> babies with a brick on 5th if I need two perfect cards to scoop.

Put some sample hands into twodimes.net on 5th,
then it will show you just how good or bad your
draw actually was. It's a very useful tool. And
I reiterate my recommendation of super/system 2,
it costs about as much as you're losing in 1 session
so it would repay itself very quickly!
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 23, 4:03 am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22 2008 10:29 AM, Old Wolf wrote:
>
> > Post a hand history of a full playing session.
> > (Not selected bad beats). Then people will
> > be able to tell you if you are playing badly
> > or just getting unlucky.
>
> I wouldn't expect someone to pour through one of my sessions.

Many people on this NG have nothing better to do..
and I, for one, like to look over hand histories as
it improves my play to analyse hands and discuss
with others (esp. more knowledgable others like
FellKnight).
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22 2008 12:47 PM, Old Wolf wrote:

> And if you catch a brick on fifth, then I assume
> you already know how likely you are to hit
> 12 outs on two remaining streets, from holdem

Trying to hit a 12 outer in Holdem across two streets is not the same math
as trying to hit a 12 outer in Stud8 across two streets.

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

"Will_gamble" <will_gamble2.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:va1hl5xjsm.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Since all my distinguished colleagues on RGP have said that stud 8 is
> truly a game where the most skillful player wins, I decided to give it
> another go.
>
.............

I'm afraid that what you're describing is fairly typical. The swings can be
drastic, and on a downswing, it can really feel like these things couldn't
possibly be happening at random. That said, better selection of starting
hands, more disciplined play and tuned aggressiveness will get the money
over time---very reliably if opponents don't practice the same virtues.

A resource that's widely available and not used nearly enough is David
Sklansky's chapter on "Q" (high/low stud, no qualifier) in the original
Super/System. The recommended exercise is going through the chapter
figuring out what you think applies unchanged to "E," and what has to be
changed. Todd Brunson's chapter in Super System 2 is also of value, but the
high-stakes game he is describing is almost as different from low stakes
play as Q is from E---again, the exercise is figuring out what transfers
over. Most people I talk with say, not in so many words, that Ray Zee's
advice would have the average player playing too loosely (but it's good if
YOU'RE good enough).

One quick remedy: you can eliminate some hands that contribute little to
earnings and a full share to variance by requiring that your low starts have
cleaner straight or flush chances than you require now.
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

Wow, thanks Stephen. You don't know how much this helps me cope with this
losing streak.
By all accounts so far, anybody that can play a lick wins all the time.
I got rid of my SS1, but I will look for that chapter on the net.

I have a book by Linda Johnson and some dude whose name I can't remember
now. It is pretty basic if you ask me.

It just makes me crazy that I wait and wait for good starting hands and it
is like I am pouring money down a hole with brick after brick or no action
when I do make a little something.

Thanks again

On Jul 22 2008 9:07 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:

> "Will_gamble" <will_gamble2.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:va1hl5xjsm.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > Since all my distinguished colleagues on RGP have said that stud 8 is
> > truly a game where the most skillful player wins, I decided to give it
> > another go.
> >
> .............
>
> I'm afraid that what you're describing is fairly typical. The swings can be
> drastic, and on a downswing, it can really feel like these things couldn't
> possibly be happening at random. That said, better selection of starting
> hands, more disciplined play and tuned aggressiveness will get the money
> over time---very reliably if opponents don't practice the same virtues.
>
> A resource that's widely available and not used nearly enough is David
> Sklansky's chapter on "Q" (high/low stud, no qualifier) in the original
> Super/System. The recommended exercise is going through the chapter
> figuring out what you think applies unchanged to "E," and what has to be
> changed. Todd Brunson's chapter in Super System 2 is also of value, but the
> high-stakes game he is describing is almost as different from low stakes
> play as Q is from E---again, the exercise is figuring out what transfers
> over. Most people I talk with say, not in so many words, that Ray Zee's
> advice would have the average player playing too loosely (but it's good if
> YOU'RE good enough).
>
> One quick remedy: you can eliminate some hands that contribute little to
> earnings and a full share to variance by requiring that your low starts have
> cleaner straight or flush chances than you require now.


“People who matter are most aware that everyone else does too.” Malcolm
Forbes

_____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22 2008 8:42 AM, Will_gamble wrote:

> Wow, thanks Stephen. You don't know how much this helps me cope with this
> losing streak.
> By all accounts so far, anybody that can play a lick wins all the time.
> I got rid of my SS1, but I will look for that chapter on the net.
>
> I have a book by Linda Johnson and some dude whose name I can't remember
> now. It is pretty basic if you ask me.
>
> It just makes me crazy that I wait and wait for good starting hands and it
> is like I am pouring money down a hole with brick after brick or no action
> when I do make a little something.
>
> Thanks again
>
> On Jul 22 2008 9:07 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:
>
> > "Will_gamble" <will_gamble2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:va1hl5xjsm.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > Since all my distinguished colleagues on RGP have said that stud 8 is
> > > truly a game where the most skillful player wins, I decided to give it
> > > another go.


Are you playing online? The games SUCK online and are often incredible
live. I know one of the best Stud/8 players around and he tells me that
the $30 game on Stars is simply not playable anymore and that you have to
drop down to 3-6 and below to get a decent game and even those aren't so
hot. This has been my experience on FT and is the reason I've switched to
Stud/Hi.


HB

Howard Beale

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22 2008 10:16 AM, Howard Beale wrote:

> Are you playing online? The games SUCK online and are often incredible
> live. I know one of the best Stud/8 players around and he tells me that
> the $30 game on Stars is simply not playable anymore and that you have to
> drop down to 3-6 and below to get a decent game and even those aren't so
> hot. This has been my experience on FT and is the reason I've switched to
> Stud/Hi.
>
Well, I am playing low 1/2.

I find myself thinking that there are more people that have a pretty good
understanding of the game than I would like if that is what you mean.

------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22 2008 9:25 AM, Will_gamble wrote:

> On Jul 22 2008 10:16 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
>
> > Are you playing online? The games SUCK online and are often incredible
> > live. I know one of the best Stud/8 players around and he tells me that
> > the $30 game on Stars is simply not playable anymore and that you have to
> > drop down to 3-6 and below to get a decent game and even those aren't so
> > hot. This has been my experience on FT and is the reason I've switched to
> > Stud/Hi.
> >
> Well, I am playing low 1/2.
>
> I find myself thinking that there are more people that have a pretty good
> understanding of the game than I would like if that is what you mean.


That is what I mean. Even at 1/2 it may be that you are playing against
players that at least have some skill at the game. Remember that Stud/8
is a very small part of online poker and those who seek it out are likely
experienced players. Even if you play decently it may not be possible to
beat the rake at that level (and if you do it won't be for much) and if
you're not at least decent you have no shot. IOW, 1/2 stud/8 online = big
waste of time, imo.


HB

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

On Jul 22 2008 12:49 PM, Old Wolf wrote:

> On Jul 23, 4:03 am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 22 2008 10:29 AM, Old Wolf wrote:
> >
> > > Post a hand history of a full playing session.
> > > (Not selected bad beats). Then people will
> > > be able to tell you if you are playing badly
> > > or just getting unlucky.
> >
> > I wouldn't expect someone to pour through one of my sessions.
>
> Many people on this NG have nothing better to do..
> and I, for one, like to look over hand histories as
> it improves my play to analyse hands and discuss
> with others (esp. more knowledgable others like
> FellKnight).

Hand histories en masse are not really my thing, but the
www.universal-replayer.net handles Stud, and makes such sessions a breeze
to analyze.

Fell
--
"One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards."
Oscar Wilde

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question 

Posted By: Daniel Negreanu
Date: Saturday, 29 December 2001, at 12:07 a.m.

In Response To: FACTS about Seattle Russ Georgiev (eLROY)

I have played with Seattle Russ, and his claims of being a WCP aren't
far
off. He is an extremely dangerous, aggressive pot and no limit player.
Also,
his understanding, and reading ability in Stud Hi-Lo is exceptional.
He is a crazy cook, but his poker skills are quite advanced.

_____________________________________________________________________________-

Now to your post. First, being the aggressor unless going high or
having a lock is not the correct thing to do. With three players in
the pot, with you on the come, you should relinquish the betting to
someone else. I assume you are playing games with an ante ration of
1-10 to bet comparision. This means, if you're plaing 1-2, the ante
is 10 cents. If you're playing $10-$20, the ante is $1. If this part
is not correct, more information must be given.

Stud 8 is a game of position. With low cards you obviously have the
position, meaning you're not forced to bet first. The main objective
is realizing what these players have, be it a pair, a flush draw or
nothing. This is done by letting them dicate the early rounds. When
you make low, most of the time you are free rolling, with about a five
to shot to beat a pair. If you have a double belly buster or an open
end straight, you're over 35% to make a small straight.

Plus low cards that pair you aren't that bad. When going low, you
prefer having as many players in the pot as possible. It's also
critical you look aver the board for live cards, If you start with 234
and happen to see 555 and an A on the board, the hand is not worth
playing. The same goes with other cards that you would need to make
your high. If you see a 666 and an A on the board, you know even if
you do presumably get open ended, you're really drawing at a gut shot
since with a 2345, there are 666 and an A gone, leaving you with only
4 cards to hit for high.

Adjustments must be made for the amounts of players and the hands to
play. The game is a rock, paper, sccisors type of game. If you'd like,
I'd play a $20 stud 8 tourney with you to show you the ropes and your
mistakes. However, online has a tendancy of having you miss too many
of these hands in critical positions. The ods of 4 lows making low is
closer to 70% also.

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com
www.russgeorgiev.com
www.russgeorgiev.com




On Jul 22, 5:44�am, "Will_gamble" <will_gamb....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since all my distinguished colleagues on RGP have said that stud 8 is
> truly a game where the most skillful player wins, I decided to give it
> another go.
>
> Not to good. �
>
> I am down a couple hundred big bets and I am really uncertain if it is my
> play or the usual run of bad luck that I experience when I change games or
> levels. �
>
> Naturally, I have had a few donkey hands where I get in a pissing match
> with somebody on the button that raises my bring-in where there are just
> the two of us, but other than that it *seems* like pure bad luck where I
> am getting rivered, split, bricked out, or no action.
>
> Generally 80% of my playing hands are three babies that will make a
> straight at worst, usually to a 7. �I read if you make four babies on
> fourth street, you have an 80% chance to make low. �Well sports fans, it
> ain't happening for me.
>
> I generally play it out if I make 4 babies on 4th or 5th street,
> especially heads up or when I am the only one that appears to be going
> low. �Should I be folding these? �
>
> Almost all of the time I am the aggressor and one or two people just won't
> go away and I usually brick out or get rivered and there goes 5 BB. �Then
> it is wait 5 to ten hands for decent starting cards, repeat cycle. �
>
> Ironically, the times I have logged winning sessions, it has really been
> the same kind of frustrating situations reversed that have been happening
> to me. �Like somebody pushing pocket aces with a low draw and not
> improving and I back into �to two small pair and scoop. �What I am saying
> is that the winning hands are just goofy a lot of the time.
>
> Maybe I am just fooling myself and I am just playing bad. �It occurred to
> me that I should go back and review all the hands I played last night
> before I play today to see what I could have done differently.
>
> Man on a stud 8 mission.
>
> ------�
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Quick Stud 8 question