I'm checking the straight draw with 8 as a hole card against a 9-T-Q board — a jack should complete 8-9-T-J-Q, but the engine isn't flagging it, which seems like a discrepancy I need to account for. On a Q-4-6 board with A3, I confirm there's no straight draw since 2 and 5 are both needed. Then I move to pair checks — an 8 on Q-T-9-8 gives a fourth pair — before shifting to counting board cards for quads.

**Considering playbook edits** I have about seven calls left to finalize the playbook. I can keep it under 1,200 words by either appending small sections to the existing content or condensing it to around 900 words. It might be easier to append, but I’m worried about the costs involved with making big changes. I should focus on improvements without speculating on major alterations. Planning is key to making this work smoothly!

**Recalling Hand Suits** I'm refining my process by specifically cataloging instances where suit identification was critical, particularly with high cards like Aces. My focus is on reinforcing the distinction between suits like Hearts (Ah) and Clubs (Ac) to prevent similar oversight in future analyses.

**Analyzing River Decision** I'm reflecting on a recent hand where I held the King-high straight on a paired board. My opponent, holding the nut flush, led out, and I called. This experience has prompted a new addition to my strategic thinking: recognizing and respecting the potential for completing flushes on the river.

Lost the tournament with a very low VPIP of 2 out of 27 voluntary actions.

VPIP 2/27 is far too tight.

A8s folded from the small blind against a cutoff raise. The v5 playbook calls that spot with KQo, AJo, ATs+, 77+, and suited broadways. The tight VPIP of 2/27 came from poor cards and strict adherence to the list. I will review more folded hands and update opponent notes. The main error was misreading a flush draw; two hole cards plus one board card of the same suit equals three, not a flush draw.

The folds look correct per the v5 playbook. The loss came from blind attrition and a misread ATs backdoor flush. I will strengthen the flush-draw counting rule and the top-pair weak-kicker rule. I will also replay the flop call with updated rules to see if it folds. A flush draw needs four cards of the suit already. Two hole and one board is only a backdoor. The river shove of top pair weak kicker was a violation of the playbook rule that weak kicker is a bluff-catch, not a stack-off. I am scanning for other hands worth reviewing. Sonnet's six-to-ace wheel was accurate. The misread was only on the flop flush draw. I will replay hands d658-9 and d658-13 with the updated rules. I am also checking if tight BB defense caused the low VPIP. The low VPIP was just a card-dead distribution, not a defense leak. The real leaks are the draw miscount and the river stack-off. Hand 658 is a backdoor heart flush only. The flop bet should fold. Top pair weak kicker is never a value stack-off. Check-call small or check-fold instead. River shove of AhTh on A-7-5-4-3 after opponent led flop is a stack-off with a bluff-catch. I am also checking Sonnet's river K6o straight to see if they had a

The v5 playbook fixed both errors. It folds the flop call and checks the river.

Let me look at the actual last tournament hands and notable decision points. Let me list hands. Note: playbook says v11 but the prompt says v10. The playbook header says v11 already. Interesting — my notebook from earlier event mentions v11 rules that were added. Actually the header says "PLAYBOOK v11" and references last event. So playbook is current. But prompt says v10. Doesn't matter much. Let me list last hands, look at flagged, and inspect a couple key spots.

All-time net -2550 over 306 hands. VPIP 89/312 = 28.5%. Talk 108/388 = 28% — still above target. The bust hand 671: Kd5c -1417. Let me read that and a few key ones. Also 652 (-313) and 660 (22 -160), 658 (-230), 646 (Ah5s -115). Let me read key hands: 671 (bust), 652, 635 (win), 664 (win), 670.

Hand 671: correct shove. Opus called with 33, fine. Hand 652: J8s BB call 100 getting 3:1 — reasonable. Turn semi-bluff 1/3 pot with gutshot — but actually was it a gutshot? Board 4-Q-3-9. My hand J8. Need one rank to complete five consecutive. Ranks present: J,8 + 4,3,9,Q. 8-9-T-J-Q needs T. So T gives 8-9-T-J-Q → that's a straight using 8,9,T,J,Q. Yes! T is a gutshot completion. So J8 on 4Q39 has a gutshot (T completes J-T-9-8... wait need 5 consecutive: 8,9,T,J,Q = yes consecutive). So gutshot correct. Fine. And the one-barrel discipline held. Good. Now let me look at the losses flagged as possible leaks: 660 (22 -160), 658 (Kh2s -230), 646 (Ah5s -115), 634, 640, 641, 662, 663, 666, 667, 670. Many -160/-80 folds likely blinds. Let me check 660, 658, 646 — these are mid-size losses. Also the checker said no flags last event, and talk 0/59 last event. Good — talk is under control now (all-time 28% but last event 0). So talk fix is working. Let me read 660, 658, 646, and 635.

Interesting findings: Hand 660: 22 cutoff at 22bb. Min-opened to 160, Sonnet 3-bet to 430, I folded. Per new v11 rule, 22 is a hand I'd call a shove with... but Sonnet 3-bet small (not a shove). Folding 22 to a 3-bet with 22bb — set-mining 270 into 1577 is ~17%, and implied odds with 22 at 22bb are actually marginal. But the real leak: my v11 rule says "open 2x only with hands I will not hate calling a shove with." 22 qualifies. Sonnet 3-bet, not shoved. Hmm. Against a non-all-in 3-bet, folding 22 OOP is defensible but leaves the 2bb bleed. Actually the deeper point: at 22bb with 22 in CO, many pros just fold or open smaller. The min-open-fold bleed is exactly what I flagged. This -160 was just that. Hand 646: TIMEOUT — "Timed out — auto-checked." That's a direct violation of my §0 clock rule! I lost money partly because of a timeout. That's the actionable leak: I timed out on the flop. Good catch. That confirms §0 matters. Hand 658: K2o BB call 150 getting 3.6:1 vs a raise + a caller. My §7 says "BB: FOLD offsuit trash with both cards below J unless under ~10bb." K2o has a King so it's not "both below J" — my rule allowed it. But K2o is dominated trash. Calling 150 to flop K-hi

Another timeout in h640 (river). So at least 2 timeouts. That's the real fix: §0 clock. These timeouts are leaks and also they're the thing flagged. Also hand 640: I thought "Pair of nines" for my 76o on board J Q 9 4 9 — 7-6 with two nines on board? No! I have 7,6. Board has 9,9. So my best hand is pair of nines (board pair) with 7-kicker — that's "playing the board." The checker didn't flag it. Actually my thought says "Pair of nines" which is technically the best hand (board pair). Not a misread per se. OK. But it says checker found nothing false — so fine. Key actionable leaks: 1. TIMEOUTS (h646, h640) — §0. Real, repeated. 2. Min-open-fold bleed (h660, and the notebook's T9s). 3. BB defense of dominated offsuit hands: K2o (h658), 76o (h640) — these are cheap but realize badly. 76o at 4:1 is okay-ish. K2o at 3.6:1 is worse (dominated). Let me now test replay to validate playbook changes. Let me replay the timeout decisions and the K2o defend and the 22 open. Decisions: d646-6 (flop timeout check), d640-10 (river timeout check), d658-5 (K2o call), d660-1 (22 open), d660-5 (fold to 3bet), d662-4 (fold T4o to shove). Let me run replay on these.

The replay confirms: - d658-5: now fold K2o — good, my changed discipline. - d660-1: now raise_half_pot (140? half pot = 120) hmm, that's bigger than 2x. Actually "raise_half_pot" — this is a different sizing. My playbook says min-raise 2.5x deep / 2x at 16-25bb. The replay engine interpreted my 16-25bb rule differently. Interesting — but the important thing: opening 22 at 22bb in CO, the replay still raises. Hmm, my rule says open 2x only with hands I'd call a shove with; 22 qualifies. But the real leak was the open-fold. Since Sonnet 3-bets rather than shoves, I folded anyway. Actually the deeper fix: 22 at 22bb in CO faces 3-bet. Rather than open-fold, maybe just fold 22 preflop in CO at ~20bb? Or open smaller? Honestly opening 22 is fine; the fold to the 3-bet is fine. The -160 bleed is 2bb, acceptable tax. I shouldn't over-engineer. Bigger real leaks: timeouts, and dominated offsuit BB defends (K2o). Those are the adjustments. Let me also think about whether the min-open steals are worth it at all. VPIP 27% seems fine. Net -2550 over 306 hands is bad but SNG variance with AI table is huge (bust = -1500ish). Last event -1500 = bust. Previous events? Let me not over-index on

Interesting: d640-5 replay now folds 76o because "both cards below J" — wait 7 and 6 are both below J, so my rule §7 says "FOLD offsuit trash with both cards below J unless under ~10bb." But I originally called. Replay applied the rule correctly and folded. Good — so the rule already exists; I just violated it live. So the fix is enforcement/clarity: the rule exists but at 4:1 I rationalized around it. Need to make it a hard rule. Also d640-10 timeout: replay check, same action — but the point is not the action, it's the TIME. My playbook can't "fix" a timeout via logic; I need to make pre-commitment stronger. So key edits: 1. §0 CLOCK: add explicit "I timed out on 2 flops/rivers last event (h646, h640) despite the rule. Between hands, decide MY next-street default in the same click. On every postflop decision, the first thing: my chosen action is 'check/fold' unless I hit — click it immediately if so." Emphasize the timeout is itself a leaking decision. 2. §7 BB: hard rule: offsuit defend only with T9o+ or Ax/Kx suited; FOLD all offsuit with a card ≤9 kicker regardless of price (K2o-K9o? no, K9o?). Simplify: from BB, defend suited any, pairs, and offsuit only T9o+ or ATo+/KTo+.

Now test the new playbook with replays on the leak spots: d658-5 (K2o), d640-5 (76o), d646-6 (timeout flop), d660-5, and maybe d646-8. Actually let me replay d646-6 and d640-10 again to confirm they stay check (they will). More useful: d658-5, d640-5, d666-3, d662-4, d646-8. Let me replay 6.

All the new decisions hold sensibly. Note replay auto-committed the correct actions. Now update the notebook briefly and finish. I have 3 replays left and 4-ish tool calls budget. Let me write notebook then finish. Notebook update: record event, findings, fix. Then finish with a viewer note.

Now finish.