**Calculating remaining calls** I see I need to remove around 1000 calls. So, if I've got 5 calls left, that feels tight! Adding up 15, 1, and 3 gives me 19, which means I still have 6 calls left after my removals. I guess I need to focus on compressing and addressing the preflop sections now. Oh, it's a bit of a juggling act, but I think I’m on the right track!

**Adjusting Playbook Strategy** I'm realizing I'm being too conservative and need to loosen up my preflop play. My current strategy is too tight; I’ll be increasing my VPIP to the recommended 20-25% range to capture more opportunities.

Lost 1,500 chips. VPIP was only 18%.

The biggest loss was shoving QTo at 7.

The QTo shove at 7.4bb on the button was the bust.

DeepSeek calls shoves with premium hands like 88, TT, JJ, 99, AK, and A4s. QTo is a weak hand against 88. The playbook wrongly included it as broadway. It should be excluded from under-8bb button folds. Q9o, JTo, KJo, and QJo are also too weak. The playbook must explicitly forbid calling QTo broadway or jamming it. The "ace up top" lie with 77 was a rank misrepresentation; the suit lock is working correctly. Checking 66 multiway was fine since it won at showdown. Folding AJo to a quarter pot with ace-high no pair is correct per the playbook. The update will be surgical: ban QTo, QJo, JTo, and K9o at short stacks unless heads-up or small blind versus known callers; forbid claiming board ranks in speech; and do not widen jamming against DeepSeek's 88+ range. Replaying the QTo decision will confirm the updated playbook folds it correctly. The 7bb button should still shove KQo and QTs, but QTo must fold. DeepSeek's 18% VPIP across 39 hands indicates most junk folds were correct. The loss is only one hand, so overfitting should be avoided. Playbook v13 will be drafted with a short new section in section 2. It will explicitly ban Q9s from the under-8bb button fold list alongside QTo

Trimming repeated examples from the playbook.

I need to cut about 100 characters.

Let me start by reviewing my playbook, stats, notebook, and recent hands.

The stats show I netted -1500 in this last tournament, not +7500. My playbook says the previous event was a win. Now I have 3 MISREADs — a real problem: calling offsuit hands suited ("AKs", "QTs") and inventing a straight draw with 99. Let me look at the hands. Note the checker flags are the concerning thing. Let me list flagged hands. Also note: my_stats shows 51 hands, 14/52 VPIP, net -1500. Actually the playbook header says the previous event was +7500 winner; that was tmv9x8ysy. This event is tmv9ypca4. The stats for "last" = -1500. Let me list flagged hands and read them.

Let me read the three flagged hands, and the biggest losses: 1229 (-2606), 1225 (-1664), 1232 (-744), 1206 (-382). Let me read those.

Let me analyze. Hand 1188: MISREAD — I called Ah Ks "AKs". Board 5s Qd Kd; I raised top pair and bet turn; checked river. Fine play, but the label. The fix: hand names must be two characters. "AKs" is three. That's a §0 violation: "Write a hand as exactly its two characters." The checker flagged it as MISREAD because AKs implies suited and the cards are offsuit. So the rule was violated. I need to reinforce: never write a suit word/suffix. Actually §0 already says that. But the deeper issue: I keep attaching "s". Hmm. It says "junk folds from the button (96, 86...)" — no suit. Yet I wrote AKs. I need to make §0 more explicit: even for premium hands, write "AK", never "AKs"/"AKo". Also QTs. Hand 1199: MISREAD — I claimed "open-ended straight draw" with 99 on J T 5. Positive-facts rule says straight draw only if five consecutive ranks are listed. 9,9,J,T,5 — no. So I hallucinated a draw. Also there I said "four hearts" — that was at turn, board Jd Th 5h 6h: my cards 9h 9d plus three hearts = four hearts, that's correct. Actually flush draw: only two of my cards... 9h plus board Th 5h 6h = four hearts, one card short of flush. "four hearts" is a positive fact, fine. So both flagged

Let me assess. 1225: JJ 4-handed, Sonnet raised to 800, I shoved 3706. Was that right? I had... let me estimate. I shoved 3706 (about 11.5bb at 320). Sonnet's raise to 800 is 2.5x. With JJ, shoving over a 2.5x open is standard and fine. Sonnet had AQo and got there. Variance. But note: §6 says "≤15bb facing an open: shove-or-fold" — JJ shove is fine, and "3-bet: JJ+". This is a good shove. Unlucky. Actually wait — I shoved 3706, meaning I had 3706 behind, blinds 160/320 → ~11.6bb. Fine. 1232: 5h2h at 1.16bb on button — shove any two per §1. Correct by the book. Got called by two, lost. Nothing to fix; that's the endgame. Note I said "1.16bb" but the thought said 2.3bb. Minor. The play is mandated. 1206: AJo in CO at 21bb, min-raise to 180, Sonnet shoves 382 (short, only 202 more). I'm getting ~3:1 (202 into 180+180+40? Let's compute: pot = my 180 + Sonnet 382 + blinds 40+80 = 682; I call 202 → 3.4:1). ≥3:1 → call wide, any two almost. AJo is definitely a call. Sonnet had TT and made trips. Fine, by the book. 1227: QJs call 2.5:1 vs Opus — per new tier. Won. Good. So the losses are variance + mandated shoves. The only real leaks are the checker MISREADs: naming (AKs, QTs) and

Now replay the flagged decisions and a couple more to confirm the hardened book doesn't change correct plays. Decision ids: d1188-2, d1199-7, d1201-1, plus d1206-6, d1229-0, d1225-1.

The replay results: - d1201-1: now "QT" not "QTs", fold, clean. - d1188-2: "AK" not "AKs", raise, clean. - d1199-7: STILL misread — "with overcards and a flush draw showing". Hmm. The new reasoning says "pair of nines on a jack-ten-five board with overcards and a flush draw showing". What does engine say? Board Jd Th 5h — flush draw: no (my 9h 9d + board hearts: Th 5h = 2 hearts, +9h = 3 hearts, not four). "flush draw showing" — the board has two hearts showing, but a "flush draw" claim about me is false. Also "overcards showing" — overcards to what? To my nines, yes J and T are overcards. That might be okay. But "a flush draw showing" is the misread. Why did my reasoning add that? The book says default "nothing yet" and flush draw only after counting four. I violated it spontaneously. The problem: the replay engine generates my new reasoning, and it's still injecting "flush draw showing". Hmm, this is the model's tendency. I need to more firmly forbid the phrase "flush draw" unless four of a suit are counted. Maybe the fix: in §0b, say "Never write the words 'flush draw' or 'straight draw' unless the count test passed; instead write 'nothing yet'." A positive-framed rule: "Des

Now replay d1199-7 again (and d1201-1, d1188-2, d1225-1) with v25.

All four replay clean now: - d1188-2: raise, no flag. - d1199-7: check, no flag ("pair of nines is an under-pair" — clean, positive). - d1201-1: fold, clean. - d1225-1: all_in restored. Great. v25 fixes confirmed. Now update notebook and finish. Let me also update notebook succinctly. I've used 10 calls. Let me write the notebook and finish.

Done. Finish with a note.