Both hands are gutshot miscounts — I was counting windows that included cards I already hold rather than cards still needed, missing two gaps in each case. I should add a rule to the playbook: only count genuinely missing cards when evaluating a draw.

**Reviewing minraise leaks** I need to focus on reviewing multiple leaks related to HU (heads-up) min-raises. It seems important to dig deep into this since addressing leaks can really improve performance. I'll gather data and analyze potential patterns or issues that could be causing problems in these situations. It's all about fine-tuning strategies and ensuring I'm not missing significant factors that could impact outcomes. Let's get started on this review!

**Figuring out budget detail** I'm trying to work with a budget that might call for 25, but now I'm thinking it could actually be around 22? It feels a bit confusing. I need to write a compact summary that fits within 6500 words. It’s tricky because I want to make sure everything is clear and concise without losing any important details. Okay, I’ll start organizing my thoughts and figures around that budget!

**Reviewing Decision Points** My recent focus has been on a specific hand, 1405, where I elected to fold T7s heads-up with a short stack. It appears standard, with my overall stats reflecting appropriate aggression preflop and sufficient communication. My chip count remained strong until the heads-up phase, where I ultimately secured second place.

Lost 1500 in 14 hands with a VPIP of only 3/14.

The bust was AQo on a three-spade board. It hit the nut straight and shoved into Sol's king-high flush. The board was 3s Ks 2s Jd Tc. I held Qs Ad. The flush draw was queen-high. Calling two streets on a monotone board usually signals a flush or strong draw. Shoving the nut straight into that range is thin. The playbook lacks a rule for straights on flush boards. I should add one: on a three-flush board, a straight is not a stack-off versus a player who led both streets. Bet small or check-call instead. VPIP was 3/14. That is about 21%. The playbook wants 17-27%. That bust was the only loss. The total investment was 1490. The pot had already grown to 1380 before the river shove. The all-time win total was 12915 before this bust. One tournament loss does not justify a playbook overhaul. The suit lock correctly flagged the diamonds as different suits. The river reasoning was technically correct that the straight was the nut, but the strategic error was shoving for value into a player who calls light. I will add a short playbook section and leave the rest unchanged. Hand 1350 is also being reviewed: KQo called a button open and folded to a half-pot bet with king-high and a gutsh

The playbook on file is v28 but the prompt says playbook is v23. Anyway, the current playbook text is what matters. Checker found nothing false this tournament. Stats: 31 hands, 8 of 31 VPIP (26%), net -1500. Let me look at the hands to review strategy. Let me list hands last.

Let me look at the big hands: 1378 lost -2173, 1371 won +1063, 1372 KK lost -240. And 1348-1351 early. Let me read 1378 and 1371, 1372.

Hand 1378: button 13.6bb, 3-handed, shove any two per rules. Got called by Sol's ATo and lost. That's mandated and fine — T4 at 13.6bb with Sol and Gemini behind. Hmm, actually the shove any two rule is ≤15bb AND ≤3 handed. 3-handed, so it applies. Sol called with ATo (correct call), we lose. Variance. Fine. 1371: A8 calling 190 into 230+... getting 1.8:1? Actually the call was 190 into pot. Preflop Sonnet raised to 230, Gemini folded, we call 190. Pot after: 230+190+ ... blinds. Fine. Then tripped eights, value. Good. 1372: KK, raise, Sol calls. Flop A-T-7. We check, Sol bets turn, we fold. That seems fine — Sol tight, ace on board. Now overall: this tournament -1500, 31 hands, net -1500. Wait stats say net -1500 for last, -12107 all. VPIP 8/31 = 26% which is in target band 25-33%. Hand 1378's T4 shove: 13.6bb, 3-handed. Sol had ATo and called. That's just a coin-ish spot, T4 vs ATo ~ 37%. Fine. Big losses: 1378 -2173 (mandated shove), 1372 -240 KK (fine), 1376 -80, 1373 -80, 1370 -80, 1377 -40, 1374 -40, 1366 -40. Let me check 1376, 1373, 1370 — those -80 small losses. Could be steals that got 3-bet/folded, or calls that lost. Let me look. Actually the pattern: lots of sma

Interesting. Hands 1370, 1373, 1376: I'm in the BB, folding to a raise, and losing the -80 blind. These are folds. Are they correct? 68, T8, 32 in BB. Wait — these are 3-handed situations likely (Sol button, Sonnet, me in BB). Hand 1373: blinds 40/80, Sol raises button to 180, Gemini folds, I'm BB with 68, need to call 100 into pot of 40+80+180 = 300. Getting 3:1. My rule says fold low connectors even at 4:1. Hmm, but at 3-handed, in the BB getting 3:1 with 68 against a button raise, folding is very tight. Actually 68 vs a button open range has decent equity (~35%), and getting 3:1 you need 25%. But positional disadvantage and reverse implied odds... Standard is to defend. But my rule says fold low connectors. The question is whether this rule is a leak. Folding 68, T8, 32 in the BB vs a button raise 3-handed. Hand 1376: Sol raises to 160 (min-raise) from... blinds 40/80. Raise to 160 = min. I'm in BB with T8, call 80 into pot of 40+80+160 = 280. Getting 3.5:1. Fold. Hand 1373: raise to 180, call 100 into 40+80+180=300 → 3:1. These folds are extremely tight. T8 and 68 vs a button min-raise getting 3.5:1 — you basically have equity to call. And these are 3-handed, so positiona

These are mostly fine, tight folds. 1361 A9 MP fold vs EP open — reasonable per rules. Hmm, 1366: Sol raises to 90 (from 20/40 blinds), I'm BB with 63. Call 50 into pot 20+40+90 = 150 → 3:1. Fold. That's a tight fold but 63 plays badly. 1377: SB with T6, facing button raise to 200 at 40/80. Fold. OOP, reasonable. So the pattern: I play very tight in the BB/SB and fold a lot. Is this a leak? In 3-handed play, folding BB too much lets opponents steal profitably. But the small sample shows these folds losing only the blind. The cumulative -12k over 341 hands is concerning. Let me think about what's really costing. This tournament: -1500. The losses: T4 all-in -2173 (mandated, 37% equity vs ATo — actually T4 vs ATo is about 33%... we were 3-handed, opponent had ATo. Hmm, shoving T4 into two players at 13.6bb is "any two" per rule. But is that rule too loose? At 13.6bb, 3-handed, button, with Sol and Gemini behind — Sol is tight-solid. If Sol only calls with a strong range, our T4 folds out often and picks up blinds. Sol called with ATo (calling loose!). Actually Sol's call with ATo for 2173 into... he had a big stack. Fine. Shove any two at 13.6bb is standard-ish in 3-handed for th

Sol: 137/466 = 29% VPIP, raise-heavy (132 bets/raises vs 68 calls). So Sol is actually loose-aggressive, not the tight-solid I labeled him. He showed lots of junk (Th As high card, Td 3c high card ace) and won with 6s7s flush etc. Interesting — Sol's "High card, ace" showdowns with Th As, and Td 3c. He calls/raises a lot. Hmm, my read of Sol as "tight-solid, big bets = value" may be wrong. Sol puts in 29% and is raise-heavy (132 raises/466 = 28% raise rate). That's aggressive. He called the T4 shove with ATo — loose call. Opus: 185/463 = 40% VPIP, raise-heavy. Known LAG. Gemini: 106/511 = 21% VPIP, tight. So Sol is more LAG than I thought. My playbook §9 says "Sol: tight-solid, big bets = value." Maybe revise: Sol is aggressive (29% VPIP, raise-heavy), shows junk at showdown, calls loose (ATo vs shove). That changes decisions like 1372 (KK, folded turn to Sol's bet on A-high board) — maybe I should have called down? Sol bets a lot. Hmm. KK on A-T-7-J, Sol bets 280 turn. If Sol is loose-aggressive, I might call. But ace on board, still risky. And I'd already checked flop. Also 1371: Sonnet's raise, I called with A8. Fine. So a strategic update: reclassify Sol as aggressive/wide

Need to cut ~920 chars. I'll trim the STATUS/header and some verbose parts, and tighten §0b/§9. Let me condense. I'll cut the header to a few lines, remove redundancy in §0b/§0c/§0e, and shorten §9/§10.

Now replay the changed decisions to verify reasoning is clean and see what changes: 1376-2 (T8 BB fold), 1373-2 (68 BB fold), 1370-3 (32 BB fold), 1366-3 (63 BB fold), 1372-6 (KK turn fold), 1371-2 (A8 call). Let me pick 6.

The new playbook changes: T8 and 68 now call (good), 32 and 63 fold (good). KK turn now calls (arguable, but consistent with the Sol reclassification). Note: d1372-4 replay shows a "misread" flag: 'RAISE with my pair of kings (overpair) for value on this T-7-A flop'. The checker flagged "overpair"? Hmm — the checker note says misread. In the replay, my new reasoning used "overpair" — wait, but the playbook bans "pair of X" with uncounted X and bans "top pair" etc. "overpair" isn't in the banned list but the checker flagged it as a MISREAD. Why? Because on a T-7-A flop, KK with an ace on board — is KK an "overpair"? An overpair means a pair higher than all board cards. But the ace is on the board! So KK is NOT an overpair — the ace beats it. So calling it an "overpair" is a MISREAD. Interesting! The replay tool typed "overpair" — wait, did I write that? The replay generates new reasoning based on my playbook. My playbook §5 says "any over-pair below the top board card" — that's contradictory phrasing. And the replay's new reasoning said "(overpair)" which the checker flagged as misread because the ace is above. So "overpair" is dangerous vocabulary. I must ban it or define it pre

Now verify the fix: replay d1372-4 again (should no longer say "overpair"), and maybe d1372-6. Also test a couple more decisions for regressions: d1359-6 (Q6 steal fold), d1371-2 (A8 call). Let me replay d1372-4, d1372-6, d1359-6, d1371-2, d1361-1. Actually d1372-4 replay regenerates reasoning — with "overpair" banned it should phrase "pair of kings". Let me check.