+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Shuffle Tracking For Imbeciles PART 1-2

  1. #1

    Default Shuffle Tracking For Imbeciles PART 1-2

    Originally posted by 'Sonny' at Ken Smith's BJINFO HERE

    Shuffle Tracking For Imbeciles – Part 1

    Okay, so maybe the title needs some work. If I were Arnold Snyder, perhaps it would be titled “Algebraic Approximations of Normal Distributions in Single-Pass Riffle Co-Minglings and Disbursements of Cards in the game of 21.” Maybe my title isn’t so bad.

    I’ve read several “Shuffle Tracking For Dummies” type articles, but have always found the techniques to be too difficult to apply in a casino nvironment. I decided to start looking for a way to simplify and optimize the current methods of shuffle tracking in order to facilitate their use in casino play. Why should the “dummies” have all the fun? Us imbeciles wanna win besides! The following will summarize my findings on shuffle tracking – specifically what Mason Malmuth refers to as “card domination”, however I have mostly heard the term “cut-off tracking” used to describe it. This type of tracking is only effective against a single pass shuffle, but variations exist that can be implemented against various shuffles. I believe the approximations in this article will help to simplify these cases as well.

    Summary of Cut-off Tracking

    Cut-off tracking consists of retaining the count at the end of the shoe (after the final round has been played and the cards are about to be shuffled). Assuming a balanced count is employed, the remaining unseen cards (hereafter referred to as the “cut-off slug”) must therefore have a value that is equal to the running count but with the sign reversed. For example, if the running count is -7 at the end of the shoe, then the cut-off slug contains cards that will sum to +7 in order to assure a zero final count. That means the cut-off slug is made up of mostly low cards which are bad for the player.

    The next step in tracking the shuffle is calculating the “average count density” of the used cards in the discard tray (hereafter “discards”). In the above example, assuming a six-deck game with five dealt, you would figure that the discarded 5 decks with a count of -7 would average a count of -7 / 5 = -1.4 per deck. If we then shuffle our cut-off slug with one of the discard decks, we would estimate a count of 7 – 1.4 = 5.6 for the new two-deck shuffled slug. We could then cut these cards to the bottom of the shoe, adjust our starting running count, and play with a significant advantage in a four-deck game. We are essentially using the cut card to “short the deck” of cards we don’t want. Similarly, this method can also be used to cut good cards do the top of the shoe.

    As we can see, this can be an incredibly powerful tool to use in actual casino play. Unfortunately, the computations can be a bit too clumsy for some of us to have ready when the cut card lands in front of us. Hence the need for a system that can be employed by the average imbecile.

    The Approximation Formula

    So isn’t there an easier way to get from point A to point B? Happily, yes! Let’s take a look at the formula we have already:

    Shuffled slug = cut-off slug + average count density (per slug)

    Average count density = discards / (number of slugs in shoe – 1)

    To break this formula down, we will see that the shuffled slug (the value of the cut-off part that we are tracking AFTER the shuffle) equals the original value of the cut-off slug plus the value of the estimated average count of each slug from the discards. The average count is found by dividing the known count (the running count before the shuffle) by the number of slugs it is comprised of (number of slugs – 1). We subtract 1 because we don’t want to include the cut-off slug in our division because it has it’s own value already.

    This is the standard formula which most of you have probably wrestled with while the dealer is shuffling and stacking away. Although it is very straightforward, the division to find the average count density can be difficult when awkward numbers are used. How many of you would have come up with +1.4 in the above example? After a few hours of casino practice, I decided that I couldn’t get it. I was having problems with switching the signs as well. I would get confused with the “negative slugs are GOOD now” concept and was afraid that I would cut a bad slug to the front by accident. So I did what anyone with the mentality of a thirteen-year-old boy would do: I whined about it being “too hard” and gave up.

    A few months later I sat down with Excel and used the above formula to make a spreadsheet showing different running counts for the cut-off slug and their final outcomes. I thought that having the formula with various solutions in front of me would help me to understand the concepts and perhaps memorize some of the tricky division problems. I figured that memorizing +1.4 is easier than finding 7 / 5. However, after staring at the numbers for a while, something occurred to me. Why am I going through all of this trouble? Why am I swapping signs, subtracting slugs, and dividing “average count Densities?” If I have to figure out how many 1.5 deck slugs are in a six-deck game I’ll scream! Yes, I know the answer is 4 and it’s easy to remember – but when you’re starting out and the dealers are using different penetration levels, it can become maddening. That’s when I saw the shortcut.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  2. #2

    Default

    Originally posted by 'Sonny' at Ken Smith's BJINFO HERE

    Shuffle Tracking For Imbeciles – Part 2

    The Track-Factor

    If only there was a way to get the final answer without going through all of the dividing and swapping and slug-number nonsense. Well, there is. Once I saw all the numbers in front of me I saw the shortcut. In this case it was a matter of working backwards from the final answer. Once we know the value of the shuffled slug (our final answer from Part 1), we simply divide it by the value of the original cut-off slug to get a simple conversion factor.

    Conversion factor = shuffled slug / cut-off slug (before shuffle)

    In the example from part 1, we used 7 – 1.4 = 5.6 as the value for our shuffled slug. We now get 5.6 / 7 = 0.8 as the conversion factor. We can now use this number to MULTIPLY by our original cut-off slug to get our final answer. Instead of fumbling with the “average count density” and adding it to the cut-off slug, we can have our answer with one simple multiplication! This new Track-factor (A.K.A.-the “Sonny is a brilliant imbecile” factor, although I have a feeling the former will probably stick) gives you all the power of shuffle tracking without all the messy “thinking.” Now, to us imbeciles at least, multiplying by 0.8 isn’t much easier than dividing 7 / 5, but there are more shortcuts to come.

    I ran the same calculations for more running counts (-20 to +20) and found that the Track-factor was constant for all. This meant that no matter what the cut-off slug value was I could multiply it by 0.8 and get the value of the slug after the shuffle!

    After a moment of euphoria, reality kicked in. This would ONLY work for six-deck games where five decks were dealt. I doubted if many people would find this information helpful, so I ran the numbers for six-decks with 4.5 dealt and again with 4 dealt. I figured that these would encompass most situations. What I found was fantastic!

    In the 4.5/6 game, the Track-factor was a constant 0.67 (actually 0.6 repeating, but who multiplies to the 3rd decimal place in their head? Not us imbeciles! We’re not giving up much accuracy anyway), and the Track-factor for 4/6 was an even 0.5. This meant that if you were “lucky” enough to find a game that cut-off two full decks (a game where most counters would point and laugh at all the ploppies) you could take HALF the value of the cut-off slug as the value of the shuffled slug. You are now playing in a game where the conversion is EASY and you know the average count of four of the six decks. Imagine cutting the last two decks to the bottom and playing in a four-deck game with a positive running count off the top! Gee, maybe the “brilliant imbecile” title WILL stick. This is a fantastic compromise: The casinos get to keep their lousy games and we get to make a profit on their backs! Yaaaay!

    Not quite. There are limitations to this. Although it does become easier to calculate in games with close to four-deck penetration, it is completely useless with anything worse. As Malmuth points out, if only three decks are dealt, they will most likely closely resemble the undealt portion the majority of the time. Also, the reduction in EV due to the poor penetration level, even at the four-deck level, can be somewhat costly. Conversely, the more cards that are dealt, the less cards there are to track. In this case, however, even knowing that a few extra fours and fives are behind the cut card can give you a good starting advantage in most shoe games.

    Although I am certainly not encouraging players to seek out tables with two decks cut-off (I’m not a TOTAL imbecile), I am pointing out that if you are stuck playing in a poor game (due to location or bankroll issues) this technique becomes simplified and may help you to get your edge back.

    So the next time you see someone playing at a six-deck shoe with lousy penetration, he may not be a ploppy – he may be an imbecile!
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  3. #3

    Default Interesting topic

    This was an interesting article to read since there is very little that gets talked about when it comes to shuffle tracking. Too bad I can't do a sit down with Sonny so he could better explain his method, his theory. The techniques he is describing is only beneficial to a hand shuffled blackjack game. If a player is playing a 6D game and lets just say that 1-1.5 decks get cut off, the dealer under today's procedures are going to break up that 1-1.5 decks into at least 3 groupings to be placed into the remainder of the decks that were played at different locations, then they shuffle them.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; August 31st, 2016 at 03:38 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    "Summary of Cut-off Tracking


    Cut-off tracking consists of retaining the count at the end of the shoe (after the final round has been played and the cards are about to be shuffled). Assuming a balanced count is employed, the remaining unseen cards (hereafter referred to as the “cut-off slug”) must therefore have a value that is equal to the running count but with the sign reversed. For example, if the running count is -7 at the end of the shoe, then the cut-off slug contains cards that will sum to +7 in order to assure a zero final count. That means the cut-off slug is made up of mostly low cards which are bad for the player.


    The next step in tracking the shuffle is calculating the “average count density” of the used cards in the discard tray (hereafter “discards”). In the above example, assuming a six-deck game with five dealt, you would figure that the discarded 5 decks with a count of -7 would average a count of -7 / 5 = -1.4 per deck. If we then shuffle our cut-off slug with one of the discard decks, we would estimate a count of 7 – 1.4 = 5.6 for the new two-deck shuffled slug. We could then cut these cards to the bottom of the shoe, adjust our starting running count, and play with a significant advantage in a four-deck game. We are essentially using the cut card to “short the deck” of cards we don’t want. Similarly, this method can also be used to cut good cards do the top of the shoe."

    "If we then." We, meaning I or you (the dealer). That sounds nice but in the casino environment the dealer is going to follow house procedure and they are going to break up the cut-off slug.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; August 31st, 2016 at 02:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    This was an interesting article to read since there is very little that gets talked about when it comes to shuffle tracking. Too bad I can't do a sit down with Sonny so he could better explain his method, his theory. The techniques he is describing is only beneficial to a hand shuffled blackjack game. If a player is playing a 6D game and lets just say that 1-1.5 decks get cut off, the dealer under today's procedures are going to break up that 1-1.5 decks into at least 3 groupings to be placed into the remainder of the decks that were played at different locations, then they shuffle them.
    I have only seen a dealer NOT do this a couple of times. I think you can find it if you look for it as hand shuffles are not standard procedure at any place except maybe on a couple tables without ASMs.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villiam View Post
    I have only seen a dealer NOT do this a couple of times. I think you can find it if you look for it as hand shuffles are not standard procedure at any place except maybe on a couple tables without ASMs.
    I'm not so optimistic. The cut-off slug at many casinos multi deck BJ games gets plugged back into the decks at multiple locations and many use ASM. Under favorable conditions in casino poker or private poker games a player or players could glance into a deck before the flop hits to the tune of 15.38%, how would one value such information vs. your opponents 2 cards (3.84%), before you or they even see the flop? What about an 11.53% view into a single deck?
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; August 31st, 2016 at 02:31 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    615

    Default Thank you!

    Thanks so much for the repost, zg!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Blitzer and KJ. I'm lost on this shuffle tracking idea. Why can it only be done with a Level 1 count? I now understand why KJ uses Level 1 to count two tables. But isn't this less difficult?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Blitzer and KJ. I'm lost on this shuffle tracking idea. Why can it only be done with a Level 1 count? I now understand why KJ uses Level 1 to count two tables. But isn't this less difficult?
    I never said ST can only be done with a level one count. I have said that there are opportunities, some advanced techniques that work better not necessarily with a level one count but keeping things simple as possible. Tracking multiple tables is one such technique. The advanced count guys will tell you they can track multiple tables with their advanced counts just as efficiently and quickly as someone playing Hi-lo or K-O. That is just ridiculous. When tracking a second table, you don't have the luxury of counting every card. Between tracking your primary table and playing your hand, plus keeping an eye on pit personnel, you get a glimpse of that second table, sometimes with partial obstructed view, looking around or behind players. A fraction of a second. That's all you have. You need a simple count and more importantly...the cancellation method of tracking cards. You can't have different cards with different values....there isn't time for that. You get a glimpse...cards cancel out, you pick up a count in literally a fraction....I'll say that again... A FRACTION of a second.

    Ok, so shuffle tracking.....you are simply counting a slug of cards and tracking that slug through an exploitable shuffle. There is no reason, why you can't do so with whatever count.

    I don't do shuffle tracking. I did just a bit earlier in my career, but my timing was bad. ST was dying out just when I was advancing. It was dying out because casinos in the US know about it and got rid of those simple exploitable shuffles. There are few places in the US that still have exploitable shuffles. When you hear people like Gramazeka and Bjarg talking about ST, it is because they play parts of the world that are lagging behind the US and still have exploitable shuffles. But to read Norm's site, and some of the fabricators and guys living in the past tell it, they have access to all these exploitable shuffles. Unless they are traveling abroad or have access to a time machine, they are either full of it or more likely living in the past, talking about something they used to do 10-15 years ago. When the "cookbook" came out, ST all but ended in the US.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Blitzer and KJ. I'm lost on this shuffle tracking idea. Why can it only be done with a Level 1 count? I now understand why KJ uses Level 1 to count two tables. But isn't this less difficult?

    Moses, if you believe that tracking cards can only be done with a level 1 count then more power to you. A level 1 counting strategy is not going to help a player who is trying to shuffle track. Astute card players can track cards in any card game and under the right circumstances the advantage changes. Shuffle tracking can be performed from the players perspective in an attempt to gain an advantage and also from the dealers perspective in order to cheat players. Sometimes an advantage will be apparent from a successful shuffle track but the advantage may not matter depending on the scenario of a particular hand or game being played.

    I've never been a believer of being at two places at one time in a blackjack game unless you happen to be in a casino with a team on multiple tables and your signaling to each other. I want to be there in person and have the pleasure of beating up on other card players or the house for that matter so I can talk shit to them if they happen to run their mouths or do something stupid.
    When you play against other card players in person you can get a good read on them to see if they have the ability to protect themselves. The vast majority of times it becomes a laughing stock to see just how horrible card players actually are, and the kind of shit game they give me in my perspective.

    The other day they had poker on TV, it was a Super High Roller Million Dollar Buy-In, No-Limit Hold'em poker event at the Aria with pros at the top of the game playing in it. Names such as Brunson, Helmuth, Chan, Ivey, Matusow, Esfandiari, Jennifer Tilly. You get the picture. Anyways Antonio got into a hand with Tilly and Anotonio reraised all-in on the flop after Tilly bet, Antonio was chasing a nut flush draw in hearts with the Ace and Tilly called with the Q of hearts. They ran out the board 2 times, Antonio won the first one by hitting a heart on the river for a heart flush, Tilly won the second board where her pair of kings held up and they split.
    That's not a serious poker game in my eyes. I thought what Bullshit!!! Tilly should have lost her whole goddamn stack and went crying back to her boyfriend, Phil Laak in tears! That's a friendly poker game! As a poker player myself I could not believe they put such shit on TV! All Hollywood! It was Horseshit!!! Aria Horseshit!!!

    The only thing running through my mind watching such a poker game is if I sat in that game and played against them and we took out the dealer and passed the deal, which one of them would look the stupidest in front of me! Who among them would just give the fucking game away and look like a complete fucking idiot doing it, while not knowing?
    Who would I be laughing at before the night is over with a lasting memory of busting up such a noted player? In a game like that I would see who the real amateurs are at the table real quick! One revolution of the dealer button is all it would take to find the fish! I've heard that Matusow was a former poker dealer and with Esfandiari's nick name, I'd figure that he would be able to protect himself while giving a fair game at least I would think. I have no respect for poker players or other card players in general if they give me what I think is a shit game, respect has to be earned and it is NOT earned through bracelets or Hall of Fame status the way I see it. It's a long list when the game gets personal, mano-a-mano. Players better be ready to defend themselves before they get assaulted, harassed, laughed at , and run into the fucking ground at the table!

    A boxing match in a ring is not a real fight, a UFC fight in an octagon is not a real fight, a street fight where there are NO rules is a REAL fight!!!

    I hope this helps Moses, excuse the French.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; September 28th, 2017 at 05:15 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Thanks for the reply Blitzer. Your mindset is close to the attitude needed to survive in this jungle.

    I have no idea on shuffle tracking and HiLo. It's just the general idea that I get from what I've read. Thank you for the clarity. I've never seen a hand shuffled shoe. Have you?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ View Post
    I never said ST can only be done with a level one count. I have said that there are opportunities, some advanced techniques that work better not necessarily with a level one count but keeping things simple as possible. Tracking multiple tables is one such technique. The advanced count guys will tell you they can track multiple tables with their advanced counts just as efficiently and quickly as someone playing Hi-lo or K-O. That is just ridiculous. When tracking a second table, you don't have the luxury of counting every card. Between tracking your primary table and playing your hand, plus keeping an eye on pit personnel, you get a glimpse of that second table, sometimes with partial obstructed view, looking around or behind players. A fraction of a second. That's all you have. You need a simple count and more importantly...the cancellation method of tracking cards. You can't have different cards with different values....there isn't time for that. You get a glimpse...cards cancel out, you pick up a count in literally a fraction....I'll say that again... A FRACTION of a second.

    Ok, so shuffle tracking.....you are simply counting a slug of cards and tracking that slug through an exploitable shuffle. There is no reason, why you can't do so with whatever count.

    I don't do shuffle tracking. I did just a bit earlier in my career, but my timing was bad. ST was dying out just when I was advancing. It was dying out because casinos in the US know about it and got rid of those simple exploitable shuffles. There are few places in the US that still have exploitable shuffles. When you hear people like Gramazeka and Bjarg talking about ST, it is because they play parts of the world that are lagging behind the US and still have exploitable shuffles. But to read Norm's site, and some of the fabricators and guys living in the past tell it, they have access to all these exploitable shuffles. Unless they are traveling abroad or have access to a time machine, they are either full of it or more likely living in the past, talking about something they used to do 10-15 years ago. When the "cookbook" came out, ST all but ended in the US.
    Thanks KJ. I thiught i was reading bull shit but you cleared it up to confirm.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Thanks for the reply Blitzer. Your mindset is close to the attitude needed to survive in this jungle.

    I have no idea on shuffle tracking and HiLo. It's just the general idea that I get from what I've read. Thank you for the clarity. I've never seen a hand shuffled shoe. Have you?
    Your welcome Moses. I don't take shit from any degenerates out there in the jungle and the way I see it from what I've seen playing with motherfuckers, the vast majority of gamblers around the world don't have what it takes to survive. I'm not just talking about degenerates in the U.S., around the world! In person mano-a-mano people do fear playing against me and sometimes they take their own kind of counter measures because they think I'm cheating them somehow when I am not! I've seen it and have witnessed it first hand too many times and they're level of paranoia is hilarious. I've developed a local reputation as a mean son-of-a-bitch! I'm not out there to get autographs, get handshakes, chase degenerates down, or to have my picture taken with a degenerate no matter who they are and what they represent in the world of gambling or AP world. Last month I played with a former WSOP Main Event Champ for the second time, I don't want to have a convo or a drink with this guy, I just want to kick his ass! I'm not star struck!

    I've seen plenty of hand shuffled 6 deck shoes but a lot of ASM's are in use now. I'm way late to the Blackjack scene as ASM's were already widely in use when I first went to a casino when I turned 21. I've never played an 8 deck blackjack game, never been to a part of the country where 8 decks is the norm but there are always computer simulators to play 8 decks.

    With as long as you've been playing blackjack I would figure that you would have some knowledge of the Hi-Lo counting strategy. It seems as if many blackjack players treat Hi-Lo as some kind of industry standard for blackjack, it's sad. Proof to back up my claim is from all the Hi-Lo blackjack videos out on the internet. For any player to think that shuffle tracking just pertains to blackjack is the wrong type of attitude to have and the wrong way to look at any card game the way I see it.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; September 28th, 2017 at 09:47 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Blitzer. Believe it not. I started with a 3 column count on Day 1. I watched a few hands to get the concept and figured that was the best way to win. Then I bought Thorp's book and figured I'd take his 10 count theory to the 2-5s. and 6-9s. I didnt know any better. I figured that is what everyone did.

    I never even heard of HiLo until Norm's forum four yrars ago. Enjoy your input.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Blitzer. Believe it not. I started with a 3 column count on Day 1. I watched a few hands to get the concept and figured that was the best way to win. Then I bought Thorp's book and figured I'd take his 10 count theory to the 2-5s. and 6-9s. I didnt know any better. I figured that is what everyone did.

    I never even heard of HiLo until Norm's forum four yrars ago. Enjoy your input.
    I believe you if that is how you say you started playing blackjack. The way it was basically explained to me on that first time I played the game of blackjack back in the late 90's in a casino is that the player want's hands between 17-21. From there I just played the game sporadically if I even went to the casino, I wasn't really serious about learning blackjack or any other casino games for that matter until many years later. Back in the 90's and 2000's I never realized that people had already gamed the game so to say like Ed Thorp and others. I never even heard of those people. Probably because I was to engrossed in video games and other things.

    The thing that attracted me to blackjack is that there is a game within the game. Like most video games you can put in some kind of code to make the game do other things. That was precisely the part of blackjack that appealed to me to where it resembles a video game. Now I look at a deck of cards as the same way, a game within a game with an illusion. Poker games that I played as a kid were 5 Card Draw and a variation of 7 Card Stud. I never knew that NLHE was the preferred variation of poker until the mid 2000's, I had never heard of the game until I seen it on TV. The first time I played a live cash game of NLHE in the casino was at Metropolis, Illinois at Harrah's, that was back in 2006. Even back then I was never really serious about playing poker. My knowledge on the game now is way more than what it used to be because of live experience, local card clubs, books, and internet poker where I've learned other variations of poker like Razz, Stud Hi/Lo, Omaha, and Omaha Hi/Lo.

    Coming to the forums and reading a bit about blackjack is when I realized how late to the game I was. Thorp's book put that wonderfully into perspective and visits to the casino confirmed my readings that they don't deal out to the bottom card (already knew that), offer the best rules, and they have many counter measures in place to thwart card counters.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; September 28th, 2017 at 09:59 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. What About Shuffle Tracking?
    By creeping panther in forum Modern Blackjack
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 28th, 2016, 08:27 PM
  2. Bill Zender on shuffle tracking aces
    By Blitzkrieg in forum Modern Blackjack
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 12th, 2014, 10:32 PM
  3. Atlantis in Antarctica? Tracking the Myths of a Lost Island Paradise
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Religious Cults & Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 16th, 2013, 06:41 PM
  4. Grandpa Shuffle
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 1st, 2012, 04:45 AM
  5. Santa Shuffle
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 9th, 2011, 07:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts