Rant Warning: Mtts And Skill

[chester97 0]

ah! the veterans are fighting! run away run away!

[Royal_Tour 0]

I can barely even make sense of this post.

alright never mind then.obviously this could turn into a "whats better limit or no limit" type of battlebut i'm telling you, you dont play nearly enough Multi table games.not 3 thousand player tourneys, dear god thats just stupid.But 50 -100 players or even 200 player MTT's tell you what, read HOH and HOH2, than play MTT;s for a few months straight and see if you start to notice who the skilled tourney players are, and who are the luck boxes

[Vick12 0]

Mtt's are ALL luck and ZERO skill!!!04/04/2006 Hold'em NL $5 79 $13 04/04/2006 Hold'em NL $10 9 $195 04/03/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 9 $358 03/25/2006 Hold'em NL $10 232 $16 03/25/2006 Hold'em NL $5 217 $8 03/19/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 383 $24 03/18/2006 Hold'em NL $10 64 $27 03/17/2006 Hold'em NL $5 139 $10 03/15/2006 Hold'em NL $10 37 $26 03/15/2006 Hold'em NL $3 3 $267 03/14/2006 Hold'em NL $10 138 $13 03/13/2006 Hold'em NL $10 16 $60 03/13/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 81 $51 03/07/2006 Hold'em NL $5+Rebuys 152 $47 03/07/2006 Hold'em Limit $3 48 $6 03/06/2006 Hold'em NL $3 322 $6 03/06/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 159 $39 03/05/2006 Hold'em NL $3 252 $8 03/05/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 158 $37 03/04/2006 Hold'em NL $3 393 $6 03/04/2006 Hold'em NL $3 49 $13 03/03/2006 Hold'em NL $10 52 $23 03/01/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 286 $24 02/28/2006 Hold'em NL $10 126 $13 02/28/2006 Hold'em NL $10 111 $15 02/28/2006 Hold'em NL $5 135 $7 02/28/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 186 $24 02/27/2006 Hold'em NL $10 191 $15 02/27/2006 Hold'em NL $3 123 $8 02/27/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 21 $75 02/26/2006 Hold'em NL $5 162 $14 02/26/2006 Hold'em NL $5 93 $18 02/25/2006 Hold'em NL $10 119 $22 02/23/2006 Hold'em NL $5 165 $7 02/18/2006 Hold'em NL $5 10 $62 02/18/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 183 $32 02/17/2006 Hold'em NL $20 4 $1,002 02/17/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 96 $43 02/17/2006 Hold'em NL $5 272 $9 02/16/2006 Hold'em NL $30 33 $91 02/16/2006 Hold'em NL $2 79 $5 02/15/2006 Hold'em NL $5 38 $21 02/15/2006 Hold'em NL $10 111 $13 02/14/2006 Hold'em NL $20 45 $43 02/14/2006 Hold'em NL $5 28 $14 02/13/2006 Hold'em NL $20 36 $66 02/13/2006 Hold'em NL $3 225 $6 02/13/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 294 $30 02/12/2006 Hold'em NL $10 157 $19 02/12/2006 Hold'em NL $5 31 $25 02/12/2006 Hold'em NL $3 478 $6 02/12/2006 Hold'em NL $5 500 $10 02/10/2006 Hold'em NL $5+Rebuys 64 $36 02/09/2006 Hold'em NL $3 2 $473 02/08/2006 Hold'em NL $50 71 $64 02/08/2006 Hold'em NL $1 125 $2 02/07/2006 Hold'em NL $1 11 $9 02/07/2006 Hold'em NL $5 80 $15 02/07/2006 Hold'em Limit $3 1 $466 02/05/2006 Hold'em NL $3 14 $21 02/04/2006 Hold'em NL $3 18 $32 02/02/2006 Hold'em NL $5 171 $6 01/31/2006 Hold'em NL $10 49 $21 01/31/2006 Hold'em NL $5 3 $526 01/27/2006 Hold'em NL $5+Rebuys 36 $47 01/26/2006 Hold'em NL $10 8 $272 01/25/2006 Hold'em NL $10 26 $35 01/25/2006 Hold'em NL $5 135 $9 01/24/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 62 $67 01/24/2006 Hold'em NL $5 61 $14 01/23/2006 Hold'em NL $10 18 $60 01/23/2006 Hold'em NL $2 74 $5 01/20/2006 Hold'em NL $3 254 $5 01/18/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 219 $26 01/15/2006 Hold'em NL $200 375 $320 01/13/2006 Hold'em NL $5+Rebuys 44 $48 01/13/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 211 $22 01/10/2006 Hold'em NL $10 95 $13 01/09/2006 Hold'em NL $10 114 $17 01/06/2006 Hold'em NL $10 1 $2,123 01/06/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 282 $20 01/05/2006 Hold'em NL $3 175 $5 01/05/2006 Hold'em NL $5 230 $9 01/02/2006 Hold'em NL $3+Rebuys 94 $43 Sorry...just felt like puffing my chest out a bit today boys!!!

[Royal_Tour 0]

was that 200.00 event because u won a satelite??nice job BTW, even though most of those tourrneys are really large fields

[turd ferguson 1]

alright never mind then.obviously this could turn into a "whats better limit or no limit" type of battlebut i'm telling you, you dont play nearly enough Multi table games.not 3 thousand player tourneys, dear god thats just stupid.But 50 -100 players or even 200 player MTT's tell you what, read HOH and HOH2, than play MTT;s for a few months straight and see if you start to notice who the skilled tourney players are, and who are the luck boxes

I'm not saying that tournament poker is entirely luck, but for any given MTT the skill to luck ratio is most definitely not even close to 4:1. Obviously, I don't play many tournaments so I'm no expert on the subject. Bizzle will come in here and pwn us both with an explanation in a few minutes.

[Vick12 0]

was that 200.00 event because u won a satelite??nice job BTW, even though most of those tourrneys are really large fields

Yes it was...I am the Small Stakes MTT Master! If i ever just kept my $$ in a roll instead of doing dumb things like paying bills i could maybe hang w/ PM, Hoosier, and Prty someday!

[Bizzle 0]

Mtt's are ALL luck and ZERO skill!!!... a bunch of low limit results...Sorry...just felt like puffing my chest out a bit today boys!!!

Donk.Seriously, though, regarding the argument that Turd and Royal are having...the current problem is that the methodology that Royal is using to determine that a more skillful player is better off than a luckier player is completely wrong. A player can be measure in comparison to the other players in the field, ie, one player can be considered 4 times as good as the other players, and thus be 4 times as likely to make the final table. However, a player cannot be considered 4 times as good as he is lucky, so you cannot use a 100% ratio in order to determine how much of poker is skill and how much in luck. In all honestly, in every hand it could be 100% skill and 0% luck or 100% luck and 0% skill, and over time these numbers do not even out to make one specific ratio.Royal, I think your argument would sound a little bit better if it went a little something like this (and this is my argument as to why I play tournies constantly)-As an experienced, knowledgeable tournament player who has an idea as to certain strategies and concepts, as long as you play well, you will be 3-4 times better than the average player at the $5 level. In a 300 person field, this would implay that you would make a final table once in every 7 to 10 tries, as opposed to once in every 30 tries. However, this does not mean that you are guaranteed to make the final table once in every 7 or 8 tries, you could very easily not make a final table in 60 attempts at playing the tourney. As long as you have confidence in your game and are constantly trying to improve your knowledge and how you play in certain situations, you will, over time, make more than your fair share of final tables and get more than your fair share of victories.

[Royal_Tour 0]

You're right bizzle.I confused a lot of people by using a ratio of skill - luck..makes more sense what you said that a player would have to be 4 times better than the field. etc...I was a cash game player for years, and just got into MTT's this year after readin HOH2, so u can see where i'm coming from, because i have notice a huge amount of imporvment in my tourney play since doin so, which is why I argue this sidePSJust for this stupid Thread!! I'm about to Final Table in a qualifier for a 200k on FTthere was 70 players that is all

[turd ferguson 1]

Thanks Bizzle. That makes a lot more sense. I still don't understand the post below though. Am I the only person who finds this statement completely ridiculous?

I'm gonna safely say that making a final table is 80% skill and 20% luckbut winning MTT's is 80% luck and 20% skillcheers idiot

[Bizzle 0]

You're right bizzle.I confused a lot of people by using a ratio of skill - luck..makes more sense what you said that a player would have to be 4 times better than the field. etc...I was a cash game player for years, and just got into MTT's this year after readin HOH2, so u can see where i'm coming from, because i have notice a huge amount of imporvment in my tourney play since doin so, which is why I argue this sidePSJust for this stupid Thread!! I'm about to Final Table in a qualifier for a 200k on FTthere was 70 players that is all

Thanks Bizzle. That makes a lot more sense. I still don't understand the post below though. Am I the only person who finds this statement completely ridiculous?

It feels good to hear both of you thanking me, definitely very gratifying.As for turd's latest post, royal has already said that he confused people with his ratio, why bring it up again?You two just need to homoerotically hug and make up.

[turd ferguson 1]

It feels good to hear both of you thanking me, definitely very gratifying.As for turd's latest post, royal has already said that he confused people with his ratio, why bring it up again?You two just need to homoerotically hug and make up.

It wasn't an insult. I was just hoping for some clarification. Sorry about that.

[looshle 6]

For a while I was convinced that getting into the money in MTTs is at least 50% luck. After some encouraging words last week from people in the strategy section, I thought I'd give it another try, and now I'm sure it's at least 97.3% luck.Actually the average played would need 0 luck and make the money 10% of the time due to the fact that the top 10% usually pay out.I suggest you stop thinking about making the money and start thinking (and playing) to win the tournament ESPECIALLY if you are only playing $5 tournaments where you will only net like $4 for cashing.

[HoosierAlum 0]

For a while I was convinced that getting into the money in MTTs is at least 50% luck. After some encouraging words last week from people in the strategy section, I thought I'd give it another try, and now I'm sure it's at least 97.3% luck.Actually the average played would need 0 luck and make the money 10% of the time due to the fact that the top 10% usually pay out.I suggest you stop thinking about making the money and start thinking (and playing) to win the tournament ESPECIALLY if you are only playing $5 tournaments where you will only net like $4 for cashing.

You are still alive after last night? I went on tilt after that happened to you...

[7s7c 0]

Donk.Seriously, though, regarding the argument that Turd and Royal are having...the current problem is that the methodology that Royal is using to determine that a more skillful player is better off than a luckier player is completely wrong. A player can be measure in comparison to the other players in the field, ie, one player can be considered 4 times as good as the other players, and thus be 4 times as likely to make the final table. However, a player cannot be considered 4 times as good as he is lucky, so you cannot use a 100% ratio in order to determine how much of poker is skill and how much in luck. In all honestly, in every hand it could be 100% skill and 0% luck or 100% luck and 0% skill, and over time these numbers do not even out to make one specific ratio.Royal, I think your argument would sound a little bit better if it went a little something like this (and this is my argument as to why I play tournies constantly)-As an experienced, knowledgeable tournament player who has an idea as to certain strategies and concepts, as long as you play well, you will be 3-4 times better than the average player at the $5 level. In a 300 person field, this would implay that you would make a final table once in every 7 to 10 tries, as opposed to once in every 30 tries. However, this does not mean that you are guaranteed to make the final table once in every 7 or 8 tries, you could very easily not make a final table in 60 attempts at playing the tourney. As long as you have confidence in your game and are constantly trying to improve your knowledge and how you play in certain situations, you will, over time, make more than your fair share of final tables and get more than your fair share of victories.

I agree with Bizzle...just playing a good solid tourney strat will give you a distinct edge over most of the field even without making any fancy plays or moves...playing positionally, betting for value and picking off desperate smaller stacks when the opportunity arises. This is how I play the mid/high stakes MTT's online and get quite good results with my "boring" style of poker.

[fatman 1]

I suggest you stop thinking about making the money and start thinking (and playing) to win the tournament ESPECIALLY if you are only playing $5 tournaments where you will only net like $4 for cashing.

This is the worst part about playing in a small buy in mtt. Unless you get to the ft and end up finishing in the top three you really don't make much $ for your time.

[hblask 1]

Jesus...I am so tired of hearing about how "I have to win 5 all-in's in a row" to survive. Does anyone ever take into account that maybe you should be playing some of those confrontations with stacks that are smaller than yours? Yes, if you play 5 coinflips with larger stacks, you are asking for trouble. How about playing smart, positional poker and only engaging those with considerably smaller stacks unless you've got the goods. If you win the first of those confrontations, you should be able to fade a bad beat along the way. In short, your post was short-sighted, whiny, and basically just dumb.

The reason you can't sit and wait for these confrontations only with short stacks is because in MTTs, the blinds go up, and most times you will get eaten alive before the opportunity comes. As I said, so far, the choice to me seems to be gamble when you are a clear favorite, and expect to lose sometimes, or play tight waiting for the perfect opportunity and limp into the money (maybe). Trust me, I've tried a lot of different combinations of aggressiveness/waiting/comparing stacks/etc, but in the end, you need to win a bunch of these in a row to be in the top 10 in a tournament, and that means, yes, three or four or five times, you have to risk your tournament life on hands where you are a clear favorite. How many times are you better than 4-1 favorite on a hand? For me, it's not that often, certainly not 4 times per 2-3 hours. Here's the more likely scenario: I am in the top three at my table, and the short stacks see the blinds going up... so they start to go all in on anything. AK suited comes up for me, they go all in on QJ suited. I will win most of those, but one bad beat and now I'm the guy threatened by the blinds. This is my point, you have to win a bunch of these early or you are done.Maybe that's why people like MTTs, it's more like gambling and less like work (as opposed to ring games, where patience and smart decisions are the key).

[Bizzle 0]

Maybe that's why people like MTTs, it's more like gambling and less like work (as opposed to ring games, where patience and smart decisions are the key).

Are you trying to bait me, or do you just feel like throwing out horrible generalizations that are completely off base?

[BeaverStyle 1]

I think the general consensus is that this argument is retarded (sw)Yes, there are different forms of poker. Limit/NL/omaha/omaha hi/lo/razz/stud/2-7draw/5card.... Don't all of these games involve luck?The age old question in poker is how much of it is skill, and how much of it is luck?You can look at it from a couple of different angles:1. You need to get good cards to win (luck) and play those cards well to extract the maximum amount of money (skill)2. You don't get as many good cards but the ones you get you play well with position, reads on players, and a good bluff here or there.I hear things like "mtt's are for suckers"... the only way i think this could apply is to Low Limit Online MTT's... otherwise you're essentially saying that the WSOP is full of crapshoots?There's no question that Luck is involved in a winning poker players career, but how much is luck, and how much is skill?No. One. Knows.

[hblask 1]

Are you trying to bait me, or do you just feel like throwing out horrible generalizations that are completely off base?

LOL....Seriously, in forums like this I tend to make statements, hoping people will disagree and give me their point of view, rather than ask questions, the way I would in real life. Something about the format of this....So do you disagree that there is more gambling in MTTs than in ring games? This is a serious question for me. Playing ring games, I don't feel like a gambler, just a technician with high variance. Playing MTTs, it just "feels" like gambling. I know the fundamentals still apply, but the people who don't care about the fundamentals make it gambling. (In ring games, they are just fish holding my money for a while). Maybe that's the whole point of what I'm getting at in this thread. I don't mean it to sound whiny, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm doing something wrong or if I've just had bad luck so far. I've read up on tournament strategy, and so far, what I've concluded is that, depending on who you listen to, in the early stages, you should either play loose and see flops cheap, or you should play tight and let the fish beat each other up; in the middle stages you should either play tight and wait for your opportunity, or play loose and take advantage of everyone's fear of just missing out on the money; in the late stages you should either be aggressive to get the chip lead, or, because each step up is a big jump in payoff, you should play tight and be selective. So in conclusion, make the right decision at each point, and you'll do OK. Of the 15 or 20 MTTs I've played so far, probably "only" 5 have been lost on bad decisions/impatience, a few I've been in the money, and the rest are lost to gamblers who don't understand odds.And yeah, I know 15 or 20 is a ridiculously small number, and maybe that's the other thing I'm wondering about.... how many is enough to know if they are for me? 100? 200? Or am I getting clues already? I like playing them, but am not the kind of person who will pursue a losing cause indefinitely. Especially when it takes two hours to win zero dollars, and three to win $6.

[strategy 4]

.

[Bizzle 0]

LOL....

See, if this quote had been your last one, then it would have made me less dismissive of you. Nice post, I will comment on each part of it.

Seriously, in forums like this I tend to make statements, hoping people will disagree and give me their point of view, rather than ask questions, the way I would in real life. Something about the format of this....So do you disagree that there is more gambling in MTTs than in ring games? This is a serious question for me. Playing ring games, I don't feel like a gambler, just a technician with high variance.

That is a fair feeling to have, but you have to recognize that the gambling in tournaments is finite, while the gambling in cash games is not.

Playing MTTs, it just "feels" like gambling. I know the fundamentals still apply, but the people who don't care about the fundamentals make it gambling. (In ring games, they are just fish holding my money for a while). Maybe that's the whole point of what I'm getting at in this thread. I don't mean it to sound whiny, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm doing something wrong or if I've just had bad luck so far.

Yeah, I don't have much to say here, so I won't BS you.

I've read up on tournament strategy, and so far, what I've concluded is that, depending on who you listen to, in the early stages, you should either play loose and see flops cheap, or you should play tight and let the fish beat each other up; in the middle stages you should either play tight and wait for your opportunity, or play loose and take advantage of everyone's fear of just missing out on the money; in the late stages you should either be aggressive to get the chip lead, or, because each step up is a big jump in payoff, you should play tight and be selective. So in conclusion, make the right decision at each point, and you'll do OK. Of the 15 or 20 MTTs I've played so far, probably "only" 5 have been lost on bad decisions/impatience, a few I've been in the money, and the rest are lost to gamblers who don't understand odds.

There is no right way to play a tournament, and there is no truly "wrong" way specified in what you have put in here. Find a style that works for you that you can do without having to make decisions you are uncomfortable with, and go with it. However, in low limit tournies, anything other than tight will cause you problems.

And yeah, I know 15 or 20 is a ridiculously small number, and maybe that's the other thing I'm wondering about.... how many is enough to know if they are for me? 100? 200? Or am I getting clues already? I like playing them, but am not the kind of person who will pursue a losing cause indefinitely. Especially when it takes two hours to win zero dollars, and three to win $6.

If you are playing them, and are finding that you don't enjoy them or the after effects, why continue? You seem to enjoy playing cash games, so continue with those until you do not like them. MTTs require a mindset that is a little more...I don't want to say rare because it isn't the proper word, but unique isn't quite adequate. You have to be able to fade repeated bad beats for what can be weeks at a time, and you have to be able to understand that even though sometimes you accumulated a crapload of chips, you can't just quit when you are ahead. Those who play MTTs are often obsessed with the goal, not the journey, and from what I can tell by massively generalizing your posts, you are not that way.

[ianb459 0]

For a while I was convinced that getting into the money in MTTs is at least 50% luck. After some encouraging words last week from people in the strategy section, I thought I'd give it another try, and now I'm sure it's at least 97.3% luck. And to answer the next obvious question, yes, those people who make it to the final table at the WPT year after year are just the luckiest people on earth.I know, you are all going to say that I'm just playing poorly, but if I flop top set on an uncoordinated board, I'm calling that all-in every time, and losing some of those. In a $5 tourney, I will be faced with all-in bets 4 or 5 or 6 times before I'm in the money. I need to win all of them to stay in (since it tends to be the big stacks trying to push people around who make those crazy bets), so even 75/25 favorites are not enough to win 5 in a row (roughly speaking). Then I'm out or short-stacked and the writing is on the wall. (Last four tournaments, forced all-in or mostly-in on hands that, when turned up, show me at least 2-1 and as much as 4-1 favorites. I hit my share of those, so I'm not complaining about bad beats, but the odds always catch up and I'm done.)Oh, and I've tried just avoiding those confrontations, with predictable results -- eaten alive by the blinds.Maybe I need to enter higher entry-fee tourneys, where people don't feel they have so little at stake that they will chase ANYTHING, but it seems silly to move to higher limits when I am just throwing money away at lower limits.OK, I'm done ranting about this until the next time I decide it can't be that bad and try one of these stupid tournaments again.

You probably just stink...luck is BIG short term ONLY

[Norhas99 0]

Thanks Bizzle. That makes a lot more sense. I still don't understand the post below though. Am I the only person who finds this statement completely ridiculous?

LOL no, your definately not. Refer to my first post on this thread.

[hblask 1]

If you are playing them, and are finding that you don't enjoy them or the after effects, why continue? You seem to enjoy playing cash games, so continue with those until you do not like them. MTTs require a mindset that is a little more...I don't want to say rare because it isn't the proper word, but unique isn't quite adequate. You have to be able to fade repeated bad beats for what can be weeks at a time, and you have to be able to understand that even though sometimes you accumulated a crapload of chips, you can't just quit when you are ahead. Those who play MTTs are often obsessed with the goal, not the journey, and from what I can tell by massively generalizing your posts, you are not that way.

Thanks for all the great answers so far... so I'll try to tap your brain a little more. I think to answer your question, I do like that element of MTTs that says "the clock is ticking, you can't just sit and nut peddle". That is an interesting element added to the game. In the cash games, I've gone hours winning less than 3% of my hands. Horribly boring and frustrating, but if I play TAG another hour after that, I'll probably be ahead. In MTTs, there is no more waiting. So the reason I'm asking, I guess, is to look for clues to that mindset that you mention, that obsession with the goal, so that I can know if I've got it. I like the *idea* of a challenge that requires you to focus and make good decisions for three hours... just so far in practice, those good decisions haven't paid off, keeping me doubting if I am cut out for it. (Again, small sample size.) So one last question: is there one "best" book on getting into that mindset? Or a couple of them?See, my modest goal is to dominate all forms of poker at all levels everywhere, and I think MTTs would be a good next project to tackle....

[Bizzle 0]

Thanks for all the great answers so far... so I'll try to tap your brain a little more. I think to answer your question, I do like that element of MTTs that says "the clock is ticking, you can't just sit and nut peddle". That is an interesting element added to the game. In the cash games, I've gone hours winning less than 3% of my hands. Horribly boring and frustrating, but if I play TAG another hour after that, I'll probably be ahead. In MTTs, there is no more waiting. So the reason I'm asking, I guess, is to look for clues to that mindset that you mention, that obsession with the goal, so that I can know if I've got it. I like the *idea* of a challenge that requires you to focus and make good decisions for three hours... just so far in practice, those good decisions haven't paid off, keeping me doubting if I am cut out for it. (Again, small sample size.) So one last question: is there one "best" book on getting into that mindset? Or a couple of them?See, my modest goal is to dominate all forms of poker at all levels everywhere, and I think MTTs would be a good next project to tackle....

Glad to hear you appreciate the answers. I'll tackle the easier part first-to learn to play tournies, read HOH Volumnes 1 and 2. If you want to create a wishlist of books that is 10 long, HOH V1 and HOH V2 should occupy spots 1-9. In terms of getting into the mindset, if you are looking for a book to do this, Poker Nation by Andy Bellin isn't bad. Tournament Poker and the Art of War by David Apostolico isn't bad either.Alright, as for the second part-there is an urgency that comes to tournament poker that you will not find in cash games. This is a big part of why I won't play cash games online, because I can't handle the monotony (and I say this as someone who had 6 years of live cash game experience before getting online). Online tournaments are like crack, which can be a problem, because you will want to play fast and hard because there is always another one coming up. The main difference you will find is that you are playing more off of two things (when the other player is weak and/or you are strong) as opposed to most (what I assume are) low-limit cash games that you play, when you just play when you are strong, and it doesn't matter because there is always an idiot willing to pay you off.Honestly, and this may surprise you, but playing repeated tournaments will make you a much more well rounded player than playing a lot of cash games. You will have to learn how to make moves at certain pots and when to slow down and be patient. These skills do not exactly transfer perfectly to a deepstack cash game scenario, but they will serve you well in the long run.You seem to have a quench for learning more about tournament play, so I encourage you to check out tourney strat, and especially the Pokerstars 180 person sit n go thread. You will find a lot of good information from a lot of good posters in that forum.Also, I must say-your first post reeked of a "I took two bad beats in a row and can't handle it" post, but you have recovered very well from that and asked a bunch of good questions. Very commendable.