Limit SNGs

[GrekeHaus]

I am normally a limit ring-game player and not a SNG player, however I do play the occasional NL SNG.

I sat down tonight and was playing a few SNGs and I acidentally sat in a limit SNG. Being a limit player, you figure I'd be pretty good at these, but I got to thinking and started to wonder whether or not these are even beatable in the long run.

First off, limit is a game with a lower winrate and higher standard deviation. Thus, a winning player will generally still have a flatter bell curve that is more closely centered in the middle (in other words, a players finish in each of the 10 spots will generally be closer to 10%).

Furthermore, in any tournament situation, you will often find yourself short-stacked on a regular basis. In a NL situation, you are at least able to double up your chips with some sort of advantage or at least make it a mistake for the blinds to call you. In limit however, you don't have this edge.

My intuition would tell me that these things would make limit SNGs [i]very[/] hard to beat, if it's even possible. Has anybody here ever tried this or have any research on this?

[tjh]

I have accidently played large limit tourneys and also limit SNG's

I do not think the comparison to a limit ring game is valid. The ever increasing blinds make the limit tourneys feel like a no limit game pretty quickly.

Picture a Limit table that starts as 1-3 and then becomes 3-6, 10-20, 50-100. That is not at all like a limit game.

I do not have a reasonable sample size but I have done alright in these games.

I

[stigmata]

I'm also interested in this question. I have also seen the standard response that a decent player will have a greater advantage in NL than limit. This makes sense, although I feel that the somewhat weaker competition at the limit SNG's could at least partially compensate for this.

When I first started out at poker, I played around 30 limit at the 5+1 up to the 30+3. My ROI at each of these levels was from 0.8, 0.5, 0.3, 0.4 and 1.7. Obviously the sample is waaay too small, but it would seem like I was beating them at an acceptable rate.

After this initial foray, I switched to NL SNG on others advice.

However, I accidently played a Limit $109 the other day, and came 1st /images/graemlins/cool.gif. It did "feel" beatable (which is easy to say when you won....). Certainly, my limit skills are reasonably decent, and I felt like I had a good edge over the competition.

I play mainly short handed, and I felt this helped alot in the latter stages of the tournament. I am quite used to 2/3 handed pots where the flop may have missed everyone, and if you have a good feel for when a bluff/semi-bluff is going to work, I think you can pick up quite a few pots. In some ways it actually seemed easier to steal than in NL. Basically I was blasting away at it when it got down to less than 6-handed, and it seemed to work. I don't think many players make the right adaptations for when the games get short handed, and this is where you can get your edge at these games.

Anyway, with a sample size of 1, this is all complete speculation. I would like to hear from anyone who has played a significant number of these. If nobody has, then perhaps I will play 50 or 100 over the next month and report back.

[GrekeHaus]

This is all true. I ended up taking second in mine. I basically just sat around for a while and then went hyper-aggressive near the end. I felt like at the end I played quite skillfully and once I got a big stack, I was able to steal even more easily than I could in NL, without having to risk a chunk of my stack. With 4 people left, everybody just wanted in the money so I was able to steal a lot of small pots and stay out of anything too big.

The main problem in these seems to me that getting past the initial stages is much harder. For starters (at lower stakes anyway), you won't have a lot of people busting out very early, which is hugely +EV for you. Also, if you do manage to get a monster against one of those players, you can't increase your stack as much. This often means you'll have around an average stack in level 4 or 5 and nobody will have been eliminated. After just reading "Getting the Best of It" and "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" I can safely say that if there are 10,000 chips, you would much rather have 1,000 of these chips vs. 5 or 6 players than 10 players.

I do think that limit tournaments are beatable in general, I'm just not sure that the very brief nature of SNGs gives you enough hands to manifest your edge.

[stigmata]

I definately agree with what you say RE: low stakes. However, I do have problems with some of the NL $109's - sometimes it can be 7 or 8 TAGs, and once the blinds reach 50/100 it just switches to a crap shoot. Sure, you can get some equity using a good push strategy etc, but it still means a low ROI.

At the one high limit SNG I played, I felt there was actually much more oppurtunities to exploit a skill advantage against a bunch of essentially weak-tight players. I was actually short-stacked (t500) after value betting the hell out of someone and then getting rivered. I definately wouldn't have been able to fight back without some good cards. However, I did make quite a number of small pots from decent blind stealing/defense strategy, which is something that doesn't really happen at NL.

I agree with what you say about the early stages of the Limit tourney. It actually feels like the structure is slightly turned on its head. The early part is the tough bit to get through, whereas once your down to 4/5 it should actually be slightly easier. Getting delt AA at level 1 is pretty meaningless, unless your fortunate enough to get set-over-set or something. You probably need to win a decent pot or two once the blinds increase to have some chance.

However, with people quoting a "maximum" ROI for the 109's of 20%, I'm just not convinced that you couldn't achieve something similar at Limit.

Sample size of 1 is obviously too small, but unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I might try a few more.

[GrekeHaus]

I think you're getting at a good point here.

There are tons of good limit ring game players out there.
There are tons of good NL ring game players out there.
There are tons of good NL SNG players out there.

There are very few good limit SNG players out there.

This fact alone is probably the best reason for trying to play in these games. Given the same quality of players, you would almost certainly get more value out of NL, so I doubt these games will become terribly competetive any time in the near future. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Scuba Chuck]

I hate to say this, but limit is boring (yawn).

FWIW, I agree with your conclusions. If this fool places almost everytime he accidentally plays in a limit ring game (hell, I accidentally opened a game where they dealt me four cards ~ and I still got 2nd), then they must be soft.

Perhaps that's the real danger. When the NL sharks accidentally enter your games. That's where the real variance begins /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Scuba

[The Yugoslavian]

No, they should be fairly easy to beat.

It's just that they take too long compared to NL STTs. And one can't multitable them nearly as easily.

Players are still hemorraging chips and to kill the limit games I'd imagine you need a slightly different bag of tricks.

It plays very close to a NL STT once you've been waiting around for the high blinds anyway. You just have to shove all of your chips in a couple of increments...

If there is bad (sub-optimal) play, then it's trivial to show how the game is beatable. One just has to find the right adjustments to take full advantage. Unfortunately, I doubt it's really worth anyone's time to really devote a significant amount of time to figuring out what these adjustments are...

The other problem is that I wouldn't be surprised if the monkeys accidentally play the limit STTs 'better' than the NL ones. Sort of how the larger chip stacks allow poor players to accidentally play the higher buyin STTs better (not to mention that's where the best players are anyway).

Yugoslav

[Patriarch]

I play a lot of limit SnGs, with maybe 2/3 of my total SnG play coming from limit, and 1/3 from NL.
Personally I've found limit games much more profitable, with my ROI at 34% and ITM 43% on $11 limit SnGs, compared to 15% ROI and 37% ITM in NL. This is taken from a small sample size (just over 250) but it shows that limit is a better game for me at the moment.

My style of play is pretty similar in both games; play ultra-tight in the first few levels as many hands in levels 1-3 take 6+ players to the flop, and often 3 or 4 to the river. Many players bleed their chips off early in the opening levels, but its hard to actually bust anyone out - Getting to level 4 or even 5 with 9/10 players isn't rare.
Then you have to switch and become very aggressive, just as in NL. Stealing blinds can be harder and bluffs more difficult to pull off. Play on the bubble is quite similar to NL, since any raise more or less commits you to your hand.

However, from what I've seen people are happier to chase with draws and call down with mid pair in limit. The mentality of "It's just one more bet.." means more profit for me.
Limit is much more forgiving of mistakes as well, especially in situations where you are going to showdown no matter what, and you lose less when you are dominated. This is important as you still have a chance of finishing ITM when you get beat for half your stack early on, whereas in NL you're out.

[Patriarch]

I'm curious as to why you say they're harder to multitable. I usually play 2-3 at once, but 4 isn't much of a problem for me.
Personally, I've found NL harder to multitable, because I find that getting reads on opponents is more important (and harder to do with more tables) in NL.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to why you say they're harder to multitable. I usually play 2-3 at once, but 4 isn't much of a problem for me.
Personally, I've found NL harder to multitable, because I find that getting reads on opponents is more important (and harder to do with more tables) in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not harder in terms of playing. Harder in terms of finding. Although probably quite possible.

Good luck keeping 8 running continuously, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Yugoslav

[Phil Van Sexton]

I believe in efficient markets. If Limit SnGs were very profitable, more people would be playing them and discussing them here.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, in any tournament situation, you will often find yourself short-stacked on a regular basis. In a NL situation, you are at least able to double up your chips with some sort of advantage or at least make it a mistake for the blinds to call you. In limit however, you don't have this edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't really true. The big advantage in NL tournaments the ability to win money by blind stealing. If you have 500 left with a BB of 100, you just move allin and often people will fold. You can do this with any 2 cards.

It's actually harder to double up with a good hand. If you raise with a good hand, people are likely to fold in NL (which is fine too).

In limit, people will call your small raise and you can often double or triple up if they stay until the river. Of course, this is the problem: you actually have to win at showdown. Even good hands don't win more than 60-80% of the time. If against multiple opponents, your chances of winning are usually under 50%.

It doesn't matter how good you are. Once the blinds get high, you will need to win hands at showdown in limit. You don't get anything for free.

Here is another post on limit SnGs Limit post. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1812531)

[Patriarch]

I wondered about the lack of discussion on limit, too. Thanks for the link to the old post.

[Blarg]

I think limit tourneys are probably the least natural thing to go play.

The poker you see on t.v. is tournament, and it's no limit.

People coming to online sites and starting to learn poker often try to get a handle on it by playing ring limit games, which is probably what they're more used to from home games, most of which are limit.

So you've got your tourney players and your ring players, and the thing they seem to have in commmon is that some of them are no limit players. But limit ring players probably don't gravitate to limit tourneys. If they go to tourneys, they mostly probably gravitate to what everyone else is always talking about and is on t.v., and even what's offered more at sites like Party -- no limit tourneys.

You have to almost perversely seek out limit hold'em tourneys, it seems to me. They're not quite as fun or as quick or as frequently offered etc etc. I think that's why they're not talked about much. Because there's not a natural play progression leading up to them.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is bad (sub-optimal) play, then it's trivial to show how the game is beatable. One just has to find the right adjustments to take full advantage. Unfortunately, I doubt it's really worth anyone's time to really devote a significant amount of time to figuring out what these adjustments are...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this statement is true. Just because there's suboptimal play doesn't mean the game is beatable. The reason for this, of course, is that even though you might have an edge, the edge you get might not be enough to compensate for the entry fees you have to pay. For instance, if you put a bunch of world class pros at a $5/10 table, my guess is that none of them would be able to show a profit because I doubt any of them would be able to gain more than a 5% advantage over the competition. I'm not saying that it is the case with limit SNGs, but it's something to consider.

I also mentioned that a higher standard deviation in limit would lead to a lower overall winrate due to the nature of SNGs and the fact that this would more or less flatten your results. However, after reading this post and contemplating this idea further, I'm not sure this is the case. It might be true that your placement is more or less a function of the percentage edge you have on the competition and be completely (or mostly) independent of SD. You will have to win more at showdown, which could decrease the percentage of times you win, but you are also getting 3:1 or 4:1 on a lot of these bets, which could lead to a higher ITM.

I'm not sure how to go about proving this in either direction, and I'm not sure which one is correct. Does anybody have any ideas on this? Might be a good question for the Probability forum...

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is bad (sub-optimal) play, then it's trivial to show how the game is beatable. One just has to find the right adjustments to take full advantage. Unfortunately, I doubt it's really worth anyone's time to really devote a significant amount of time to figuring out what these adjustments are...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this statement is true. Just because there's suboptimal play doesn't mean the game is beatable. The reason for this, of course, is that even though you might have an edge, the edge you get might not be enough to compensate for the entry fees you have to pay. For instance, if you put a bunch of world class pros at a $5/10 table, my guess is that none of them would be able to show a profit because I doubt any of them would be able to gain more than a 5% advantage over the competition. I'm not saying that it is the case with limit SNGs, but it's something to consider.

I also mentioned that a higher standard deviation in limit would lead to a lower overall winrate due to the nature of SNGs and the fact that this would more or less flatten your results. However, after reading this post and contemplating this idea further, I'm not sure this is the case. It might be true that your placement is more or less a function of the percentage edge you have on the competition and be completely (or mostly) independent of SD. You will have to win more at showdown, which could decrease the percentage of times you win, but you are also getting 3:1 or 4:1 on a lot of these bets, which could lead to a higher ITM.

I'm not sure how to go about proving this in either direction, and I'm not sure which one is correct. Does anybody have any ideas on this? Might be a good question for the Probability forum...

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, if you've played *any* limit STTs and think there isn't enough bad play to make playing them and beating the rake profitable....then you should quit poker....I'm surprised you even made this argument knowing that I already know it....(if you want me to admit that I needed to mention rake there to be completely accurate...then fine, I admit it - I was *assuming* that much was self-evident).

As for SD, comparing limit ring and nl ring to STT limit and STT NL is most likely flawed. The SD for limit HE STTs and NL STTs (or ther other STT variants) will be very close. This is due to the payout structure of STTs more than how correct or incorrect strategy applies to them (and is taken advantage of). Yes, there will most likely be SD differences between NLHE STTs and LHE STTs, but I'd guess it will be negligible in the scheme of things...

Yes, where you're going with your ideas about ITM and ROI in limit make sense....I wouldn't be surprised if a higher ITM is acheivable in the limit STTs.

Yugoslav

[Patriarch]

I definitely feel that a higher ITM is possible in limit STTs.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]

Dude, if you've played *any* limit STTs and think there isn't enough bad play to make playing them and beating the rake profitable....then you should quit poker

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lie and you know it. I've played about 20-30 in my life and (I think) I'm up. Of course as you know, 20-30 ain't [censored]. My original arguement had to do with the fact that you'd rarely be able to gain any substantial advantage early because you'd generally have a *very* short stack compared to the blinds and I have no reason to assume that said situation is +EV. When I play ring games, I makes sure to always have enough money to cover a capped round of betting at each betting round. Here, we're talking about frequently only having enough to call a capped pre-flop. Maybe it seems more intuitively obvious to somebody with a lot of SNG experience, since you're put in this situation more frequently than I am. The reason I posted this here was because I wanted the opinions of people who were more experienced in this area than me.

[ QUOTE ]
As for SD, comparing limit ring and nl ring to STT limit and STT NL is most likely flawed. The SD for limit HE STTs and NL STTs (or ther other STT variants) will be very close. This is due to the payout structure of STTs more than how correct or incorrect strategy applies to them (and is taken advantage of). Yes, there will most likely be SD differences between NLHE STTs and LHE STTs, but I'd guess it will be negligible in the scheme of things...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably correct. I remember having a conversation with you once where you told me the SD of a SNG player is 1.7 Buy-ins, regardless of win rate or playing style. This leads me to believe that your win rate is more highly correlated with how many chips you can accumulate, rather than style. You could consider limit a "style" where every player only bets a predetermined ammount. In this case, you'd expect the SD to be 1.7 for most players at limit as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, where you're going with your ideas about ITM and ROI in limit make sense....I wouldn't be surprised if a higher ITM is acheivable in the limit STTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the above is right, then this is probably wrong unless you feel that you can gain a bigger advantage playing limit than NL.

One school of thought for early round limit SNG strategy is that you should play looser than normal in order to attempt to gain a chip advantage early. This would involve making plays that are -chipEV in order to make your placement distribution more lopsided by distributing more of your finishes near the top and the bottom. Your potential gain against a big field here is pretty big, while there's no real risk of getting a huge dent put in your stack with a hand like 96s, especially when compared to the size of later bets. If this theory is correct, then it probably is possible to get a higher ITM than in NL. On the other hand, going with the standard super-tight early strategy would likely give you no bigger ITM than in a NL SNG unless you can gain a bigger chip advantage against the field.

--GH

[adanthar]

To clear some things up:

Limit SNG's at Party are softer and easier *by far* than NL SNG's. If I had BR problems and had to play SNG's to rebuild, given unlimited time I would start with the limit 10's. The reason for that is because the monkeys that cold call J2s still donate just as much money in limit as they do in NL, only there's more of them per table because they bust slower. With Party's high, crapshoot blinds, you'll be shortstacked more but your edges will be greater, and when you are a big stack you will often nearly automatically win.

The problem is that they take so long and are so hard to multitable that the $/hour is just not there. But they're very easy to beat all the way up and your ITM/ROI should definitely be higher in limit than NL. The fish just stay fishy far longer (not to mention the 1/table 'I thought this was NL' maniac who then raises every hand. That rules.)

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
The fish just stay fishy far longer (not to mention the 1/table 'I thought this was NL' maniac who then raises every hand. That rules.)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...those guys do rule.

[The Yugoslavian]

Yes, if you've played 20-30 LHE STTs and can't spot enough poor play to take advantage of, then you should quit poker.

The thing is, you have spotted plenty of bad play and you *know* this. Hell, you can probably even tell without seeing the hands that go to showdown that too many are busting early in these things. But if you *do* look at the way hands are being played, then yes, you should be able to tell if they're beatable. I'm assuming you've played relatively low buyin limit STTs - watching 20-30 higher buyin ones may or may not allow you to come to a conclusion.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Any situation in a zero-sum game (ignoring rake, /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )against players who you can out think and make 'better' decisions than will be +EV. I find it *very* hard to believe you are truly questioning your ability to make better decisions in these low buyin limit HE STTs...

1.7 as a SD is close to what it will be. I didn't say it was exactly this number. A range would be most appropriate in discussing this point I'd imagine. There are a few threads that deal with this in mathematical and non-mathematical ways...I'll find a couple and PM them to you.

I don't pretend to know advanced LHE STT strategy....the reason I think a higher ITM is possible mainly is due to the realtive ability of the players playing the games, not the difference between it being limit or no limit...given fields of completely equal strength (for the game) a very simliar ITM % makes sense to me intuitively...

But, while the limit and NL players are coming from the same Party Poker population, there are fewer experienced limit STT players (as there is less $/hr to be made there - so sharks don't bother) and the games are longer, giving worse players even more time to make mistakes.

Yugoslav

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if you've played 20-30 LHE STTs and can't spot enough poor play to take advantage of, then you should quit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, all but 2 of these were played last summer or before (only 1 was played at the time of my original post). As you're aware, I've made a rather substantial breakthrough with my play since then. I was having these questions back then and thought it would be interesting to address the issue here.

[ QUOTE ]
Any situation in a zero-sum game (ignoring rake, /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )against players who you can out think and make 'better' decisions than will be +EV. I find it *very* hard to believe you are truly questioning your ability to make better decisions in these low buyin limit HE STTs...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never questioned this ability. I only questioned whether or not this difference was enough to beat the rake. Hands like this just make me feel like I have way more than enough edge:

Party Poker Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind t200 (6 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

BB (t1245)
UTG (t390)
MP (t2255)
CO (t380)
Button (t2330)
Hero (t1400)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Button calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Button calls.

Flop: (5 SB, t1000) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

Turn: (3.50 BB, t1400) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

River: (5.50 BB, t2200) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Final Pot: 5.5 BB (t2200)

Results:
Button has Kd Qh (straight, ace high).
Hero has Ac Kc (two pair, aces and jacks).
Outcome: Button wins 5.50 BB (t2200).

Yes, it is hands like this (nothing like calling off 2/3 of your stack on a gutshot) as well as this thread that have convinced me that I have more than enough edge to get a solid return from these games. Though I would still be curious to investigate the issues of ROI and ITM moe thouroughly and compare them to the NL SNGs.

[The Yugoslavian]

Yeah...Aleo's your boy for comparing the ITM and stuff thoroughly...but he's MIA. I don't think anyone has put too much discussion effort into limit STTs on this forum (that's not true though...but meh).

Yeah, your hand is a great example of how your opposition doesn't even need to hit his hand on the flop to pay you off...

If you're going to be playing STTs mainly as a diversion while grading, then yes, I think it's a great idea to play some limit ones and get back to us on your ideas/strategies.

Then you, Phil, and Skipbidder (I believe?), could have a go at it while the NL players yawn and fall asleep, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Yugoslav

[The Yugoslavian]

I accidentally played one of these stupid things tonight (2nd time that's ever happened to me in over 2000 STTs).

So yeah, they're sure as hell beatable!!

I really played the ITM poorly though, go figure.....bah, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

The one thing that stuck out most to me was this:

IT TAKES FREAKIN' FOREVER TO PLAY THESE DAMN THINGS!!!!

I almost impaled myself on a rusty, fiery, scum covered, diseased spear sitting in my hallway....it was *that* painful!!!!

Yugoslav

[tjh]

You guys are thinking about this way to hard, or at least from the wrong point of view.

Think like a fish for a moment.

Where do you feel safest?
Playing Limit games.

Where do you feel unsafe ?
Surrounded by sharks.

Where are the sharks ?
NL STT, NL ring games, Limit ring games (larger stakes not so much micro or small)

So the fish in the open sea have been harrased by sharks until they go broke or learn how to play.

Perhaps limit SNG's are the equivalent of a sheltered place where the fish have become placid and weak. A place with no predators.

The way to win a game is to get the most of their chips. I imagine that more chips go into the pot in Limit they just go in smaller increments. Since your whole stack is not at risk the "let's see a flop" mentality probably is very common.

Plus as one other poster said, there is always someone who thinks it was NL and just bets to get out of there.

So they take forever ! Move up in buyin amount to compensate and see if it pays off.

[The Yugoslavian]

I'm pretty sure fish think a bit more like:

'Dude, did you see Phil Ivey pwn that tourny last week on WPT marathon day?

Oh hells yeah homie....that was friggin' aaaweeeesome! I gotta get me to some of that NL ish...but I have no money holmes /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

Oh snaps bro doggy dog.....just hop ons over to the Party STTs....sit yourself down in one of those $11 games where allin is the name of the game.

Awwwwwwwwwwww shhhhhhh.....yo...u be right foo!'

But you're right....limit players go to the limit STTs and suck it up too. I don't think many fish really know where the sharks are.....that's one reason the sharks eat so well.

But yeah, most of us are in agreement that the limit STTs are pretty soft.

Yugoslav

[microbet]

You are very careful selecting games. I've only played about 500 SNGs and I've accidentally played omaha a couple times, and pot-limit or limit 3 or 4 times each.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
You are very careful selecting games. I've only played about 500 SNGs and I've accidentally played omaha a couple times, and pot-limit or limit 3 or 4 times each.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of it as my finest STT skill.....

After all, the first step to STT mastery is to master entering them...

Yugoslav
Who has never entered an omaha or pot limit game...
And also had a perfect record entering NL STTs during his brief 8-tabling the $11s stint...

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are very careful selecting games. I've only played about 500 SNGs and I've accidentally played omaha a couple times, and pot-limit or limit 3 or 4 times each.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of it as my finest STT skill.....

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...well at least you got that going for you.

I was grading 2 problems today, and can you believe it took me 2 full Limit SNGs and I still hadn't finished half my class (granted I finished OTM in both)? They really do take forever, but not as long as grading math problems done by computer scientists!