Some "higher" STEPs math.

[Apathy]

So, after discussing it with many people and trying to explain what a waste of money higher STEPs are because of the rake trap system used I decided I needed to seek help to get some numbers to back up my rantings and ravings.

For an explanantion of higher steps go HERE (http://www.partypoker.com/news/events/step-higher-05.html)

Given that structure and assuming all opponents played equally how much would a STEP 5 cost you if you started at STEP 1 on avg?

I WANT TO SEE GUESSES NO MATH.

I will post the results in about 3 hours, JUST GUESS RIGHT NOW AS SOON AS YOU READ THIS.


AND IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER OR HAVE SEEN IT DO NOT POST.


Thanks.

[Maulik]

$500

[Shanemex]

$25,000

[adanthar]

Assuming all opponents played equally I would quit Party and never play there again. Since they don't, I would conservatively estimate it'd cost me around 5-7K.

(The answer you're looking for is around $25K, give or take)

[valenzuela]

34k.

[Jurollo]

I think the number is a lot lower than many of you think just due to the replay factor for the top 5-6 spots. I would guess it is somewhere near $500-$600. That would be about 15-19 Step 1s.
~Justin

[valenzuela]

I did 0 brain work, my fingers just felt like typing 34k.

[Patriarch]

$50000

[HigherAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the number is a lot lower than many of you think just due to the replay factor for the top 5-6 spots. I would guess it is somewhere near $500-$600. That would be about 15-19 Step 1s.
~Justin


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds about right to me.

[Shanemex]

So when everyone is equally skilled they can all win $15000 seats for $500-$600? That dun make no cents.

[valenzuela]

the rake....

[REL18]

19k

[Shanemex]

If they're just saying how much rake they'd pay that doesn't make any sense either. A step 5 itself costs $500 in rake. Even if you won every step you'd still pay $863 in rake to play one step 5.

Step 4s charge $300 in rake per preson, and only advance one player. That means the average player would need to play ten step 4s to get to a step 5. That's a minimum of $3000 right there.

[valenzuela]

70 minutes left for the results! oh my!, oh my!.

[buddybudrow]

~ 100K

[CHCWSin05]

~75k

[wickss]

$33 if you never play a hand (including aces) until you are past the drop off point in each level.

[buddybudrow]

Probably true, but it would most likely take thousands of games and months, maybe years, of play before you actually reached level 5.

[tomdemaine]

But think of the rakeback!

[Apathy]

There were some very surprising guesses, as I expected. I was really shocked that it did not immediatly occur to everyone that the answer HAD to be above $15,500. This solution is thanks to mannika from the probabilty forum.

Whats the point?

I wanted to show how much people are confused by the rake structure and also show HOW MUCH you need to beat the games by. If you wanted to find out the answer starting at step 2 or 3 just use the formula below.


On average, it will take you 723 shots at buying in on Step 1 in order to make it to Step 5. This equals 723*33 = $23,859.


I solved this just by using some algebra:

First, I found equivalent terms for the value of each step in terms of the other steps.

S4 = (1/4)S5+(1/2)S3+(1/4)S2
S3 = (1/7)S4+(5/7)S2+(1/7)S1
S2 = (1/7)S3+(3/7)S1
S1 = (1/5)S2


Then I substituted those equations into one another to get:
S2 = (5)S1
S3 = (32)S1
S4 = (198)S1
S5 = (723)S1

Giving the Step 5 tournament the equivalent value of 723 Step 1 tournaments, and therefore $23,859.

[buddybudrow]

Not sure your math is correct. This is the way I look at it-

1) If the average player plays 10 step 4 they will win once, advancing to step 5. Four times, they will get a step 4 re-roll. Of those four they will advance 10% of the time, or 0.4 more times. So if a player plays 10 step 4s they will, on average advance 1.4 times. So to advance once they would have to play 10/1.4 = 7.14 times.

2) How many step 3s have to be played to advance to step 4. Using the same logic as above, in 10 tries they will come in 1st once, advancing, and get 2 re-rolls of which the will win 10% of on average. So number of step 3s to get to step 4 is 10/1.2 = 8.33 step 3s. So to get the 7.14 step 4s you need to get to step 5 once, you need to play, on average, 7.14 * 8.33 = 59.5 step 3s

3) Using the same logic, You need 1 + 0.3 (10% of the 3 re-rolls) = 1.3 step 2s per 10 to get one step 3. # of step 2s needed = 10/1.3 = 7.7 step 2s. To get the 59.5 step 3s you need, you would have to play 59.5 * 7.7 = 458.2 step 2s to get one step 5 entry.

4) Finally, again using the same logic, You need 1 + 0.5 (10% of 5 step 1 re-rolls) = 1.5 step 1s per 10 to get one step 2. This is 10/1.5 = 6.67 step 1s to get one step 2 entry. Total number of step 1s to get one step 5 entry = 6.67 * 458.2(needed step 2s) = 3056 step 1s

5) 3056 step 1s * $33 = $100,848. In reality it is slightly less because I didn't account for move downs and the chances of moving back up with them, but I believe those terms to be almost insignificant.

I'm pretty sure my math is correct here, or at least the concept. I'd appreciate any feedback on this.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]

5) 3056 step 1s * $33 = $100,848. In reality it is slightly less because I didn't account for move downs and the chances of moving back up with them, but I believe those terms to be almost insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discounting those terms is terrible.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]

Giving the Step 5 tournament the equivalent value of 723 Step 1 tournaments, and therefore $23,859.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your math before I gave a guess, but this is pretty close to where I would have expected it to be.

[buddybudrow]

Not if you're talking about the average player. Each of those has a 10% chance of moving the player back up a level from where they went down to. Very small compared to the stuff I accounted for. I would challenge you to prove otherwise mathmatically

[Nottom]

When you are talking about calculating the odds a player will go all the way up though the steps starting at lvl 1, discounting the free re-tries they get is a significant error. I don't feel like doing the math, but this seems obvious

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Not if you're talking about the average player. Each of those has a 10% chance of moving the player back up a level from where they went down to. Very small compared to the stuff I accounted for. I would challenge you to prove otherwise mathmatically

[/ QUOTE ]

Work through the algebra solution given, you will see your error.

[buddybudrow]

Let's make an estimate of the effect of these terms and see what the numbers show.

1) Take the effect of the step 1 re-rolls you get from step 2. Because of the large number of hands, this will be the largest of the "unaccounted" terms. Take the needed 458 step 2s from my equations. Of those 458 step 2s, 458* 30%(places 5 thru 7) = 137.4 step 1 re-rolls. From those 137, 1/6.67 (from the calculations will advance to step 2) = 137/6.67 = 20.5 extra step 2s. Continue the division for each step -

step 3s = 20.5/7.7 = 2.66 extra step 3s
step 4s = 2/66/8.33 = 0.32 extra step 4s
step 5 = 0.32/7.14 = 0.05 extra step 5s

2) Take the effect of the step 3 re-rolls you get from step 4. Same calculation as above. The 7.14 needed step 4s * 20% (places 6 and 7) = 1.42 extra step 3s

step 4s = 1.42 /8.33 = 0.17 extra step 4s
step 5 = 0.17/7.14 = 0.03 (rounding up) extra step 5s

Since the two examples are roughly the same, lets just say that for each instance of a lower level re-roll you get it adds an extra 0.05 (I'll use the higher of the two) step 5 plays. There are 7 places within the structure that you get lower level re-rolls. 7*0.05 = 0.35 extra step 5s. This is actually higher than I thought it would be, so you are partially right.

So for the 3056 step 1s started you actually get closer to 1.35 step 5 plays. The number of step 1s starts need to get 1 step 5 entry is then 3056/1.35 = 2264 step 1s.

As a result a better estimate of the cost to reach a step 5 is 2264 * $33 = $74,700. So, I stand corrected. The lower level re-rolls have a bigger effect than I thought, but I think this shows the cost is still much higher than the $23K number. I think the $74K is a pretty close estimate. However its still just an estimate, which by the way I spent way too much time on. I am now brain-dead from all the math. Time for a beer!

[Nottom]

Ok but what about the step 1s you get from moving down from step 3 or from moving up from a freerolled step 2 and winnign another step 1. Unless I'm missing somethign, these still aren't accounted for, and these add up very quickly.

[buddybudrow]

I counted it. Its one of the 7 step down opportunities I accounted for. In actuality there are only 5 loop back spots in the structure. Not sure where I got the 7 from. (beer deprivation) I'll calculate it to see if its close to my 0.05 each estimate.

59.5 step 3s * 10% (9th place) = 5.95 extra step 1s
5.95 step 1s/6.67 = 0.89 step 2s
0.89 step 2s/7.7 = 0.116 step 3s
0.116 step 3s/8.33 = 0.014 step 4s
0.014 step 4s/7.14 = 0.002 step 5s

In my updated estimate I accounted this term for an extra 0.05 step 5s, not the 0.002 calculated here. I'll stick with the 0.05 number though and redo it for the actual 5 looping spots instead of my imaginary 7.

3056 step 1s gets 1 + 0.05*5 = 1.25 step 5 entries
3056/1.25 = 2444 step 1s entries required

2444 * $33 = $80.6K

Probably more becuase I've proven that at least two of the 5 looping spots account for less than the 0.05 I used in this rev 3 estimate.

[buddybudrow]

I stand corrected. I worked through the S1 equation numerically and see how you get the 1/5 number. I have to assume the coefficients to all your other equations are correct as well. Did you use some sort of series expansion to account for all the looping correctly? I would be interested to see how you got the coefficients for all the terms in your equations. I'm a little rusty on my math I haven't used since college.

[buddybudrow]

Turns out I have been blowing smoke for the last few hours. Sure glad I spent all that time doing meaningless and incorrect calculations. See what beer deprivation can do to the brain?

[youngladyfriend]

Beer deprivation is certianly unfortunate. However - after reading this incredibly mathematic discussion I need another beer. I'm very impressed with all the work I've witnessed. And now I'm also impressed that Party Poker came up with such a clever way of making another billion dollars this year. Most people out there certianly don't see the STEPS as you fine poker mathemeticians. They see it as a $33 chance to win $150,000. (Just like on TV!) So, I think you need to re-do your math because the people responding to this are obviously smarter than the "average" player that is being sucked in by the pipe dream of the STEPS tourney.
I meant that.
Did it sound sarcastic?
Ugh that happens when I've had some beer.

*youngladyfriend

[adanthar]

So here's an interesting question: if you buy in directly to S4H but not S5H, how much better than the competition must you be for you to make money at the S5H's? Assume that the players are exactly the same in both tournaments.

[buddybudrow]

After my FUBAR I have decided to refer all such questions directly to Apathy.

[ilya]

What about the 72.3 times you get $25 cash, the 14.46 times you get $21, and the 0.365 times you get $90? That adds up to $2144.01, so wouldn't the cost of getting to a step5 be $21714.99 for the average player?

[buddybudrow]

Good catch. With these improved odds I may have to take a stab at winning the $100K.

[Benholio]

What if you have a 25% ROI in step 1, 20% ROI in step 2, 15% in step 3, 10% in step 4? How much does it cost then?? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
So here's an interesting question: if you buy in directly to S4H but not S5H, how much better than the competition must you be for you to make money at the S5H's? Assume that the players are exactly the same in both tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this can all be derived from the original equation mannika showed us, that I put in my RESULTS post.

The thing is though If you are buying in direct to STEP 4 my guess is if you won a STEP1 or even STEP2 freeroll you wouldn't even want to use it. So essentially you are paying more then 10% rake. I'm not sure there's more then 5 players on the internet right now (perhaps less, maybe even 0) that could beat this rake against the typical line up you would face in higher STEP 4.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the 72.3 times you get $25 cash, the 14.46 times you get $21, and the 0.365 times you get $90? That adds up to $2144.01, so wouldn't the cost of getting to a step5 be $21714.99 for the average player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true I left them out for simplicities sake but I didn't think it would be as much as 2k, if your math is right It's still pretty amazing that you pay (on avg.) more then 6k in rake to get into a $15,000+500 tourney.

[curtains]

Forgive me but I dont understand this math too much. What if you play the normal steps, say at the 200 or 500 level. Whats the deal with them?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the 72.3 times you get $25 cash, the 14.46 times you get $21, and the 0.365 times you get $90? That adds up to $2144.01, so wouldn't the cost of getting to a step5 be $21714.99 for the average player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true I left them out for simplicities sake but I didn't think it would be as much as 2k, if your math is right It's still pretty amazing that you pay (on avg.) more then 6k in rake to get into a $15,000+500 tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's alright though, the STEP5s are softer than a butter baby.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]

Forgive me but I dont understand this math too much. What if you play the normal steps, say at the 200 or 500 level. Whats the deal with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

The normal steps are a pretty bad deal but not nearly as bad as the "higher steps" which always only promote 1 place in STEPS 1-4, this is what causes people to bounce around so much and pay the exorbant rake showed. Also the rake in eash tournament is more (% wise) then in regular steps if I'm not mistaken.

In my opinion the "original steps" Are a really bad deal too but not nearly as bad as the "higher" steps.

make any sense?

[curtains]

So starting at step 4 is a bad deal? I feel like people play pretty bad at that due to the flat payout structure and lack of understanding.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]

So starting at step 4 is a bad deal? I feel like people play pretty bad at that due to the flat payout structure and lack of understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that we have yet to see a single "higher" step 4 run.

You are probably taking about the regular steps and thats a whole new math problem. The main point though, at almost any step level you are paying a HUGE amount of rake, probably too much to overcome unless you buy in direct to STEP 5.

[curtains]

I am talking about only regular steps. Forget the higher steps.

[astarck]

Slightly off topic but...

Does anyone have any math for the mini-steps? Could the same mathematics for the higher steps be applied to the mini-steps?

[Shanemex]

I saw a step higher 4 run today. RojoSox won it. I assume it's the same guy who was posting in the original step higher thread.

[Dudd]

What someone said up above was that it would take 33 dollars to win it if you had the discipline to fold every single hand hand before you got a free roll got me thinking. Wouldn't this be the easiest way to create a bot to get you into a step 5? It would be tedious for a human to play this way, but it wouldn't be hard at all to program a bot to not play until the requisite number of people get knocked out. Then, program some basic strategy after that, and sooner or later you'd have to win a step 5 seat based on simple probability alone. It might take months, but eventually it would have to happen, unless, of course, Party tightens up enough so that you can be blinded off before reaching the places that pay off a seat, which I really don't see happening. It would be an interesting programming/probability exercise anyways.

[Shanemex]

LOL, create a bot to fold every hand for you. Brilliant! This strategy may work sometimes, but it definately won't be profitable. Even in the step 1s where 2-6 replay you will still probably be blinded out at least 20% of the time.

[mannika]

I feel like such a celebrity.

If anyone has any further questions regarding the math itself, please post to the thread in the probability forum so that I can keep track of them and hopefully answer them. (I just finished exams, it's not like I have anything important to do for another week).

Here's the other thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2228202&page=0&view=&sb=5 &o=&fpart=1&vc=1#Post2228202)

[Apathy]

Anything I could do to get you math geeks out of the probablility forum /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Seriously though, thanks a lot for your help on this, it has generated good discussion. There are a few questions in this thread that you may be able to answer better then I have.

[Dudd]

I did some math on my own, which is posted in the probability thread already linked here, and I came out with a step 5 entry costing over 36,000 dollars, including all the money you get back from finishing out of a seat. Anyone know which one is right, 23k or 36k?

[Shoe]

Yes, that one.

[mannika]

For everyone interested, the assumptions that I was given for the original calculations are not correct, (specifically the number of players in the higher steps), so I will be re-doing the calculations, and will make another post when they are done.

Sorry for the confusion.

[mannika]

Here are the new results based on the correct assumptions.

Cost of buyin to Step 5 from...
Step 1: $34,932
Step 2: $27,066
Step 3: $22,232
Step 4: $18,476
Step 5: $15,500

Math is here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2229697&page=0&view=&sb=5 &o=&fpart=1&vc=1#Post2229697).

[adanthar]

So you have to have an ROI of around 20% (no calculator, I'm probably off a bit) in order to even buy in from S4, and that doesn't count the Step 1 and 2 freerolls you don't use?

...good luck with that.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the new results based on the correct assumptions.

Cost of buyin to Step 5 from...
Step 1: $34,932
Step 2: $27,066
Step 3: $22,232
Step 4: $18,476
Step 5: $15,500

Math is here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2229697&page=0&view=&sb=5 &o=&fpart=1&vc=1#Post2229697).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So you have to have an ROI of around 20% (no calculator, I'm probably off a bit) in order to even buy in from S4, and that doesn't count the Step 1 and 2 freerolls you don't use?

...good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, thank you for correcting this, I should have been more clear in my original post in the probability forum.

As Adanthar already mentioned this really shows the inpractability of STEPs. I thought it funny how many very good players on this forum were going to play them starting at STEP 2 or 3. My intuition was that they are virtually unbeatable, and I would love to see someone post, in the face of these numbers that it could be possible to buyin at ANY STEP 1-4 level and beat the game over the long run.

[Degen]

50k

Degen

[adanthar]

Don't get me wrong. It is very possible to beat the game in the long run in two situations:

1)If you are a top satellite player, buy in from Step 1 and have an infinite amount of time and bankroll*

2)If you are one of the roughly 3-4 people that actually can/does probably beat the S5's for over 20%

*I seriously think I could get from S1H to S5H on...well, since I was off on the 25K range, let's say 10K on a regular basis. In fact, I would be willing to make a bet to that effect; once you get to S3-S4H you can bounce around for so long that *eventually*, you'll get there solely through getting AA five times. The problem is that, if you're a decent player, you can make up the difference by playing regular SNG's about ten times faster - and then you still have a very top heavy payout when you get TO S5, which pushes your variance through the roof.

So basically, I think I could but I'm not that patient or dumb.

[Apathy]

I would bet you any amount up to 5k that you couldn't do this. Provided we could find some way to monitor this, and that you would be willing to spare that kind of time. So you give yourself 10k (303 buyins) and start at step 1 and try to get to step 5. If you go broke I win, if you make it to STEP 5, you win.

[bathroompants]

but if you're not playing a perfect system where everyone is equal playing field, like we are now...how are the steps not a great deal for good players? I wasn't around for the discussion when the original steps came out, but I see the mini steps as catering to the 5+1/20+2/30+3 players that most of us are beating for a good return.

Are these still a worse deal for winning players than regular sngs? I'm personally running the steps to see for myself and I can't seem to wrap my head around if they're a good deal or not, since they seem like such a good one - I understand that it isn't in partypoker's best interest to make better faster ways for good players to extract money out of the worse players and cash it out.

The way I'm looking at it is there is an incredibly low ROR, albeit while party keeps sucking in rake, and I also think that for most people on here at least the regular steps are definately beatable, especially the minis as the lower buyins entice the regular sng players who are losing with the big prize at the top for such a small buyin.

I sort of forgot where I was going with this, but I'm really interested in seeing why the steps are bad for a winning player.

[curtains]

Apathy I bet you'd lose your shirt making this bet with people.

[adanthar]

Nah, it'd involve playing something like...2-6 in Step 1 gets a freeroll so...800? 1000? God knows how many sats for at least a couple of months and a good chunk of my bankroll so I'll pass.

But it's doable, basically because it's possible to fold into endlessly repeating S1, then possible to fold into endlessly repeating S4 if you win, like, two hands first. Eventually, you'll hit an S4 when you catch cards on the bubble and that'll be that.

If you look at Party right now, there's no such thing as an S1H with over 6 players left at level *4* (and one with 6 left at level 2, lol). So basically, you can fold in, never lose except when aces get cracked early (in fact if I was doing a challenge with a side bet like this I'd often fold AA with 7 left) and eventually make it in through sheer persistence. [censored], now that I'm looking at this, I could do it for 1K if I never showered or left the house.

But it'd drive me crazy long before then, so no.

On the other hand, *do* you get rakeback for repeating a Step?

[curtains]

btw I was talking about mini steps, not higher steps! Sorry!

[Benholio]

I've been thinking about the math behind this....

If you play well enough to beat the rake for each individual step (1% ROI, even), then your expected cost for a step 5 seat must be < $15,000. You are winning enough at each individual tourney to cover the rake, so where along the way would you lose those rake dollars?

The math in this thread is kind of like saying a -10% ROI player (or -RAKE% ROI) will lose more and more money the more tournaments he plays in. Well, of course he will. What about the 10% ROI player? The more tourneys he plays in, the more money he will win, right?

I submit that as long as your expected ROI at any level is positive after the rake, that you gain value throughout the structure and would expect to pay less than face value for a step 5 seat.

Afterall, someone with a 1% ROI at the $109's is constantly paying rake, too, but he comes out ahead somehow.

[adanthar]

OK, in my last 1000 Party SNG's (at all limits, types, etc.) I've got about ~200 7-10 finishes. If I play Step 1's the right way and basically avoid *any* trouble hands for any reason before 50/100, I think I can cut that in half. So basically, out of 10 Step 1's I can expect around 9 'money' finishes. Yes, I'm paying rake for all of them, but I don't care since the wager is for 10K and I still have $9,967 in my account.

I then have to make it to 7'th in Step 2 using the exact same strategy (mostly the same morons in both games so why not) but we'll assume I stop playing like a weak/tight retard in Step 3 so as to maximize my chances of winning. Still, not finishing 9'th gets me at least another Step 2 in both Step 3 and 4, and out of those 1000 SNG's I've finished 9'th or 10'th 64 times, or 6.4%.

Basically, I'll stay in the system 90% of the time during Step 1, something around the same number in Step 2, and over that in Steps 3 and 4.

Dear God...in order to do this wager properly I'd potentially have to play 3,000 SNG's. [censored] no. But it's doable.

[Apathy]

Interesting idea for a strategy, unfortunatly as you pointed out you would have to play an insane amount of SNGs and the process would be very frustrating. I don't have nearly enough money to make a bet big enough for you to do this. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jpg7n16]

By the way... can anyone post the payout structure for s5 tourneys on here?

[adanthar]

Hahaha...yeah, thank God you don't, because if you did I'd have to take it and that would suck /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Even doing it for $1000 would be 300 SNG's. No way...but I bet someone decent with a bankroll problem could get staked in this way and make out like a bandit (about 2.5 years later when he finally cashes.)

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about the math behind this....

If you play well enough to beat the rake for each individual step (1% ROI, even), then your expected cost for a step 5 seat must be < $15,000. You are winning enough at each individual tourney to cover the rake, so where along the way would you lose those rake dollars?

The math in this thread is kind of like saying a -10% ROI player (or -RAKE% ROI) will lose more and more money the more tournaments he plays in. Well, of course he will. What about the 10% ROI player? The more tourneys he plays in, the more money he will win, right?

I submit that as long as your expected ROI at any level is positive after the rake, that you gain value throughout the structure and would expect to pay less than face value for a step 5 seat.

Afterall, someone with a 1% ROI at the $109's is constantly paying rake, too, but he comes out ahead somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was thinking Benholio. It is like asking how much would an average player have to pay in order to be up 100 buy-ins? The answer is astronomical because they are fighting -9% ROI. Change the 'average' to +9 ROI player and the math changes dramatically.


I agree with your assertion that the answer has to be less than the step 5 buy-in if the player is +ROI for all the lower steps. Each round the player makes money and the shows up as a discount to the step 5 buy-in. If they are +ROI on step 5s also then they have to invest less than the payout in order to win it by definition.


Pokerscott

[Rojosox]

Yes, that was me who won that step 4 earlier. I think I'm a little nervous for the Step 5 higher...ONLY a little. It will be fun that is for sure. I can guarantee all of you, whatever hand I WIN OR LOSE on will be my favorite hand or least favorite hand for the rest of my life! - Jared