This is a compilation of my results from playing 453 Blackjack tournaments at UltimateBet.com. If you've read my previous articles, you know that they offer both single-table, sit & go tournaments (SnGs), as well as multi-table tournaments (MTTs) and I keep my statistics separate for each. From 1 September 2006 through 28 February 2007 I've played 289 SnGs and 164 MTTs, at a cost of $12,163.40 of which about 10% or $1216 was casino fees with the balance going into the prize pool of each match. Because I show an overall profit, I guess it's fair to say I'm not "dead money" in these, but I have to admit they are not nearly as profitable as playing poker.

I think the reason that these aren't as profitable as poker, at least for me, is the fact that "luck" (or variance) plays a much bigger part in the Blackjack tournaments. Just what the ratio of luck versus skill is in poker has been debated for a long time because there's no simple way of measuring it accurately. The same is true for Blackjack tournaments, but as always, I have an opinion that I'll offer here. But let's talk about skill versus luck in general, first.

For me, the best golfer in the world right now is Tiger Woods; I think most people would agree with that. I also think that luck plays a very, very small part in his success. Sure, there are times that his ball takes a good bounce or he gets a decent lie in a sand bunker, but you'll seldom see him lose because he got unlucky or the other guy got very lucky. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say that professional-level golf has about a 2% luck factor, so it's 98% skill, 2% luck. The proof is that you see the same names in the top 10 of almost every major PGA tournament and Tiger's is usually there, frequently as number 1.

It's similar in poker. If you follow tournament poker, you can likely name 8 or 10 professional players who do pretty well at the game. They won't always make it to the final table, but it doesn't surprise anyone that Daniel Negreanu, Michael Mizrachi, Nam Le or J.C. Tran might be there when the $$$ are handed out? Does Daniel Negreanu make every final table, like Tiger Woods makes every top 10? Of course not, but Daniel is playing against much bigger fields - usually 500+ participants vs. the 200 or so Tiger competes with - so Daniel's probability of making the top ten (to use a similar measurement) is much lower than Tiger's to begin with. In games that have a high luck factor, one's probability of winning or making it to the top ten is determined by a mix of luck and skill. In games where only luck applies, like roulette, the probability of winning is basically 1 divided by the number of participants. Oh, I know there's a certain amount of skill involved in a roulette tournament, such as when to bet a long shot like a single number versus when to bet a low-risk hand like one of the "even-money" bets, Red/Black, High/Low or Odd/Even, but in the long run a player's actual wins will be close to the expectation, which is 1 divided by the number of participants because sometimes making a high-risk bet will be exactly the wrong move or your low-risk bet was beat by your opponent who made a high-risk bet. In other words, in the long run, both you and your opponents will make the same "smart" moves and the same "dumb" moves. It's only in the short term that those moves will have any significance.

In Blackjack tournaments, skill is definitely a factor but luck has its effect as well. In poker, you only have to beat your opponent, which you can do with better cards or by making your opponent fold, but in Blackjack you must also beat the dealer (or hope that the dealer beats your opponent.) Plus, there's very little bluffing in Blackjack tournaments; everyone's cards are put there for all to see - the one exception being a card that's dealt face-down on a double - which is the way they do it where I play BJ tournaments with elimination hands and secret bets. Poker is far more difficult to play, in my not-so-humble opinion and while I've been both the victim and benefactor of "bad beats" in poker, there have been very few times that I've seen a player succeed in winning, say, a 10-player SnG by luck alone. I know some of you want to argue that - we've all seen "donkeys" call huge raises out of position with J-7 suited and then hit a Straight, but that's not succeeding on luck alone - there are times when J-7 suited is the best hand to hold in poker, like when the flop comes J-J-7. However, that's obviously not going to happen very often, so it's probably safe to say that the player who consistently wins tournaments by playing J-7 aggressively doesn't exist and the person who relies solely on luck won't win many SnGs at poker. However, because three players get paid at most single-table SnGs, one can expect to finish in the money (ITM) roughly 30% of the time; again, in the long run, assuming your skill level is anything above sheer novice.

So, if 30% is what anyone can expect, it follows that a skillful player should finish ITM somewhere above that in a fairly large sample of 9- or 10-player SnGs of poker. And yet, very few players can sustain an ITM percentage of over 45% for very long; I've never done it and I don't know of anyone who has. My best ITM percentage for 200+ No-Limit Hold'em poker SnGs is 41.1%, which is my win rate from January, 2005 through February, 2007 a period of time in which I played 411 of them and finished ITM 169 times. Now I already know I'm not the best hold'em player in the world, but why can't I do better than that? The answer is, of course luck or the lack thereof. One of poker's biggest appeals is that anyone can win. Get pocket Aces five times in a typical SnG and you'll likely do pretty well; maybe even win it. But can you count on getting pocket Aces five times in an 80-hand match? Of course not, but it can happen and on occasion does. But that's just luck - great luck to be sure - but luck, nonetheless.

I'm here to argue that luck plays an even bigger part in Blackjack tournaments. Because the SnG Blackjack tournaments I play have seven players and pays only 2, it stands to reason that a player should finish ITM 2 out of 7 times or 28.6% from luck alone. If luck were the only factor, then most players will finish ITM roughly 29% of the time. On the other hand, if skill were the only factor, a player should finish in the money far more often than just 29% of the time, not winning all of them - because, unlike golf it doesn't take huge skill to play Blackjack and one's competition will be more formidable - but an ITM rate of 60% seems possible. I say that because I've had "streaks" of more than 20 BJ SnGs where I've finished ITM 60% of the time, but have never been able to sustain it. The reason? Luck or the lack thereof.

If you've played any of these SnGs at all, I'm sure you've run across the players who will bet half their chips on the first hand - if they get a 'blackjack', they'll probably win the thing. Since the probability of receiving a "natural", (as I call it) is about 5%, allowing yourself only two bets in what might be a 30-hand tournament is relying too much on luck from a sane money-management point of view, but people do it and it works. Sometimes. Much like poker, "anyone can win." Conversely, I've seen players win these SnGs by betting the minimum on most hands, risking their chips only when absolutely necessary, usually during an elimination hand. That can work too. And it's probably a better strategy than the "Kamikaze" approach, if for no reason other than the overall odds of the game favor everyone losing their hand. But no strategy is an absolute when luck is involved; you need to play smart, but you also need to get lucky. Tiger Woods doesn't need luck at golf, but you and I need at least some luck in poker and Blackjack tournaments.

Okay, here's the update I promised. Since September 1, 2006 when I played my first Blackjack tournament that uses the elimination hand/secret bet format, I've played 289 SnGs and finished ITM in 106 of them for a 36.67% "win" ratio. That puts me a bit above the luck-only percentage of 28.6%, which implies I do have at least some skill, but it's not so large to imply that BJ tournaments are skill-only events. Now, of course, perhaps I'm not as skilled as others out there, so there may be someone who has an ITM percentage in the 50% area, but I doubt it. The reason I say that is because luck truly is a big factor and nobody has a corner on luck - it eventually runs even for all of us. Now in multi-table tournaments, I've played 164 of them and have placed ITM in 29, for a win percentage of 17.68%. In my record keeping, I note the number of players that participated, which averaged 49. All but one of the 164 MTTs paid 6 places, so you can see that the "luck-only" percentage is 6 divided by 49 = 12.24%, so my win rate is about 40% above that and I feel good about it (in all humility, of course.) But I work hard at this game and I think my results show it. While the "Kamikaze" approach may work at SnGs, it doesn't work very often at MTTs where you might have to finish in the top 2 at two or three tables in order the make it to the final table. If you add everything up, my ITM percentage for all the BJ tournaments is 29.80%, although I think that number is like mixing apples with oranges. What's more important is that it all shows a profit. And that's why I do this stuff.

I'll see you here next time.

Internet Advantage Play:
BJ Tournaments with Elimination Hands "My Results So Far" - An Update

Last time, I discussed my results of playing both Multiple-table Blackjack tournaments (MTTs) and Sit & Go - single table Blackjack tournaments (SnGs) - that use elimination hands and secret bets, such as those found at UltimateBet.com and Bet21.com, which is a "skin" of UltimateBet. While I maintain accounts at both sites, I do most of my play at Ultimate Bet, because I like the poker action there and it's easier to switch from poker to Blackjack and back again, although I believe Bet21 also offers the same poker games.

Anyway, from September 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 I played in 284 Blackjack tournaments that use the Elimination Blackjack (TM) format. Most of them, 194 to be exact, were SnGs with entry fees ranging from $5.50 to $215. ($1.10 entry-fee SnGs are available, but I've not played any of them.) The other 90 tournaments I played were MTTs, which had entry fees ranging from $1.10 (a 3-table SnG) to $109, with a concentration on the $55 MTT that's run at least once a day. Of those 284 tournaments, I placed "in the money" (ITM) 95 times, which gave me an overall ITM percentage of 33.45% on a total cost of $7686.50 in entry fees. Because most tournaments of either type carry a 10% casino fee (a $22 match puts $20 in the prize pool and $2 goes to the "house"), I paid roughly $770 in "rake" or "vig." Any net profit must, of course, first overcome the house edge, which is actually quite large when you think about it. Imagine playing a slot machine that pays back only 90% and that's basically what we're talking about here - of course there's no skill involved with slot machines - but a 10% house edge isn't chicken feed.

However, I did manage to "scratch out" a net profit (keeping with the chicken feed concept) and, while it cannot really compare to what's available in online poker games, any profit from any source is always welcome and somewhat satisfying, especially when it involves "my" game - Blackjack. Plus, the bankroll requirements are very reasonable; at no time did I have more than $1800 committed to my Blackjack tournament play, yet I averaged a monthly return of over 20%, which implies that I should double my bankroll about every six months, if I'm able to maintain the ITM percentages I'm enjoying now. Of course, the actual numbers are small at this point - doubling a bankroll of $1800 is still only an $1800 profit, but hopefully this industry will grow like the poker industry did, so that one may be able to utilize an $18,000 bankroll, in which case the $$$ involved are much more important. Only time will tell.

Let's examine my "bread and butter" games - the Sit & Go tournaments first. I call them that because SnGs are much more active than MTTs, much like in poker. While Blackjack SnGs are run on a 24-hour basis, the reality is that you may have to wait an hour or more for a $33 SnG to attract its seven players if you're trying to participate in one outside the "prime time", which is about 5 p.m. to 12 midnight, Eastern U.S. time. So, at least for now, the ability to play, say, five such SnGs per day is somewhat limited. Perhaps on the weekends one could play 5 per day, but it's pretty tough to do on a Tuesday. Be that as it may, from the first SnG that I played on September 1, 2006 (a $5.50 tourney in which I finished 4th), until the last one I played on December 31, 2006 (also a $5.50 tourney, in which I finished 2nd), I was able to participate in 194 of them, which is an average of about 1.5 SnGs per day. As I mentioned in the previous installment of this series, the single-table SnGs have seven players and two places are paid, which obviously means luck alone should see you finish "in the money" (ITM) 2/7ths of the time, which translates to a probability of 28.6%. That's the minimum you should achieve in a fairly large sample - finishing either first or second about 30% of the time - to consider your skills as "average."

I guess I can call myself an above-average player because I finished ITM in 80 of the 194 SnGs I played at Ultimatebet.com and Bet21.com during 2006, which is a 41.24% ITM rate. The most SnGs I played in a row without finishing in the money was eight; the most times where I finished in the money was five (three 1sts and two 2nds), which was part of a really cool streak where I finished ITM in nine out of ten SnGs. And the best part is that seven of them were $22 or higher SnGs. I bring this up, not to embellish my reputation, but to point out that one probably can use a thirty-times-the-entry fee guideline for bankroll purposes, which is something I mentioned last time. So far, that has worked for me quite well. I don't keep a separate bankroll for MTTs and SnGs and there are times when I play a lot of MTTs, in which I lose my entire entry fee five out of six times, but I usually intersperse that with some SnGs to keep my bankroll "healthy."

This might lead you to wonder why I don't just more or less specialize in playing SnGs. The answer is simple: The "big" $$$ in Blackjack tournaments are in the MTTs, although "big" is still pretty small when compared with poker. In my last update, I had played only five MTTs that had an entry fee of $55 ($50 goes in the prize pool and $5 goes to the "house") and hadn't yet won any of them. That has changed, because in the forty $55 MTTs I've played thus far, my ITM finishes were seven: two in 1st place, one 2nd, one 3rd, one 4th and two 6th place finishes. The total cost was $2200 and my gross winnings were $3364, which translates into a $1164 net profit, or $1164 divided by 40 = $29.10 net profit each. If one can assume I'll continue to do as well - not a given, but possible - then each $55 MTT that I play in, which takes about two hours is worth maybe $15 an hour. Again, it's not big $$$, but the industry is still growing and I'd expect to see the number of $55+ MTTs to grow as well. In fact, as this is being written, there are now usually two $55 MTTs run each day, plus one MTT with a $109 entry fee is running every Saturday night. I've played only two of those - Saturday night is not a good time to ask the ol' GameMaster to sit down at a computer - but hopefully that'll change as well, because the "overlays" that I wrote about last time are pretty much gone from the $55 MTTs, but are still there in the $109 MTTs. The $55 MTTs have a $2500 guaranteed prize pool, which implies a minimum of 50 players and lately that's about how many players are signing up for them. It was quiet due to the holidays, but it looks like the nightly (10 p.m. EST) $55 is well established and averages about 50 players. There's often a second $55 MTT at 12 midnight EST and that's a little smaller - maybe 42 on average, so there's still some overlay available.

I also play MTTs with lower entry fees, usually $22 and have finished ITM 8 of 50, which makes my overall percentage 15 of 90 or 16.66% in Multi-table tournaments. Because all of these paid only the top 6 finishers (that will hopefully change as the number of entries increase) and the average number of entries is about 48 in each MTT, one should expect to finish ITM about 48 divided by 6 = 1 in 8 or 12.5% of the time. For whatever reason, my records show the $55 MTTs are the most profitable for me, at least to this point. The $$$ I've made in smaller MTTs are basically a break-even situation, but for now I play darn near any match because I want the experience.

Yes, playing Blackjack tournaments with elimination hands is another profit-making opportunity available to us all on the Internet. I can easily see the industry supporting a few full-time pros somewhere down the line, but for now, the Blackjack tournament industry is waiting for its "Moneymaker Moment", like what happened to poker when Chris Moneymaker won the 2003 World Series of Poker main event. My advice is to keep your day job for the time being.

I'll see you here next time.

Internet Advantage Play:
BJ Tournaments with Elimination Hands "My Results So Far"

As I've told you before, I'm playing a lot of Blackjack tournaments at Bet21.com/ where an elimination hand and a secret bet are involved. As for specific strategies I use, they're covered in my Blackjack lessons - it's how those strategies are working for me that we'll discuss this time. During the period of September 1 through November 18, 2006 I played 52 single-table "sit & go" (SnG) tournaments and 23 multi-table tournaments (MTTs) and am happy to report it's been profitable thus far. That said, I'm not making anywhere near what I could make for the same amount of time spent in No-limit Hold'em Poker tournaments for several reasons. The primary one is that online Blackjack tournaments are relatively new, so there aren't a lot of tournaments at the $50+ entry level available; you can't win big bucks if you don't play for big bucks. But that's okay for now, because I - like most other players - am still grappling with how to play the elimination hands in an "optimal" manner, so playing for relatively small stakes allows me to experiment without trashing my bankroll.

There's another reason why I play these, $$$ be damned. While I'm very proud of my accomplishments in poker play, Blackjack is my game and it's been my game in a serious way since 1978. Hey, I know I'd likely be just more "dead-money" in a big poker tournament like the WSOP main event (not really.. just being modest), but when it comes to Blackjack tournaments, the stakes involved or the other players in it don't intimidate me in the least. I know I can compete against the best and do well. And that's the really cool thing about the BJ tournaments at Bet21.com; you can play against some very good competition - Blackjack tournament stars like Anthony Curtis, Joe Pane, Hollywood Dave, Ken Smith and David Matthews, former greats from Global Player Casino, such as sweettea, walt_h, London Colin, Sidekick and yours truly, GMOnline, as well as some famous poker players like Annie Duke, Phil Hellmuth, Scotty Nguyen, Tex Barch, Shawn Rice, Krazy Kanuck and Debo - can all be found there at one time or another.

Alongside the great competition are a lot of dead-money players, which maybe isn't very polite to say, but it's true. Particularly in the SnGs with an entry fee of less than $30, you'll see a lot of "rabbits" as I call them - players who will bet half their stack (we begin with T25,000 in chips), if not all of it on the first hand. Of course, sometimes they win the first hand, yet they seem to think that big bets are the only way to go, so they keep it up and usually bust out fairly early. Now and then, one of the rabbits will get ahead and stay ahead, which is good because it reinforces their thinking about this approach to winning. Personally, I love seeing them at my table. Another thing you'll see a lot of at the lower entry fee tournaments is the splitting of 10s, particularly against a dealer's up card of 2 through 6. Will they hit a 16 versus the dealer's 7? Of course not! But split those 10s? You'll be surprised when they don't split 10s, believe me. It all adds to my edge, so naturally I think splitting 10s is a great idea, just not for me.

Okay, let's move on to the numbers. The single-table SnGs have seven players and two places are paid, which obviously means luck alone should see you finish "in the money" (ITM) 2/7ths of the time, which translates to a probability of 28.6%. That's the minimum you should achieve in a fairly large sample - finishing either first or second about 30% of the time - to consider your skills as "average." Unfortunately, because of the entry fees involved average is basically a losing proposition. For example, a $10 SnG has an entry fee of $1, so if you were to play seven of them, your total cost would be 7 x $11 = $77, but if you were to place ITM twice; once in first and once in second, your total return would be only$70, leaving you with a net $7 loss. It's the old "house edge" at work and you must overcome that to show a profit. Let's say you play 100 of the $11 SnGs, but end ITM 36% of the time, evenly distributed between first and second place. That would translate into a total cost of $1100 and you'd have 18 first-place finishes, plus 18 second-place finishes. A first is worth $49 and a second is worth $21. So, 18 x $49 = $882 and 18 x $21 = $378, which totals $1260 or a $160 net profit, which is pretty good when you consider it could easily take you less than a week to play 100 SnGs, assuming sleep is not a big issue. Of course, it might be easier if you play more than one table at a time, which certainly is possible. A bankroll of 30 entry fees (say $330) should suffice, once you get on the winning track and that makes a $160 return look really good - it's almost a 50% return on investment, if "investment" is defined as your bankroll for this endeavor. Of course, in terms of actual $$$, it doesn't amount to much more than a tank of gas for your SUV, but that's not the point.

What's important to remember here is that you can always increase your income by placing bigger "bets" (entering tournaments with higher fees, like $30+$3 or $50+$5), by playing more SnGs each day or - perhaps most importantly - by finishing ITM better than 36% of the time. The latter is mostly a function of skill, which is tempered by variance (or "luck", if you prefer). It's at least theoretically possible to win every SnG you enter, but in any reasonable sample size that's just not going to happen, no matter how unskilled your opponents are. So, what's a reasonable ITM percentage to strive for? I honestly have no idea, but I do have some data that might give us a clue. In the 52 SnGs I played from Sept. 1st through November 18th, I ended in the money 22 times; 16 firsts and 6 seconds, which is a 42.3% ITM ratio. Were they all $11 SnGs, that would translate into a total cost of 52 x $11 = $572 and a return of 16 x $49 plus 6 x $21, which equals $910, or a net profit of $338. However, they were not all $11 SnGs. Because this is relatively new, it's hard to concentrate one's play at a specific level because the traffic isn't there yet. In actuality, I played a lot of $5+$.50 and $10+$1 SnGs, some $20+$2 SnGs, a couple of $30+$3 and five $50+$5 SnGs. But the average is about $11, so my numbers aren't far off.

I think it's fair to say that my ITM percentage will likely drop into the 38-40% range as I play more and more $30+$3 and higher SnGs, because the competition will be better - if for no other reason than those who are willing to bet $33 will likely not be new to the game. But at the same time, my actual $$$ will be much more important. For example, if I were to play 100 $30+$3 SnGs and end ITM in 38 of them, equally split between 1st and 2nd place finishes, I'd show a 19 x $147 = $2793, plus 19 x $63 = $1197, which totals $3990 minus $3300 in entry fees for a net profit of $690. I can hear you saying, "Hey, GM, that's only about $7 an hour if these things take an hour each to play out." Well, it's true in a way, but that's not the whole story. It takes about an hour to win one of these, but you're not going to win all of them. Sometimes you'll get knocked out much earlier, which allows you to go off and find another match. On a bad day, you might play three SnGs in the first hour; hopefully you'll place ITM in number 4, which will work out to an average of about a half-hour each. And there's always the possibility of playing more than one at a time, like I mentioned earlier but the light traffic makes it difficult for the higher-fee matches. Of course, that might change in time if this industry isn't killed by the new U.S. legislation (I have my fingers crossed.)

Earlier, I mentioned a total bankroll equal to 30 entry fees, but that's just a guess at this point - an educated guess to be sure - but a guess nonetheless. I say that because my data is really inadequate to draw accurate conclusions, but my "gut-feeling" says it's a good, conservative number. In the course of playing the first 52 elimination-hand type of SnGs, my longest losing streak was four and my longest winning streak was three (all 1st place, I don't mind telling you), but a losing streak of 7 or 8 is inevitable - some days the Blackjack gods just hate you - so adequate financing is essential. (In the 267 single-table [5 player] SnGs I played at Global Player Casino, my longest losing streak was 8 finishes out of the money and my ITM ratio was 41.5%.) If one were to more or less "specialize" in $33 SnGs, a $1000 bankroll should be okay if you play them one at a time as I do. Like I said earlier, it's really tough to multi-table at this point, but doing so will increase your bankroll requirements, although it probably won't double them if you play two tables at a time, for example. The reason is that you'll get to the "long run" quicker and if you're playing a winning game, the long run means $$$ in your pocket. Another educated guess: Increase the bankroll by 50% for each table you add, but remember this applies only if you're playing a winning game - if you're not, multi-tabling will just make the $$$ go away more quickly.

Okay, let's talk about Multi-table tournaments (MTTs) for a while. Much like poker, this is where the big $$$ are, although "big" at this point is still relatively small, when you consider that the biggest prize pool to date at Bet21.com/ was only $2500 or so, but I hear a $100+$9 MTT with a prize pool of $5000 will begin soon. What's attractive about the MTTs are the guaranteed prize pools, which give many of them an "overlay" or positive expectation for all of the players. For example, on November 15th, I played in a multi-table tournament that had $50+$5 entry fee and a guaranteed prize pool of $2500, which implies a minimum of 50 entries but there were only 36 when it started. In this MTT, there were six places paid, so $2500 divided by 6 equals $416.67, which is the average return to anyone making it to the final table. With 36 entries and 6 places paid, it's easy to see that I had a 1 in 6 chance of making it to the final table, just based upon luck alone. If I were to play six of these tournaments under the same conditions, I'd expect to pay 6 x $55 = $330 in entry fees and get to one final table, which is worth $416.67 in expected value; a profit of $86.67. If you divide that profit by 6, it shows an overlay of $14.45 on each $55 entry fee. In other words, were I to play hundreds of these MTTs, I'd average a return of $14.45 at each and every one of them. Sure, sometimes I'd make it to the final table and then go out in 6th place, which pays only $125, but sometimes I'd win or come in 2nd or 3rd, etc. The point is, in a big enough sample, my average winnings would be the aforementioned $416.67 and I'd make that one out of every six attempts, just based upon luck alone! Add in a skill factor and I might get there once in every five attempts. The payoff will still average $416.67, but my cost for five attempts is just $275, so my positive expectation is $416.67 minus $275 = $141.67, divided by 5 or $28.33 per entry, which is a nice return on a $55 investment.

Of course, overlays like this aren't going to last forever - the casino will either cut the size of the guarantee or the number of players will move up to the 50+ level, which wipes out the extra value. But that doesn't mean I'll stop playing them; it's still a nice tournament and I'm hoping my "skill factor" will get me to the final table more often than chance would dictate. If these $55 MTTs (one of which is run daily at 10 p.m. EST) continue to pay the top 6 finishers, just divide the number of players by 6 to get the "luck" percentage. For example, if there are exactly 50 players, your probability of making it to the final table is 6 divided by 50 or 12%. Any percentage of success over that amount should be profitable in the long run. For what it's worth, I've played in 23 MTTs (not all $55) at Bet21.com and made it in the money five times for an ITM of 21.7%. I have yet to win one, but that will come in time.

All-in-all, I'm happy with my progress in winning at both types of elimination-style Blackjack tournaments, the SnGs and the MTTs. The elimination hand and the secret bet add interesting dimensions to the game, so it's a new puzzle for me to work on. I love solving puzzles, especially when $$$ are involved. I just hope the new anti-gambling laws don't kill this and my competitors don't learn how to play well, at least for a while.

I'll see you here next time.