I have a confession to make

NickyOD

For the last 2 months I have been completely and utterly incapable of beating online NL 6 handed cash games at the .50/1 level and I have no idea why. Help!!!

Also If I get check-min-raised one more ****ing time by some idiot on Prma I will lose my cool completely.

bohsman

Try a bigger game, I havent been able to beat anything under 1/2 in a long time

Marq

Have you any pokertracker stats to illuminate the problem?

NickyOD

bohsman wrote:

Try a bigger game, I havent been able to beat anything under 1/2 in a long time

Really? I had this problem with limit holdem but could never put my finger on why it was. Do you have any idea why? I think part of it may be the regular live game that I'm now playing and I haven't adapted. I am really striuggling to understand the betting patterns of low limit players and I just can't seem to put people on a hand. I tried being more aggressive and got owned. I tightened up and got my ass kicked.

RMcG

Deffo I was playing 1-2 and making profit but not enough for a long time. Moved up to 2-5 and 4-8 and making alot more cash. At 50-1/1-2 level any moves that you have are just wasted on players that dont understand them, you will get payed when you hit hands but its just not worth the hours of waiting.....

What I find is that you have to play at a level that matters, in other words a level that if you lose it hurts....not enough to break the bank but just enough that you feel a pinch....if you play at this level you will find that your game is alot better and you are more alert.

When I played 1-2 (i still play from time to time) it didnt matter if I lost my buy in of $200. It wasnt enough to affect my bankroll so my game was affected with this in mind........its kind of playing in the comfort zone. And in my opinion playing in the comfort zone is not a good idea, you can make consistent cash but you have to put in long hours.

Basically I would say, from past experience, that you need to play just above your comfort zone. The stress levels are higher during the game but you will find that its more enjoyable...becasue of this its better to play shorter sessions too....say 2 hours max.....rather than play a long boring 8 hour session in your comfort zone.

Anyway youre obviously a very good player from what Ive seen and heard. When i used to run bad for a month or so at 1-2 i'd say to myself.....if I cant even beat 1-2 on a regular basis then what chance have I got of beating 2-5 or 4-8. But the reason you cant beat 50-1 in my opinion would be because subconsciously it doesnt really matter to you if you lose.....conclusion...it needs to matter.

Anyway best of luck m8.

NickyOD

I don't really understand the concept of moving to tables with better players on them in order to make more money. I think I am probably just paying people off a little too much. That is the most common reason for losing at NL cash games, that and trying to bluff the wrong players.

RMcG

You just answered a part of your own question Niki. In that bluffing is such a huge part of NL Holdem Cash Games....but it basically doesnt exist at 50-1 because the players there are so poor.......no advanced plays work at 50-1.

My point was not to move up just to make more cash, but ultimately that has to be your goal. You said yourself you wanted to make six figures in 2006 but you will never do that playing 50-1.

You need to move up to a) get out of your comfort zone b) so that your set of poker skills can be better utilised c) so you can enjoy your poker more d) so that you can test yourself, learn more and improve your game (because you will learn nothing playing 50-1), and d) to ultimately earn more cash......

I think it would be the right move. Even if you do lose for the first while you will learn a whole lot more from 10-20 sessions between 2-5 and 10-20 than a lifetime of playing 1-2.........

jem

First of all I don't /wont play for real money online. Thats my decission.
However what RMCG says makes sense. the same is the case in multipal rebuy live tourneys. first of all they don't understand the move and secondly they dont realy care as the cost to them doesn't matter, would i go for an inside straight draw on the river for 50cent probably because I wouldn't give a ###k about the 50c. if i was playing at a higher level with more money envolved say €50 or €500 probably not.

NickyOD

RMcG wrote:

My point was not to move up just to make more cash, but ultimately that has to be your goal. You said yourself you wanted to make six figures in 2006 but you will never do that playing 50-1.

I know this. I'm still making money from other games and from live poker. My live and online bankrolls are seperate and I don't have as much online as I used to. I'm extremely cautious with my bankroll so that is part of the reason why I play these stakes, the other is that if I can't beat .50/1 I have no reason to believe moving up will be more profitable. Having said that there was a time when I used to murder these tables, but lately I seem to have lost my mojo

RMcG

Exactly m8 probably because it doesnt mean as much to you now as it did before. Its not definite but it is worth thinking about.

Shortstack

Robert is spot on Nicky. Move up to 2/4 or 3/6 and you will soon be winning again. There is still a vast quantity of terrible players at the higher levels and you will get paid off with your big hands and you can make more moves. You may experience a bit more of a swing now and then as a bad beat will cost you more, but in the long run the profit will be there.

The better the player you are the less of a bankroll you will need. 10-15 buy ins should be enough for a player of your calibre to stay in the game. I use these figures to adjust my level of play:

$10/$20 - buy in $1500 Play when roll is $20k+
$5/$10 - buy in $750 Play when roll is $12k+
$3/$6 - buy in $450 Play when roll is $7k+
$2/$4 - buy in $300 Play when roll is $4k+

Sometimes I take a shot at $10/$20 if there is a good table running, it has won me more than I have lost but my biggest single day loss was here (-$2500).

I only play the games when the table mix is good. I look for a couple of shortstacks unless I know there are weak players in the game. players sitting with less than half a buy in are just waiting to donate and are my bread and butter. If the bigger games are full of good players then I will play smaller if they look more profitable.

A good example of the swings is last night. Due to my mediocre play rather than bad beats I was $1000 down then a $1000 up and finished an 8 hour session of two tables up $400. I cost myself $2k in bad calls after being bluffed off a $500 pot .

Tackle

Two reasons why you're not winning:
1. It could be that the money doesn't matter to you at this level, as has been suggested.
2. You've lost your mojo and you're not playing well.

If it's the former, it's easily fixed - as RMcG said "The reason you cant beat 50-1 in my opinion would be because subconsciously it doesnt really matter to you if you lose.....conclusion...it needs to matter."
Make the money matter to you. The relatively small amounts of cash that you call off when you know you're beaten add up over the course of an hour/day/week and lead to a loosing weak. There's good money to be made multitabling these levels over the course of a week.

If it's the latter, I don't think jumping levles and trying a bigger game is the way to go. What happens if you move up and find that you're not able to beat the higher game, which would probably the case, as you won't be as comfortable with the much bigger pots and you'll also come up against generally better players. You could end up loosing a fortune and take a severe confidence knock. Why not just figure out the system to beating .50/1 and 1/2 (and there is a system) and keep moving up gradually?
Imo, the last thing you should do is move up to the high stakes game while you have low confidence in your NL cash game and you're in the middle of a loosing run.

I moved up to 1/2 permanently this week after have a few trial runs at both 1/2 and 2/4 over Christams and I'm glad I didn't skip the level. I think 2/4 is an even more beatable level but the reason I settled on 1/2 is I know I wouldn't be comfortable yet with the enivitable +€1000 daily swings that I'd encounter.

The stress levels are higher during the game but you will find that its more enjoyable...becasue of this its better to play shorter sessions too....say 2 hours max.....rather than play a long boring 8 hour session in your comfort zone.

When I get up to multitabling the higher stakes, I intend to have no financial pressure, and I'm still going to put in 6-8+ hour sessions a day. To decrease variance and to make as much cash as possible.

Bluffing is such a huge part of NL Holdem Cash Games....but it basically doesnt exist at 50-1 because the players there are so poor.......no advanced plays work at 50-1.

Then don't make advanced plays at .50/1. Cut down/out the bluffing. I hadn't made one serious bluff (when not on tilt) since I went full time until two weeks ago and I've been doing fine. I realised that I'd lost alot more than I'd made from bluffing so I decided to cut it out. OK, if you've raised, continuation bets (semi-bluffs) are fine, but don't make big river bluffs against players who are incapable of folding, just give up the pot, it'll save you a fortune in the long run.
I can see why players who are fond of bluffing don't like this level but it's very beatable if you are willing to drop this part of your game. At 1/2 there's more room for bluffing and I've started using it, sparingly, at the right times and against the right opponent.

c)so you can enjoy your poker more d) so that you can test yourself, learn more and improve your game (because you will learn nothing playing 50-1), and d) to ultimately earn more cash......

c). If I'm not comfortable with the level I wouldn't enjoy it as much. I enjoy winning at a level I'm comfortable playing at.
d). You'll learn how to nut peddle alright but you will also pick up alot of experience that will serve you well at the higher levels.
e). Will you earn more cash if you move up during a period of low confidence and play a game against better opponents and intimidating pots?


I don't like playing under financial pressure, do you? I definately think you should stick it out until you learn how to win again at .50/1 and continue rising up gradually.

cardshark202

I have been having the same problem over the last few weeks/months. i haven't been able to consistently beat the lower levels cos none of my moves seem to work. However, anytime ive played 2-4 or even 3-6, the big bluffs do come off. Unfortunately, I don't have the roll to move up to those levels yet so i'm stuck grinding it out for the forseeable future.:(

RMcG

Tackle: I don't like playing under financial pressure, do you? I definately think you should stick it out until you learn how to win again at .50/1 and continue rising up gradually.

No-one likes playing under financial pressure. It is not a good idea to play under financial pressure becuase you cannot maximise or make the most your skills, because you are playing with scared money. But the same can be said about playing in the comfort zone, you dont maximise your skills here becasue you dont care or it doesnt matter if you lose, and to be honest doesnt matter if you win also.

What I'm saying is find a happy medium, just above your comfort zone without huge financial pressure but at a level where if you lose you feel hurt but if you win you feel great.

Take the info we have from Nicky. He made $22,000 from poker last year. Lets say his poker bankroll is half that taking out expenses etc. $11,000. Playing 50/1 poker with a roll 0f 11K is totally playing in the comfort zone, and it is here where you call with any old ****e even if you dont realise you are doing it. The max buy in at this level is $100....so if you lose your $100 it isnt going to mean a thing so its too easy to call for your whole stack on draws or call with two pair on a possible straight or flush boards etc etc.....just paying people off even when deep down you know you are beat. And at these levels too with a decent bankroll you arent really motivated to win becasue if you win 2/3 times your stake of $100 on a good day, it doesnt really make a huge addition to your already massive roll.

But multiply this to 2/5 with a maximum buy in of $500. Here you have 20 stakes which would easily be enough to roll good to better player at this level. It makes the difference now calling with your top two pair for all your tank when you know you are beaten, it forces you to make the right decisions. And when you come out with 2K at the end of a session you will feel very good indeed.....leading to greater confidence in your play and more profits. Its hard to find happiness and confidence from winning $300 with a roll of 11K.

Now remember all this only applies if the fact that you are losing is becasue you have become bored with the stakes you are playing, if it is beginning to not matter whether you win or lose. If you won 22K last year and are still playing 50/1 I would suspect that this is more than likely the case. But there is only one way to find out.........thats get in amongst them and show them what youre made of.......

You only live once.

hotspur

I wouldn't advise moving up to higher 6 handed tables if you're not feeling good about your online cash game at the moment. 9 handed higher up may be better alright.
From what I can tell about you I don't think you should be bothering with 6 handed at .50/1.
Specific ability at shorthanded aside, one of the keys to 6 handed play is caring about every single pot. How on earth is someone who plays the games you have and do gonna care about folding to that check raise of $3?
Also 6 handed at .50/1 is monkey poker with some shortstacks of what $20 maybe???
Bluffing any pot worth bluffing is likely to be -EV as many donkeys will be pot committed if the pot is worth having.
You have to be happy to take the small pots at 6 handed, this ain't gonna happen for you when the pots are $3.
Oh and your a limit player, the hell would you know about a man's game like 6 handed NL cash

Bozzer

cardshark202 wrote:

I have been having the same problem over the last few weeks/months. i haven't been able to consistently beat the lower levels cos none of my moves seem to work. However, anytime ive played 2-4 or even 3-6, the big bluffs do come off. Unfortunately, I don't have the roll to move up to those levels yet so i'm stuck grinding it out for the forseeable future.:(

You need to be able to adjust correctly to the opposition at any level to comfortably beat it.
You’re exploiting your opponent’s tightness/ability to fold when you run your bluffs at 2/4 & 3/6.
At the lower levels you need to exploit your opponent’s general loose tendencies to crush the game. This means almost eliminating bluffing from your game, but at the same time value betting a lot more frequently than at the higher levels.
You don’t need to wait around for monsters before you can bet, you just need to identify situations where a bet has value.

Amaru

hotspur wrote:

Oh and your a limit player, the hell would you know about a man's game like 6 handed NL cash

I can't believe a limit player's problem is bluffing too much! Why not wait for a solid starting hand Nicky, then 4 bet on every street!:p

Tackle

RMcG wrote:

But the same can be said about playing in the comfort zone, you dont maximise your skills here becasue you dont care or it doesnt matter if you lose, and to be honest doesnt matter if you win also.

What I'm saying is find a happy medium, just above your comfort zone without huge financial pressure but at a level where if you lose you feel hurt but if you win you feel great.

I can see what you're saying. His bankroll is too big for .50/1 and that could be a major factor in the poor form. I don't think jumping a few levels is a good idea when going through a bad patch though. 1/2 would be good level to hit, loosing a $200 buyin mightn't matter but there's a couple of grand a week to be made here which would be a good addition to his bankroll. If you look at it like that it should provide the motivation to play well.

Marq

I can't say that I agree with the concensus that seems to be emerging on this tread. I personally think that moving up a level is counter-productive unless bankroll is not a consideration.

Perhaps my perspective is different because the risk of ruin that I can afford is quite low (about 0%).

I believe that you stand to gain more by critically assessing your game and why you are losing, than by ignoring the possibility that your losses are down to a leak in your game and throwing caution to the wind and jumping up a level.

The mark of a good player is that he or she makes decisions not based on the amount of money at stake but based on the conditions of a particular game.
the money shouldn't matter to you - making the correct decisions should. Make the correct decisions and in the long run profit automatically follows.

one of the dangers of moving up is that you might anomalously run well in the short term, only to find that over the long term your game is not good enough to sustain playing hat that level. this comment is not directed at anyone on these boards, I'm simply highlighting the possible pitfalls.

cardshark202

I think my biggest problem at the moment seems to be paying off hands when I've been outdrawn, or not being able to fold after hitting my perfect flop when I know I'm beat. Again, I don't seem to have the same problems in the higher levels cos the money matters more. However, as Marq says, the money shouldn't matter so I will continue to plug away and eradicate these bad habits.

RMcG

Marq said: I believe that you stand to gain more by critically assessing your game and why you are losing.

Totally correct, but if you do assess your game and the reason and conclusion that you come to is that (and i hate to keep repeating this) your game is being affected negatively becasue the limits you are playing are small in relation to your bankroll and state of mind, then it IS the right time to move up.

Moving up because you are running bad or to chase losses is insane and will always end in your bank balance being zero. But moving up a level or two when you are running bad from the reasons discussed above is correct.

When do you move up a limit? When you win every session?? It never happens, with the luck element of poker being so huge you would do very well to win three from five sessions, so it will never become 100% apparant that you are completely beating a certain level of game.

There is no certain criteria needed to move up levels, but in this case and talking from experience.....it is very possible that your game can be affected negatively because you play in a comfort zone. And from experience taking your game ever so slightly outside of the comfort zone will produce positive effects on your game.

willis

Marq wrote:

I can't say that I agree with the concensus that seems to be emerging on this tread. I personally think that moving up a level is counter-productive unless bankroll is not a consideration.

Perhaps my perspective is different because the risk of ruin that I can afford is quite low (about 0%).

I believe that you stand to gain more by critically assessing your game and why you are losing, than by ignoring the possibility that your losses are down to a leak in your game and throwing caution to the wind and jumping up a level.

The mark of a good player is that he or she makes decisions not based on the amount of money at stake but based on the conditions of a particular game.
the money shouldn't matter to you - making the correct decisions should. Make the correct decisions and in the long run profit automatically follows.

one of the dangers of moving up is that you might anomalously run well in the short term, only to find that over the long term your game is not good enough to sustain playing hat that level. this comment is not directed at anyone on these boards, I'm simply highlighting the possible pitfalls.

Spot on advice imho if you dont wanna go broke. I remember some people questioning hecorjelly for playing .50/1 when he was crushing them and said he should be playing at a higher level which undoubtdly he could but he stayed at .50/1 for a long time.He said the reason he wasnt playing at higher levels was bankroll mgt. Now your not crushing .50/1,in fact far from it by your comments, so how people can suggest moving up is beyond me.

RMcG

Willis read the threads properly, I am only suggesting a move up of levels if a certain criteria is met...i.e. you find yourself playing at a level too small for your bankroll and state of mind.

How people can suggest moving up is beyond you!!!!! I'd say alot of things are ****ing beyond you.

Iago

Alright, Alright chill down there Robbie

Altogether now deep breath!!

Different strokes for different folks, for what it's worth I can see both sides of the argument and they both make sense. I guess Nicky needs to get a handle on the why of this and make changes accordingly!

willis

Lol, you suggest moving up?not so long ago you were on here crying about bad beats which werent even terrible bad beats at all...the reason u were crying was because of the amount of money at stake. I couldnt be arsed trying to find the thread,you know its true.

You were then bereated by others here for playing at too high a level which you were comfortable with as the money losses affected you so badly. you then reduced yourself to calling others names and challenging anyone and everyone to a heads up match for $1000!youre a top bloke, wp

NickyOD

Thanks for the advice all.

There's a very good reason why I have never had to redeposit since I started with a $400 bankroll over a year ago and that's because I am extremely cautious with my money. NOT going broke is my number one priority.

I agree with Marq about moving up in stakes. I should be concentrating on fixing my leaks first. There's a lot of reasons why this may have happened. For one the fact that I'm now playing a lot of live cash games against very different oposition. Also the fact that I'm playing a lot of omaha now as well. I will stick with it and try and get back in the green.

Lafortezza

RMcG wrote:

Totally correct, but if you do assess your game and the reason and conclusion that you come to is that (and i hate to keep repeating this) your game is being affected negatively becasue the limits you are playing are small in relation to your bankroll and state of mind, then it IS the right time to move up.

I don't play NL cash games (cos I'm shít at them), but if I did I think that I'd prefer to be able to beat the lower limits before moving up. It'd be a confidence thing I think.
If I can't beat poorer players for less money then why the hell would I move up to play against players of a higher standard? Is my game that limited that I can't figure out some basic strategies to beat those fish who lodge a couple of hundred on a weekend to have a bit of a gamble?

I think Nicky just needs to figure out the system (I think Tackle mentioned it) for beating this level of NL cash games. I've found that I need to change my game as I rotate between the lower omaha limits up to the $2/$4 PL games, there's pretty much a system for beating the low limits, then the PL$100 games are a bit different, and the higher you go the more it changes.


I don't think it's really a matter of having "too big a bankroll" either.
The amount of money you have in your account shouldn't make a difference to the fact that you should be concentrating and applying yourself to beat the game you're playing. If you consider yourself a good player then this should be obvious.

And no more personal abuse please or there'll be bannings :v:

pokertroll

lafortezza wrote:

If I can't beat poorer players for less money then why the hell would I move up to play against players of a higher standard?

Does it really hold true that the more money you play for, the higher the standard? Some of the worst players I have ever seen can be found in the bigger cash games. Some of the best players on this forum are playing the lower limits. Surely you should play at a level you are financially comfortable with! I do agree with Rob that its gotta hurt a small bit to be worthwhile. If its $3-$6 or $5-$10 so be it. Otherwise we should all be starting at 5c 10c until we have it beat which to me is a complete waste of time.

Marq

pokertroll wrote:

Otherwise we should all be starting at 5c 10c until we have it beat which to me is a complete waste of time.

There's no need to start at such low levels if you have the bankroll to start at higher ones.

If your bankroll allows you to play 5/10 and you can beat it, then you're going to play 5/10. As your bankroll increases you may take a shot at a higher level, and if you can beat that, you will move up permamently.

If you're unable to beat 5/10, your bankroll is going to take a hit, and you're best advised to move down levels until you find a level that you can beat. This might be 1/2, or it might be .05/.10, but either you play at a level that you can beat or you lose money, simple as that.

If that means you have to play ridiculously low stakes, so be it. If you can't beat .10/.20, why play it? If (for example) you were a player that couldn't beat .10/.20 but considered .05/.10 to be a waste of time, then either you would lose money, waste time, or not play poker.

I think that for the vast majority of players, their choice of limit when starting outis based on their bankroll. As they play more, and win or lose, their choice of game is based more and more on what they can beat while retaining a bankroll. Disciplined players will reach an equilibrium at a certain level and stay there until they are confident that they can move up.

As for whether you think that losing should "hurt" you enough to keep you focused/interested, I think that that is rubbish. A good player will make the right decisions regardless of the stakes.

It depends what you want from poker - if you want to make money, and that's it, then be sensible with your bankroll and play games where you know you have an edge AND can handle the swings at that level.
If you want to play to experience a "thrill", by all means play games that are too big for your tank, but don't complain when you lose or take bad beats which cost you more because you were in a larger game.
Such attitudes strike me more as a love of gambling than a desire to play good poker.

Shortstack

To realistically achieve 6 figures in a year you will have to be playing higher Nicky, when you move up is up to you but if you have over $5k in your bankroll then $1/2 is too low. From what I have seen you are a good enough player to play higher.

At the higher levels the better players tend to be better than the good players at the low levels and the poor players worse than the poor players at the low levels. The biggest key to success for an average player is table selection and spotting the value.

I have great trouble in beating the shorthanded 10c 20c when clearing hands on all in but rarely have losing sessions at 2/4 and higher. They are different animals and beating one is no indication that you can beat the other. However if all I had was a few hundred dollars i reckon i would start beating the micro limits, I have done it before when necessary.

ocallagh

You mentioned in a post a few days ago that you've neglected your stats recently.. You've started playing Omaha and you're losing at the game you used to crush.. Sounds like you might be fedup with poker! I don't think you need to go to higher levels.. It might help (as Marq mentioned) to have a look where your money is leaking, but I think a better piece of advice is to take a break.

I know you've heard it before.. but a 10 day break from the cards is required every so often... Don't even play a game of snap. Stay clear of it all. This advice is in all the books and it has worked for a lot of people I know including myself. A few days won't help much.. you need to get cards completely out of your blood

When you get back you'll have a new perspective on the situation and you'll be able to make a better judgement call as to what the problem is... if it is still there at all! Perhaps then you can move up a level, but don't make those decisions now.

staringelf

i agree with the whole taking a break thing. it gets suggested all the time but it does work wonders if you abstain completly for a good 1-2 weeks.
also, with regard to motivation and stuff something i've found something that works really well for me is to watch some poker on tv for about 10-15 mins before i sit down to play.

its like watching a Rocky film - when its over you want to go and work out or fight someone! really gets you pumped up.....
same with poker - if you're really up for playing when you sit down and not just thinking "oh well, back to the grind" it'll be good for your game.
some wpt, wsop dvds usually do it for me.
or even just flick on the poker channel if you have sky and watch some PNL.

pokertroll

I didn't play poker of any variety from October to mid December due to work commitments. I was a bit rusty when I started back again at the Christmas Cracker but definitely feel on top of my game now. I had the same experience back in May. I'd recommend it - have a break and take up alcohol instead!

staringelf

pokertroll wrote:

I didn't play poker of any variety from October to mid December due to work commitments. I was a bit rusty when I started back again at the Christmas Cracker but definitely feel on top of my game now. I had the same experience back in May. I'd recommend it - have a break and take up alcohol instead!

exactly, from one degenerate vice to another. variety is the spice of life as they say:D

califano

staringelf wrote:

or even just flick on the poker channel if you have sky and watch some PNL.

Or what about the music from the poker on eurosport? I think the eurosport poker music is the best. I'd be surprised if Dave O'Callaghan hasnt tried to find the soundtrack of this one!?.

RasTa

Go skiing for a week!

Marq

RasTa wrote:

Go skiing for a week!

A great way to rebuild your decimated bankroll.

RMcG

:d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d :d

Doc Farrell

pokertroll wrote:

I didn't play poker of any variety from October to mid December due to work commitments. I was a bit rusty when I started back again at the Christmas Cracker but definitely feel on top of my game now. I had the same experience back in May. I'd recommend it - have a break and take up alcohol instead!

From mid November to mid december I cut way back. In fact i started playing games on my PP2 which I've owned for a year or two but never used. Just to get away from the routine of online cards.

It definitely did me the world of good and from now on I'm trying to play live only once or twice a week and to play online for no more than a couple of hours 2 or 3 times a week. I also don't play at very low limits unless its to purposely play like a jackass (i said purposely!)

Obviously if I'm only playing half the time I used to and I still want to win a grand a month then I have to play at twice the limits I previously won at. However, give me a month, I could well be back grinding it out on the 5 dollar stts!

good luck Nicky!

d.

actually if someone wants to start a thread about the dangers of burntout I'll be happy to contribute as I've definitely gone through it on low limit mtts, stts and omaha cash tables this last year!