Folding AA preflop

[Ronaldadio]

why would someone wanted to fold AA preflop if its the best starting hand

Because it is not guarenteed to be the best finishing hand, and even less of a chance with 3 more players in the pot

 

[Ronaldadio]

Thanks for all of your interesting comments.

I would still fold!!!

This play has very little to do with pot odds, EV, etc, etc.

The reason is because the above situations rely on making the correct move over a lot of hands. This decision is likely to be a once in a lifetime decision.

I think that within reason we are all agreed that unless a miracle happens if you fold or call someone will be out - and it could be you. (the % say that)

So do you want to almost guarentee doubling up your winnings or chance winning £1m with a 60/40 shot (very rough)

IMO even if I won the hand I am still only guarenteed the extra £1m.

Risk v reward = fold

 

[bocasas]

I understand ICM and all your explanations but in my opinion there is no right decision in here, is a matter of how you live your life. some people prefer to take the risks and some prefere to go for the sure things.
I'd like to take the risk, I would be very dissapointed with myself knowing that I might have won that hand, and even the tournament. I like to win, second place or third place is still losing so calling in this opportunity is my only chance of winning at the tournament.
So I'll keep my choice: I would call

 

[ythelongface]

I would still fold!!!

This play has very little to do with pot odds, EV, etc, etc.

The reason is because the above situations rely on making the correct move over a lot of hands. This decision is likely to be a once in a lifetime decision.

I think that within reason we are all agreed that unless a miracle happens if you fold or call someone will be out - and it could be you. (the % say that)

So do you want to almost guarentee doubling up your winnings or chance winning £1m with a 60/40 shot (very rough)

IMO even if I won the hand I am still only guarenteed the extra £1m.

Risk v reward = fold

i agree totally. i wanna be heads up with AA. improve my odds of winning the hand. but then im crazy. insane....waaaacky.

 

[amygrantfan]

ythelongface - i disagree, i think it all has to do w/expected value and pot odds. but it's expected value of the tournament payout, not expected value of winning that specific pot. which i think is what you were saying if i understood the rest of your post correctly. so maye we are saying the same thing.

 

[mrsnake3695]

Statements like "I will never ever ever fold AA ever ever preflop" need to be addressed. As pointed out Sklansky has an example in TPfAP.

In Sklansy's example the stacks are as follows:

leader: $2 million
opponent B: $1 million
opponent C: $1 million
opponent D: $1 million
us: $30,000

Prizes:
1st: $1.5 million
2nd: $1 million
3rd: $700,000
4th: $500,000
5th: $300,000

Blinds: $10,000/$20,000

In this example the three opponents with one million each are all in (chip leader is not).

So you can see that we are way behind our opponents, and have a very low M as well. Sklansy points out that our equity even if we win is still very low (only $120,000 chips), but our actual dollar amount of winnings will increase greatly if we fold.

That's not quite the situation assumed in the thread (we were not given specifics), as the TPAP is about as extreme a hypothetical as you can get.

Anyway, the point is valid that there could be a correct time to fold AA. There can't be any arguing that, despite some non-thinking posters who can't look beyond zomg I have AA, gotta get my $ in goood. It's not a cash game, so ICM calculations like this need to be taken into account.

I agree with this, however in the above situation if u call and win, 2 players above you will be eliminated and you will still have a very short stacks and likely to end up 3rd. If you fold 2 players aboave u will be eliminated and you will end up the same 3rd place as if you called and won. Of course if you called and lost you would be out in 5th so there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by calling. In the original posters scenerio there is much to be gained by calling and winning. If you win you will be second in chips with either 2 or 3 players left (depending on who wins the side pot. Compared to folding and being either 3rd in chips with 3 left or second in chips with 3 left and having an extremly short stack to compare to the other players. There is much to be gained by calling here where in Sklansy's scenerio there is nothing to be gained by calling.

So I agree there are times in a tourney when it would be correct to fold AA, the OP's situation isn't one of them, in my humble opinion.

 

[joeeagles]

I agree with this, however in the above situation if u call and win, 2 players above you will be eliminated and you will still have a very short stacks and likely to end up 3rd. If you fold 2 players aboave u will be eliminated and you will end up the same 3rd place as if you called and won. Of course if you called and lost you would be out in 5th so there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by calling. In the original posters scenerio there is much to be gained by calling and winning. If you win you will be second in chips with either 2 or 3 players left (depending on who wins the side pot. Compared to folding and being either 3rd in chips with 3 left or second in chips with 3 left and having an extremly short stack to compare to the other players. There is much to be gained by calling here where in Sklansy's scenerio there is nothing to be gained by calling.

So I agree there are times in a tourney when it would be correct to fold AA, the OP's situation isn't one of them, in my humble opinion.

So in Sklansky's example you end up 3rd, but also the pay increase is $400k, in the OP you end up 3rd at least and maybe 2nd, and the pay increase is $1M, maybe $3M. Besides the fact that stacks aren't mentioned in the OP, what we do know is that chip leader has a "massive" lead, and also, given who he is, and who the others are, I doubt the skill edge belongs to us. That is another huge difference compared to DS's example. So, in reality, as far as chips we're not sure there is anything to gain here either, we can win the hand, maybe knock out 2 players but we still don't stand a big chance of winning this. On top of that, we might end up 2nd by folding, which is a lot to gain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ronaldadio is correct when he states this has nothing to do with pot odds, EV etc. This is a once in lifetime situation, so quite simply its about taking a 60/40 risk for a significant amount of money. BTW, the 60/40 I found to be very generous, in most simulations its more like 56/44 in avg. with aces in a 4-way pot. So run the numbers again and you'll find out how wrong that 60/40 figure is.

I want to add 1 more thing, because that 55 to 9 poll result is absolutely hilarious . Every month there are thousands of MTT's played on-line, and a very high percentage of these, high stakes or low stakes, including the $33 ones and below, heck even the $3 rebuy, finish with some sort of deal made at the FT. In many cases these deals end up giving perhaps an extra $500 and sometimes less to those who get knocked out right after the deal. In the case of the SM, it more in the $30k/$50k range. Point is, people are always ready to make deals, even if the payout is a few hundred dollars more in most cases. How come? What happened to the whole "playing to win ", idea? So, out of 64 people, 55 of them are ready to risk at least $1M because you have a 12% edge, and in a small on-line MTT they are ready to make a deal for a few hundred more ? Hmm, I smell a contradiction here .

I only have 2 words for that: it's BS. The truth is with 3 players all-in, at least 90% of those who voted call would throw their cards in the muck maybe w/o even looking at them , that's how happy they would be to just find themselves in that situation. Deals at the FT are made for the same reason. Anyone who thinks that the 2 things are different, that the whole deal-making isn't pertinent to this argument, is just fooling himself/herself, so good luck in explaining why its so different . The whole "playing to win", and risking $1M at least on a 56/44 sounds good in a forum (although you should probably cut down on the steroids ), but in reality it would be very hard to make that call (ask Paul Wasika). I've seen deals made all the time, 5, 4, 3-handed and even HU, with all sorts of chip ratios and skill differences among the remaining players. I don't see a huge difference between that and the OP. The bottom-line is that deals are made every day to garantee a higher prize, just like folding here does. If everyone is so eager to "play to win", rotflmao at that, it doesn't explain why so many deals are made at FT's on a daily basis.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Eh - where did all this deal making talk come from?

Assuming all players are equally skilled, a perfectly equitable chip chop won't affect anyone's EV at all, it just reduces variance. Folding AA here, as I've already shown, is marginally -EV to the tune of $100k, not accounting for the fact that the first place 'payout' is significantly higher than advertised through future sponsorship deals and suchlike. I'd guess it's probably -EV to the tune of at least a few hundred thousand.

The rationale behind a deal making process is completely different to the rationale behind our decision as detailed in the OP, making your analogy flawed (as most are ).

And yeah, it's a once in a lifetime thing, but I'd happy with $1m if the worst comes to the worst. The second million isn't really 'worth' as much as the first anyway, that's utility theory for you.

 

[joeeagles]

Eh - where did all this deal making talk come from?

Assuming all players are equally skilled, a perfectly equitable chip chop won't affect anyone's EV at all, it just reduces variance. Folding AA here, as I've already shown, is marginally -EV to the tune of $100k, not accounting for the fact that the first place 'payout' is significantly higher than advertised through future sponsorship deals and suchlike. I'd guess it's probably -EV to the tune of at least a few hundred thousand.

The rationale behind a deal making process is completely different to the rationale behind our decision as detailed in the OP, making your analogy flawed (as most are ).

And yeah, it's a once in a lifetime thing, but I'd happy with $1m if the worst comes to the worst. The second million isn't really 'worth' as much as the first anyway, that's utility theory for you.

The deal making talk makes much more sense than you believe, because the whole rationale is IDENTICAL in the aspect that its done to gain a garanteed payout, just as folding here does. What is the main purpose of a deal? There are many, but the bottom line is to have a garanteed amount to offset a number of variables. Tell me which of these variables don't apply to our situation.

Don't bring the future sponsorship deals in the equation, because then I can bring others. For ex, if I qualified through a sat on PS, I get $100k for having made the final table, but if I make the final 3 it now becomes $250k. Bet you didn't know that, well now you do. So lets leave all that alone, because arguments can be made both ways.

More importantly, the concept of making a deal is what contradicts with the "playing to win", which seems to be the attitude taken by the vast majority of those who voted call. What happens to that same attitude in on-line MTT's? Why are the variables suddenly so important in on-line MTT's so forget about the "playing to win", and become irrelevant here with much more money involved?

The analogies don't stop here. You say a perfectly equitable chip chop just reduces variance. Well, folding our aces reduces variance as well. Since you agree its a once in a lifetime thing, EV considerations shouldn't be applied.

I'm a little puzzled by your "making your analogy flawed (as most are )", I don't know what your implying with it, or perhaps I'm just misinterpreting.

If you'd be fine with the $1M, that's a decision you're entitled to. The reason I posted all this is because I don't believe that out of 64 voters, 55 would make this call. Besides that, it doesn't make those who voted fold a donk, and it doesn't qualify them as greedy either. But I'm not making any specific name, and I purposely separated in my last post the first paragraph from the rest, just to make clear that the 2nd part had nothing to do with Snake's quote, to which I replied with the 1st paragraph only.

One more thing, the 61/39 you came up with doesn't look right, to me it seems more around 56/44, but I may be wrong. Peace.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Linky.

I think this explains everything from my viewpoint.

Tell me which of these variables don't apply to our situation.

EV. A strong player (who by association knows about deal making) should generally not accept a -EV deal, certainly not in smaller buyin tournaments where the utility theory I ramble on about in the link doesn't really apply. I'm not really answering your question because EV does apply to the situation, but in a different way to which you apparently think it does.

Don't bring the future sponsorship deals in the equation, because then I can bring others. For ex, if I qualified through a sat on PS, I get $100k for having made the final table, but if I make the final 3 it now becomes $250k. Bet you didn't know that, well now you do. So lets leave all that alone, because arguments can be made both ways.

Future sponsorship is a given (if an assface like Jamie Gold can get a ton of money from bodog, anyone can). The rest is just speculation and hypotheticals.

More importantly, the concept of making a deal is what contradicts with the "playing to win", which seems to be the attitude taken by the vast majority of those who voted call. What happens to that same attitude in on-line MTT's? Why are the variables suddenly so important in on-line MTT's so forget about the "playing to win", and become irrelevant here with much more money involved?

While I agree some people in here are just blindly spouting out clichés withough any real reasoning, the fact is first place is worth significantly more than any other place (no, I won't drop the sponsorship etc ^^). Given that we already have a sizeable sum of money wrapped up, at this point it should from my perspective be a person's main aim to win.

The analogies don't stop here. You say a perfectly equitable chip chop just reduces variance. Well, folding our aces reduces variance as well. Since you agree its a once in a lifetime thing, EV considerations shouldn't be applied.

This is covered in the linked post.

If you'd be fine with the $1M, that's a decision you're entitled to. The reason I posted all this is because I don't believe that out of 64 voters, 55 would make this call. Besides that, it doesn't make those who voted fold a donk, and it doesn't qualify them as greedy either. But I'm not making any specific name, and I purposely separated in my last post the first paragraph from the rest, just to make clear that the 2nd part had nothing to do with Snake's quote, to which I replied with the 1st paragraph only.

Of course, that's the problem with asking hypothetical questions on the internets. It's like asking someone what they'd do if someone broke into their home, sure a lot of people would say "YEAH I'D GO RAMBO-STYLE ON HIS ASS", but they don't actually know that until they're put in the situation described.

On a side note, I like the way this thread is going.

 

[Ronaldadio]

On a side note, I like the way this thread is going.

I agree. I`m in a panic now about what I`m gonna do when it happens!!!

 

[joeeagles]

Read your reply this morning Chris but been busy at work. I also read your "linky" and it fine, it makes sense. I'm continuing this discussion not because I don't believe you, actually you sold me now that you'd really call, but just to voice my opinion. I agree, I also like the way this thread is going, particularly if we're going to do so using gray matter rather than sky high spikes of testosterone.


About the sponsorships that you don't want to drop, of course you stand correct when you say winning this thing brings a lot to the table. Heck, not too long ago I read an interview to Greg Raymer, where he said that the day after he won, he went to L.A. to sign some sort of contract with a P.R. agency and started profiting immediately from the ME win, that's how fast it happens. If you win the ME after sat through FTP, you get $10M in 10 years, although they take over your image rights (Watkinson was actually in that situation this year, so he was the one who had the most at stake in that FT). But all these extra benefits go only to the winner, runner up gets zilch, so winning that hand doesn't really give you all this, just a better chance. Honestly, given who we are up against, how much of a better chance do we really have? There is 1 more note to add to this. In Ron's scenario we are down to the final 4 players. If you qualified through PS, folding will also give you a garanteed extra $150k for coming 3rd or 2nd, which you don't get if you come in 4th. That's what I meant when I posted before that it works both ways, but your point is obviously valid.


Lets get to the real subject at hand here. In my very first post in this thread, I said the call/fold decision heavily relies on what money means to you, that sure extra million (and maybe 3, not probable though cause Doyle made the call with T2 lol) you gain by folding. Essentially, we're talking about the same thing, with the difference that you exposed it in a more elegant fashion and you introduced the quite fancy term "utility theory" (never heard it before but I love it). So of course you're right, how can I argue it if I basically said the same thing? The whole reason I started this is because of the poll results and a couple of comments that were made which were clearly implying that who voted fold was an idiot. Many times, in my experience, life has proven to me how a high percentage of people, regardless of their wealth, when faced with a decision where its money vs something else (be that glory, family, job, friends or whatever), will choose the money. I'm not going to get into the psychological details of why this happens. Now, I understand how it may be an aberration to compare life events to a poker hand. Fair enough, lets stick to poker. Actually lets do even better, lets stick to the ME.


Enough in this thread was said about Paul Wasika's flop fold with an OESFD, which is a hand, to quote Phil Gordon, "that you should go to war with". If he puts his chips in on that monster flop, he's a favored to win the hand. He folded in the hopes to gain an extra 2 million, which indeed happened, although it turned out that had he called he would have won the hand. So, it shows that when someone actually had a chance on the ME FT to choose the utility theory, he threw it out the window, choosing the money. Because he liked the idea of taking home $6M rather than $4M. What I'm trying to get at is that there is no way in hell that 86% of 64 voters would make this call. I'm not going to single out anyone in particular, but I'm pretty dam sure I'm right. Most of all, some comments are out of line.


Last thing is my analogy with deal making. Although its a stretch and I'll admit it, some comments on this hand turn it into a legitimate argument. Statements like "I play to win, not to come in 3rd ", you have to admit are a clear contradiction when you consider the amount of deals that happen every day, in many cases for a few hundred dollars difference. Some of the reasoning for deals that you mention, such as reducing variance, can be also made on Ron's hand. There is of course a difference, but your not exactly emphasizing it if your reason for calling is that "you play to win ", because in that case you should never agree to deals, like indeed a few players do. The truth is you can bring up a whole bunch of reasons for accepting deals, blah blah blah EV, blah blah blah variance, blah blah blah skill level, blah blah blah chip count, but the bottom line is that deals are made to garantee a certain amount of $, just like folding Ron's hand does. Furthermore, some of the utility theory can be applied on deals too, although its not the same since the amounts involved are much smaller. But tell me, how much different is it to leave a tourney with $3900 rather than $3200 you get for 2nd, giving up a chance to instead win $4600 if you come first? The difference is that most prefer the sure $3900 instead of risking to only get $3200, which in principle is absolutely fine. But my question is, what happens to the "playing to win " attitude by expressed by most of those who voted call? That's the contradiction, the rest is blah blah blah.


I know I'm a pain in the ass Chris, but I really have fun here at times especially when I disagree with you. This is one of those times, although in your linky you made it pretty clear in the end that you now think there is no wrong answer to Ron's thread, and as I said in the beginning I'm now sold that you really would call. So we actually are pretty close in this thing.

 

[mrrigel]

Fold Fold Fold

 

[arkadiy]

You've just lost an all-in against an almost identical stack with 4 left, blinds are 400,000/800,000, your opponents have got $10 Million, $15 million and $25 million, and you've got $100,000. You've got 2 hands before you're back in the blinds, and you're 3 opponents are all in. You call with AA?

The ONLY chance you've got of avoiding 4th place is 2 fold the 2 hands before the blinds and hope others knock each other out. The OP is less extreme thhan this, but surely there's a cut off point where folding ANY hand is better than playing? Or judging from the majority of responses on the thread, maybe not?

When you're putting chip stacks like that and blinds like that it's TOTALLY different but we're saying you're short stacked but if you win this hand you're 2nd, so you can't be that badly short stacked....

 

[bhasin]

why would u fold AA PREFLOP U HAVE THE best hand possible preflop.

 

[Ronaldadio]

why would u fold AA PREFLOP U HAVE THE best hand possible preflop.

Oh Lord!!!

Please, please, please read through the thread - people have put their arguments across for calling or folding.

 

[Afterlife000]

The only reason i would fold AA preflop was if i was playing in the wsop and 3 people went all in first hand. Not risking 10 thousand dollars on some hand that might get beat. Only way i would fold em.

 

[muddawgg]

being that i am a poor boy i would fold .to many people in the hand ,aa could easily get cracked

 

[Afterlife000]

being that i am a poor boy i would fold .to many people in the hand ,aa could easily get cracked

Well if you call, you can easily turn into a rich boy!

 

[robwhufc]

Last thing is my analogy with deal making. Although its a stretch and I'll admit it, some comments on this hand turn it into a legitimate argument. Statements like "I play to win, not to come in 3rd ", you have to admit are a clear contradiction when you consider the amount of deals that happen every day, in many cases for a few hundred dollars difference.

Hell of a post, especially in a thread that was written off initially. I agree with this whole-heartedly, the "i play to win" mantra is fine when you're going for a $10 first prize, but when you are talking a million dollars between 3rd and 4th, i dont think 85% of the people that voted here would actually call in real life. I've always gone for first place when i play MTTs, often to a fault as people that have played against me will attest to, but in the situation detailed in the OP, i'd be aiming for 3rd place, not first. That's not being defeatest, that's being practical - when Roger Black ran for the silver medal in the 400m against Michael Johnson in 1996 he wasn't being defeatest, he knew he had no chance of getting the gold so he got the maximum out of his situation he possibly could, and i think the same situation applies here.

 

[robwhufc]

While I agree some people in here are just blindly spouting out clichés withough any real reasoning, the fact is first place is worth significantly more than any other place (no, I won't drop the sponsorship etc ^^). Given that we already have a sizeable sum of money wrapped up, at this point it should from my perspective be a person's main aim to win.

I'm sure the first bit is right, but personally i think the most important prize money hike is from 4th to 3rd (even though the figure is much less than the others). $1m (£500K) is a nice 4 bedroom house, a new car and £100K in the bank, $2m is probably enough to retire on, so that's a significant jump in my opinion. $4m would be nicer of course, but not twice as nice as $2m, and above that, $12m, $15m? It's irrelevant, you wont be 3 times happier with $12m than $4m.

I'm putting much to much thought into this aren't i?

 

[joeeagles]

Hell of a post, especially in a thread that was written off initially. I agree with this whole-heartedly, the "i play to win" mantra is fine when you're going for a $10 first prize, but when you are talking a million dollars between 3rd and 4th, i dont think 85% of the people that voted here would actually call in real life. I've always gone for first place when i play MTTs, often to a fault as people that have played against me will attest to, but in the situation detailed in the OP, i'd be aiming for 3rd place, not first. That's not being defeatest, that's being practical - when Roger Black ran for the silver medal in the 400m against Michael Johnson in 1996 he wasn't being defeatest, he knew he had no chance of getting the gold so he got the maximum out of his situation he possibly could, and i think the same situation applies here.

Thanks Rob, I'm glad someone agrees with me that the 85% poll result is so obviously and clearly "rigged", that the "zomg how cool I am I PLAY TO WIN look at me I'm teh new pokah stud" is BS in real life and that the same people accepting deals in on-line MTT's is a HUGE contradiction. Also, you make a great point and you nailed it perfectly when you say the most important money hike is from 4th to 3rd, and although that is subjective, it is the difference for a standard individual between still having to go to work or having the option to consider retirement. Whether you like your job or not its still nice to have an option, or be able to retire a certain amount of years before your time comes. Sounds like we have the same ideas Rob (lol great minds think alike?).


About that, there is another consideration to add that the "play to win " , and the "utility theory" (not being sarcastic on the latter, I really do like that term ) groups are not thinking about. If you're an American citizen and you pay your taxes, when you win $1M you're not going to take all of it home. I'm not an accountant so I don't know exactly what percentage will be taken away from you, it also depends in which state you live in, but I'm sure I'm not far from the truth if I say around 30% and more likely 35%. Anyone who has a better knowledge of this, feel free to correct me. The higher the prize money the higher the percentage. Two years ago Steve Danneman got $4m+ for 2nd place and paid close to 50%, I heard him say that myself. With that in mind getting 3rd rather than 4th becomes even more important. I don't know if in England you guys would have to pay anything to your government since the money was won in the United States, probably not so you catch a break where instead we don't, but in that situation any American has to remember that the government wants their part , so the $1M is actually more in the 650/750k range.


I start to think as well that I'm putting too much thought into this, its not really worth it.

 

[Mojomax747]

Well just for your pleasure lets shake it up a little bit once more.
I think i have followed this thread pretty much from the start and your last post joe just reminded me of something, and from what i have read so far it hasnt come up yet.

With all the reasons for calling or folding being well documented in this 100+ posts thread has anyone taken into account that we might of been staked all, half, or any of our entry fee.

With that in mind where would we all stand now in the calling or folding debate.
What different if anything would we do now.

Your mention of Steve Danneman activated this thought in my mind.

 

[joeeagles]

Well just for your pleasure lets shake it up a little bit once more.
I think i have followed this thread pretty much from the start and your last post joe just reminded me of something, and from what i have read so far it hasnt come up yet.

With all the reasons for calling or folding being well documented in this 100+ posts thread has anyone taken into account that we might of been staked all, half, or any of our entry fee.

With that in mind where would we all stand now in the calling or folding debate.
What different if anything would we do now.

Your mention of Steve Danneman activated this thought in my mind.

That's another great hypothetical Mojomax, something none of considered yet really a good element to add into the decision. I'm going to answer it honestly. Lets assume we are in the situation Mr Danneman was in, 50% to me 50% to my partner. With the scenario as detailed in the OP there is no doubt in my mind that I would still fold against those 3 sharks and take the sure extra million (maybe 3). I wouldn't tell him I folded AA until I'm miles away or he sees it on TV, I don't want to risk him breaking my arm or chasing me all over Vegas if my aces would have won .

What really makes me fold, even in that situation that has the added responsiblity of deciding not only for myself, is that the OP states that Doyle has a massive chip lead, so really what makes me think that I can win the tourney by calling? Ok, stacks are not mentioned, but really, if there isn't a chance for a nice side pot between me and the chip leader where if my aces hold I win the side pot and take a big lead, what edge over these guys am I gaining by calling this? This, IMO, is what is being the most overlooked.

Although being 50% staked certainly puts things in a different perspective because my winnings are cut in half and I'm also deciding for someone else, I'm sure that I would still go for the fold and take the extra million with the conditions being what they are. I have to admit though that there are other scenarios where I'd be inclined to call, as opposed to folding in the same if I weren't staked. But not this one.

Mojomax, out of curiosity, are you required to pay any taxes in England on your poker or gambling winnings in general if you achieve them overseas? I'm not totally sure but I believe Americans are required to do so even when they win overseas, unless they leave the money outside the US, but as I said I'm exactly sure of it.

 

[Ronaldadio]

I would still fold.

No, we don`t pay tax on gambling at all.