Nit/Locksmiths as Opposed to Smart/Shrewd Gamblers

[TXsouthpaw]

And you are an example of my point...which is that the player's objective must be taken into account.

Clearly, you want not only the "action" in terms of competition but also money action and you are willing to risk money on close calls...or maybe even decks stacked against you to get it.

Cool, whatever.

But if your objective is to win money consistently then the so-called locksmiths have it right and you don't.

If you are a card counter, you are not going to bet into a deck that is lean in 10s.

Even if you are just a Basic Strategy player you're not going to hit a 14 if the dealer is stiff.

If you don't have the math you don't bet the cash.

If I'm sweating an underdog match, I'm getting odds on the money or I'm not in. In fact, I don't bet pick 'em matches.

Different strokes for different folks. For my part, I would care JUST as much about beating an opponent for ZERO money as I would if the cash was stacked. I'm not money-involved but rather ego-pride involved.

But no one is right or wrong because we all have different buttons. The only ones who are wrong are those who think that those who won't bet without an advantage (perceived or otherwise) are some kind of jerks.

That is just an intellectually lame attitude. As I said, bookies don't bet without an edge...and while I know several people who have gone into gambling rehab...or should have...I don't know of any bookies who have!

Jail, yes...rehab no!

(-:

Jim

Dont get me wrong im not gonna throw my money away but if i gotta give 1/2 a ball more than i should to get a 20$ game going than i am.

I would also like to play guys top speed for no money at all the problem is that around here ur not going to get a guys top speed for free. I played for years without gambling but thats when i had freinds to spar with that played my speed and also like to play for nothing. things have changed lately so ive gotta change with them.

 

[freddy the beard]

...Shoulda waited for the elevator

Does anybody ever like to do something hard just to find out what they are made of? Or challenge themselves to flourish, improve, and move up? When I was hustling, if I had 9 to 8 the worst of it, I thought I was stealing. If Sir Edmund Hillary would have been operating with todsy's mind-set when he climbed Mt Everest, he would have probably waited for the elevator.

the Beard

Nits and lock-artists never got to hang with me. However, many professional con and lemon men like Brooklyn Jimmy, Jack Cooney and Pots and Pans Rogoff were all pals of mine. Their approach to winning was an art form and they worked hard at it. They didnt sit in the chair in the poolroom, exerting zero effort, not play for months, just waiting for something to keel over in front of them.

 

[yobagua]

Yeah I can understand your feeling Freddy since you have the great respect for Action. I always looked in awe at guys liked Diliberto who wasnt afraid of any action and supported a family doing it. But besides the nits/locksmiths you have to put guys who would dump their backers or scamper out before you sink the money ball way high above them. Its funny how people can be forgiving for a dumper but hate a nit. Its usually the real nits anyway who are calling people nits.

 

[Fast Lenny]

Yeah I can understand your feeling Freddy since you have the great respect for Action. I always looked in awe at guys liked Diliberto who wasnt afraid of any action and supported a family doing it. But besides the nits/locksmiths you have to put guys who would dump their backers or scamper out before you sink the money ball way high above them. Its funny how people can be forgiving for a dumper but hate a nit. Its usually the real nits anyway who are calling people nits.

Well I think a dumper is the worse,then you have to put the lemon guys/hustlers along with conmen before nits and locksmiths because there is a slim line there if someone has to play bad to rob someone and use trickery.Why is it that people applaud someone who is all dressed up as a painter robbing the locals or playing several balls under speed and when the money is right pounces on the prey but cant respect someone who puts himself in good games or wont play someone unless he is stealing?I could care less to be honest whether someone hustles/lemons,is a nit,a locksmith,but I hate players who dump and it seems people do it out there at the top levels and thats whats sad.

 

[SJDinPHX]

My sentiments exactly !!

Locally ive gotta take bad games just to get a little action going. When the entire pool hall wants the nuts youve gotta go with the game that is the least tilted against you. So most of the time im playing in uneven games just to get action. Seems sometimes that nobody but me wants to "Gamble" they want a lock. Of course these matches arent toooo lopsided im not running a charity, the matches are still winnable by me ive just got to settle down and focus. Puts the pressure on me which is good and outrunning the nuts is always awesome.

Right on Southpaw. When you stay in one place long enough, your odds of picking up an easy game severely diminish. I myself, have won more money outrunning the nuts then I ever have trying to steal. Especially when you are shooting a toothpick at a lumber yard.
That is not to say I have not been "victimized" by several "ass***e nits!!

Dick

 

[JB Cases]

Because, as they say, you can't hustle an honest man. The reason that hustlers are not nits is that the hustler preys on the larceny that exists in the mark's mind. The mark is the one who thinks he is stealing thus it's his fault when he allows himself to be hustled.

A nit on the other hand is not trying to hustle. They are very forthright in their attempts to steal. If a player gives in to a nit then it's their own fault if they lose. The thing about a nit is that they want the nuts but aren't willing to bet anything when they get it.

There are a lot of gamblers who want the nuts or close to it BUT they will put up a significant amount as incentive. Then at least when the player takes that game they know that there is a pot of gold to be won IF they are able to outrun the nuts.

I can't tell you the amount of times that people who are even with me in speed have asked for ridiculous weight and to add insult to injury they want to play cheap. That is the definition of a nit. Some people would call that smart gambling. I don't because it essentially destroys the business for the nit. These type of people are jsut frustrating to deal with and I avoid them like the plague.

They might get me once but after that they never get a chance at my money again. And because they are nits they win far less than they could.

 

[wincardona]

It takes all kinds

I agree with you, you missed that I was talking about the way many people think in the other post, not reality. What I am actually talking about are many people's opinion of themselves and others. I have never met a self-avowed nit in the poolroom that would gamble at all. I have met many nits that wouldn't gamble unless they thought they had the stone cold nuts and they thought that made them just shrewd game makers. On the other hand their opinion of others that would not give them the stone cold nuts was always that the people that aren't mad at their wallet are nits!

I respect the guys that make even games or tilted a little their way. These are the shrewd matchmakers with some heart to go with it. True nits are just on the lookout for an easy totally risk free buck and command no respect at all.

Hu

I've often been referred to as a nut hunter,and that's fairly accurate. But if you take a fair look at life in general,don't we all look for the nuts? If you answered yes your telling the truth,if your answer is no,your rent is probably late.We as individuals have a certain uniqueness in the way we think,that's what makes us individuals and unpredictable at times.I really don't know how to explain why some people can figure out things better than others,maybe they listened better when they were young or maybe their just blessed with the ability to be resourceful.I guess that's my forte. I've always had a clever awareness in situations and how to negotiate to gain an advantage.I used that atribute just as a shrewd business person would to gain the advantage in their world. But in my world i'm often referred to as a nut hunter and that's really not the case.Oh I do understand that people that take risk and show more gamble are more popular and admired more than a shrewd person,but I guess that's life.Any ways lets get back to the topic and that is a person that has the ability to cleverly think things out and uses it to their advantage should be respected as much or more than the reckless gambler. IMO And I really feel that I will take a lot of heat from this post,but I can deal with it,especially since I have more gamble than sense nowadays And for those of you that think that i'm being cagey with that statement,well that's your loss.

 

[Fast Lenny]

I've often been referred to as a nut hunter,and that's fairly accurate. But if you take a fair look at life in general,don't we all look for the nuts? If you answered yes your telling the truth,if your answer is no,your rent is probably late.We as individuals have a certain uniqueness in the way we think,that's what makes us individuals and unpredictable at times.I really don't know how to explain why some people can figure out things better than others,maybe they listened better when they were young or maybe their just blessed with the ability to be resourceful.I guess that's my forte. I've always had a clever awareness in situations and how to negotiate to gain an advantage.I used that atribute just as a shrewd business person would to gain the advantage in their world. But in my world i'm often referred to as a nut hunter and that's really not the case.Oh I do understand that people that take risk and show more gamble are more popular and admired more than a shrewd person,but I guess that's life.Any ways lets get back to the topic and that is a person that has the ability to cleverly think things out and uses it to their advantage should be respected as much or more than the reckless gambler. IMO And I really feel that I will take a lot of heat from this post,but I can deal with it,especially since I have more gamble than sense nowadays And for those of you that think that i'm being cagey with that statement,well that's your loss.

Im with you on that Billy,I would say at my worse I might gamble at 60/40 in their favor,usually its in my favor but will take a chance here and there to move to the next level with my game.Its funny when people will say that guy has no gamble but the guy isnt putting all his money on a game that he is a 2 or 3:1 dog,he is just smart enough to realize when he is outmatched.The biggest thing with me is I know how to matchup and where I stand and where another player stands,I underate myself so I dont put myself in a bad game,your not going to see me going off with people looking at me knowing Im a fish.I will see guys try to play someone several balls above them because they are legends in their own mind and people will say that guy has heart and gamble,I just think the guy has too much ego and not enough brains.I am not a nit,not a total locksmith as I dont always have the best of it but when I do its no more then 60/40, everyone gambles the way they choose and I make a choice to bet and smartly knowing my game and theirs,if the guy is too good I quit.

 

[Nine Ball]

The reply by ShootingArts to the "Keith Macready Toughest Gamblers" compelled me to post this thread....

Having been hanging/playing/gambling in poolrooms for 35 years, Imo, I don't think these two character types are at all the same - here's the all-important, huge difference between them....and the way I view poolroom/gambling ethics....

A nit/locksmith wants the nuts, if not the triple nuts, and will not EVER play without them, cuz they're not gamblers, they just like to steal - Any of this poolroom type (and there's way too many of them) that has some money and still operates this way, I have disdain, and 0 respect for......But if they're a total broke just trying to scuffle food money, then I'll cut them some slack.

But conversely, a Smart/Shrewd Gambler is a guy who tries to get the nuts as often as he can, but if he can't, he will still play with an even game, cuz at heart, he's a gambler.....This guy I respect.

The way I see it.. If you do this for a living, There's nothing wrong with making lock games.

If it's your job you have to treat it as a business, and nobody goes into business looking to lose money.

You call them nits.. I see it as smart business. If they out move someone and get them locked up in a game they can't win. It's their own fault for not being smart enough to see the move.

Tighten up on the ability to match up and you will not get locked up.

As Incardona some what said, They make their rent and the "Gamblers" will probably be late..

Just my opinion on it.

 

[JB Cases]

I've often been referred to as a nut hunter,and that's fairly accurate. But if you take a fair look at life in general,don't we all look for the nuts? If you answered yes your telling the truth,if your answer is no,your rent is probably late.We as individuals have a certain uniqueness in the way we think,that's what makes us individuals and unpredictable at times.I really don't know how to explain why some people can figure out things better than others,maybe they listened better when they were young or maybe their just blessed with the ability to be resourceful.I guess that's my forte. I've always had a clever awareness in situations and how to negotiate to gain an advantage.I used that atribute just as a shrewd business person would to gain the advantage in their world. But in my world i'm often referred to as a nut hunter and that's really not the case.Oh I do understand that people that take risk and show more gamble are more popular and admired more than a shrewd person,but I guess that's life.Any ways lets get back to the topic and that is a person that has the ability to cleverly think things out and uses it to their advantage should be respected as much or more than the reckless gambler. IMO And I really feel that I will take a lot of heat from this post,but I can deal with it,especially since I have more gamble than sense nowadays And for those of you that think that i'm being cagey with that statement,well that's your loss.

The difference Billy is that you are known to bet it up and stick with a game you made even if it's not working out in your favor.

The thing is that making a game where you think you have an edge and being willing to bet it up doesn't make you a locksmith.

Nut hunters and nits are ones who will not play at all unless there is nearly a 100% chance they will win. Now I may be wrong but all I have heard about you over the last 15 years you were never described that way.

You have always been described as tough to match up with. I don't consider this in the same way as a nit or a locksmith. I have played plenty of people that are careful about how they match up and often they do have the edge but I never felt like I couldn't win. On the other hand I have had plenty of people ask me for spots where I had no chance to win. And then they didn't want to bet ten cents. Those people are nits. With people like you I can match up without feeling raped from the start AND I have a chance to win something.

The title of this thread is nits/locksmiths as opposed to smart/shrewd gamblers - you are definitely in the latter category in my opinion.

 

[macneilb]

steve anderson (a great fighter) once said if there were 2 tournaments, one across the street from another, both having the same payout, but one full of bums, and the other full of top tier fighters, he would without a doubt go to the one full of donor's because when it came down to it - money is money. same goes w/ pool imo, yes we all like to sharpen out skills by playing even and challenging ourselves, but when it comes down to it, if any of us were playing a top tier player for money and was offered the 7, how many of us would say "no that's ok, i'll shoot all the way to the nine..."? i know alot of you guys disdain locksmiths who refuse to play unless there getting solid weight, but i gotta give em credit b/c it does take alot of the gamble out of playing for money. when it comes down to it, how many of us would rather be the guy who's broke, but people say "had alot of heart" (like most real old time gamblers), or the guy who brings home the cash because he had the smarts to swallow his pride and ask for weight? ps, if you don't like the odds, don't play the game...

 

[yobagua]

A rule I learned from an old pool hustler.


"Never, ever bet against Billy Incardona

The odds just wont be in your favor if you do."

 

[Johnnyt]

I made more money as a B/A player over the years and still have most of it. When I was being taught to shoot pool as a kid, I was also being taught how the match up correctly.
#1 rule= be honest with yourself about how good you play.

#2 rule=If you don't know them don't play them. With or without a spot.

#3 rule post up.

#4 rule= only shoot as good as you have to to win.

#5 rule=move around. Don't just play in one area. Have a route.

#6 rule=learn money management. If you win a enough to buy that new plazma TV...buy it. Buy something you can resell at a profit. For ten years everytime I had $1000 or more profit I'd buy another Racing Greyhound pup. When I sold out in 2002 I had over 100 pups and dogs all over the country racing and trainig on farms.

If you just want to gamble to gamble, that's OK too. It's just not my bag. Once you get to a certain level in pool, it's hard to make money gambling. No one will play you without a spot. I never tried very hard to get much better after I got to B+ level because I could see the road blocks ahead if did play better. Johnnyt

 

[Fast Lenny]

I made more money as a B/A player over the years and still have most of it. When I was being taught to shoot pool as a kid, I was also being taught how the match up correctly.
#1 rule= be honest with yourself about how good you play.

#2 rule=If you don't know them don't play them. With or without a spot.

#3 rule post up.

#4 rule= only shoot as good as you have to to win.

#5 rule=move around. Don't just play in one area. Have a route.

#6 rule=learn money management. If you win a enough to buy that new plazma TV...buy it. Buy something you can resell at a profit. For ten years everytime I had $1000 or more profit I'd buy another Racing Greyhound pup. When I sold out in 2002 I had over 100 pups and dogs all over the country racing and trainig on farms.

If you just want to gamble to gamble, that's OK too. It's just not my bag. Once you get to a certain level in pool, it's hard to make money gambling. No one will play you without a spot. I never tried very hard to get much better after I got to B+ level because I could see the road blocks ahead if did play better. Johnnyt

Rep for you Johnny and I abide by all these rules and its kept me in the green literally and makes pool alot more enjoyable when your booking winners,never overrate your game because it will end up hurting you,legends in their own mind I call guys like that.

 

[freddy the beard]

List of non-nits

Right on Southpaw. When you stay in one place long enough, your odds of picking up an easy game severely diminish. I myself, have won more money outrunning the nuts then I ever have trying to steal. Especially when you are shooting a toothpick at a lumber yard.
That is not to say I have not been "victimized" by several "ass***e nits!!

Dick

Off the top of my head I am going to list a few players who were not nut-hunters: Wimpy, Bugs, CornBread, Denny Searcy, Keith, Cole, Harold Worst, Eddie Taylor, Richie Florence, Craig Stevens, Squirrel, Fats, Grady, Efren, Parica, Cliff, Richie Richeson, Ronnie Allen, Peter Rabbit, Danny Di, Truman, etc., etc. (and of course San Jose Dick). I could go on until I run out of ink. These were all great players and the common link was that they were all Gunfighters. If you look carefully you will see that there is a gaping hole in the demographics of that list. No East Coasters! They are the only collective group that I know of that became good players without providing much gamble. When I was hustling, if a NewYorker lost 3 barrels at anything it made the 10 Oclock news.
Lastly, Cardone's modesty is making me ill. Yeah, he matched up tough and had a great winning record, but he spent a career playing the best players in the world for BIG money. I know he encourages the super smart game-maker image, but if he can't be called a Gunfighter, then who can? For some reason he would rather be thought of as smart rather than courageous. Does anybody think a fair game is all you need to beat a champion? Against Bugs, Ronnie and CornBread, the "nuts" was usually not enough. Ronnie gave Mike Carella 9 to 7 in 1pkt., and Bugs gave Buddy Hall 10 to 8 playing banks. Those were probably the worst games of all time. They both won easily.

the Beard

 

[Fast Lenny]

Off the top of my head I am going to list a few players who were not nut-hunters: Wimpy, Bugs, CornBread, Denny Searcy, Keith, Cole, Harold Worst, Eddie Taylor, Richie Florence, Craig Stevens, Squirrel, Fats, Grady, Efren, Parica, Cliff, Richie Richeson, Ronnie Allen, Peter Rabbit, Danny Di, Truman, etc., etc. (and of course San Jose Dick). I could go on until I run out of ink. These were all great players and the common link was that they were all Gunfighters. If you look carefully you will see that there is a gaping hole in the demographics of that list. No East Coasters! They are the only collective group that I know of that became good players without providing much gamble. When I was hustling, if a NewYorker lost 3 barrels at anything it made the 10 Oclock news.
Lastly, Cardone's modesty is making me ill. Yeah, he matched up tough and had a great winning record, but he spent a career playing the best players in the world for BIG money. I know he encourages the super smart game-maker image, but if he can't be called a Gunfighter, then who can? For some reason he would rather be thought of as smart rather than courageous. Does anybody think a fair game is all you need to beat a champion? Against Bugs, Ronnie and CornBread, the "nuts" was usually not enough. Ronnie gave Mike Carella 9 to 7 in 1pkt., and Bugs gave Buddy Hall 10 to 8 playing banks. Those were probably the worst games of all time. They both won easily.

the Beard

What about Red,Ervolino,Crane,Sigel,New York Blackie,Richie Ambrose,Brooklyn Jimmy,and Boston Shorty?These were all New Yorkers besides Shorty and a small part of the East Coast and the gamblers and high level of play it had to offer.

 

[Southpaw]

Off the top of my head I am going to list a few players who were not nut-hunters: Wimpy, Bugs, CornBread, Denny Searcy, Keith, Cole, Harold Worst, Eddie Taylor, Richie Florence, Craig Stevens, Squirrel, Fats, Grady, Efren, Parica, Cliff, Richie Richeson, Ronnie Allen, Peter Rabbit, Danny Di, Truman, etc., etc. (and of course San Jose Dick). I could go on until I run out of ink. These were all great players and the common link was that they were all Gunfighters. If you look carefully you will see that there is a gaping hole in the demographics of that list. No East Coasters! They are the only collective group that I know of that became good players without providing much gamble. When I was hustling, if a NewYorker lost 3 barrels at anything it made the 10 Oclock news.
Lastly, Cardone's modesty is making me ill. Yeah, he matched up tough and had a great winning record, but he spent a career playing the best players in the world for BIG money. I know he encourages the super smart game-maker image, but if he can't be called a Gunfighter, then who can? For some reason he would rather be thought of as smart rather than courageous. Does anybody think a fair game is all you need to beat a champion? Against Bugs, Ronnie and CornBread, the "nuts" was usually not enough. Ronnie gave Mike Carella 9 to 7 in 1pkt., and Bugs gave Buddy Hall 10 to 8 playing banks. Those were probably the worst games of all time. They both won easily.

the Beard

Where would you rank Jack Cooney? I think he is definitely one of the shrewedest or best gamblers.


Southpaw

 

[ShootingArts]

coulda wrote the book for me

Johnny,

One through five were pretty much my blueprint in the seventies and eighties. The only exception was number two. I almost always gambled with strangers. First, I knew the odds were vastly in favor of me being the better player. The other thing was that I was expert at hiding my speed and rating other's speed watching them at the table. How did they move around the table? How did they make balls? Far more telling, how did they miss? When they missed did they miss half the shot or all of it? Were they hitting the "accidental" safeties required of a gambler at the time? Five minutes of watching someone and I had his speed down accurately almost every time, at least closely enough to know how risky playing them was.

Working a route certainly rang a bell. Matching up was fine but challenge tables were a gift to a hungry pool player. I knew every challenge table in a 50-75 mile radius and carefully cultivated them. Never hitting one too often or betting so big as to scare off the little fish, always passing through often enough that I seemed to be a regular. I always tipped well and was polite to the folks working at a place too. If there was a bouncer I bought him a beer now and then. If the poop ever hit the fan I was regarded as a good guy and a regular. Kept me out of jail more than once.

Big bets are flashy but small bets and moving around netted me an upper middle class income when I needed it to. Also, since the bets were comparatively small, my neck was never stuck out too far if I lost a few. Indeed I lost 20% of my bets, that was another of my guidelines. I also usually seeded places, going in losing a little bit a few times before starting to win more than I lost. I put as much time into playing pool as I did into my day job when I had one but I also netted more per hour than I made as a top hand or foreman in the petro-chem plants.

Hu

I made more money as a B/A player over the years and still have most of it. When I was being taught to shoot pool as a kid, I was also being taught how the match up correctly.
#1 rule= be honest with yourself about how good you play.

#2 rule=If you don't know them don't play them. With or without a spot.

#3 rule post up.

#4 rule= only shoot as good as you have to to win.

#5 rule=move around. Don't just play in one area. Have a route.

#6 rule=learn money management. If you win a enough to buy that new plazma TV...buy it. Buy something you can resell at a profit. For ten years everytime I had $1000 or more profit I'd buy another Racing Greyhound pup. When I sold out in 2002 I had over 100 pups and dogs all over the country racing and trainig on farms.

If you just want to gamble to gamble, that's OK too. It's just not my bag. Once you get to a certain level in pool, it's hard to make money gambling. No one will play you without a spot. I never tried very hard to get much better after I got to B+ level because I could see the road blocks ahead if did play better. Johnnyt

 

[dabarbr]

The way I see it.. If you do this for a living, There's nothing wrong with making lock games.

If it's your job you have to treat it as a business, and nobody goes into business looking to lose money.

You call them nits.. I see it as smart business. If they out move someone and get them locked up in a game they can't win. It's their own fault for not being smart enough to see the move.

Tighten up on the ability to match up and you will not get locked up.

As Incardona some what said, They make their rent and the "Gamblers" will probably be late..

Just my opinion on it.

And a good opinion it is. No one wants to pay to go to work.

From my experience the gamblers that consistently give up the nuts just to test themselves or to be in action usually don't have financial responsibility's. If they get busted today, so what, there's always tomorrow and someone will put them back in action. To this type of gambler it's not money they are dealing with, it's just monopoly money to to be tossed around.

Sure they will score big sometimes but in a few days it's gone. Women, booze, race track, or the casinos. I've been around this for over 50 years and not much has changed.

My respect goes to the ones that know how to manage their skills and know how to keep what they win.

 

[Johnnyt]

Johnny,

One through five were pretty much my blueprint in the seventies and eighties. The only exception was number two. I almost always gambled with strangers. First, I knew the odds were vastly in favor of me being the better player. The other thing was that I was expert at hiding my speed and rating other's speed watching them at the table. How did they move around the table? How did they make balls? Far more telling, how did they miss? When they missed did they miss half the shot or all of it? Were they hitting the "accidental" safeties required of a gambler at the time? Five minutes of watching someone and I had his speed down accurately almost every time, at least closely enough to know how risky playing them was.

Working a route certainly rang a bell. Matching up was fine but challenge tables were a gift to a hungry pool player. I knew every challenge table in a 50-75 mile radius and carefully cultivated them. Never hitting one too often or betting so big as to scare off the little fish, always passing through often enough that I seemed to be a regular. I always tipped well and was polite to the folks working at a place too. If there was a bouncer I bought him a beer now and then. If the poop ever hit the fan I was regarded as a good guy and a regular. Kept me out of jail more than once.

Big bets are flashy but small bets and moving around netted me an upper middle class income when I needed it to. Also, since the bets were comparatively small, my neck was never stuck out too far if I lost a few. Indeed I lost 20% of my bets, that was another of my guidelines. I also usually seeded places, going in losing a little bit a few times before starting to win more than I lost. I put as much time into playing pool as I did into my day job when I had one but I also netted more per hour than I made as a top hand or foreman in the petro-chem plants.

Hu

Yep, small bets was the way to go. They add up, they don't draw attention to you making money. I found that a 9-ball ring game in a bar was a gold mine for me. People got in and out all day and night. If you didn't win too many games in a row and made it a point to complain when you paid the winner, not many could tell how much you were ahead for the day.

If I left the game for an hour or so to eat or just to get some fresh air, I'd always say I was going somewhere to get more money to get back in the game. Johnnyt