Nick and Mike highlight the latest in online poker news. It’s financial reporting season, and the guys discuss the poker companies’ results for 2018 & outlook for 2019. There is news about the launch of online poker in Pennsylvania, an update on the Wire Act situation, and the guys discuss some of the changes being implemented to automated seating scripts as a result of the new policy at PokerStars going into effect.


Full Transcript

Mike: Hello and welcome everybody to the Pokerfuse podcast. This is Episode Seven coming to you on March 7th, 2019. I’m your host, Mike Gentilly along with my co-host, Nick Jones. Nick, how’s it going today?

Nick: I’m very well, I’m very well. How are you doing? Because you have been off ill a little this weekend.

Mike: I was under the weather for a bit earlier this week, but I think I am definitely on the road to recovery, if not fully recovered.

Nick: Excellent. You left me to fend for myself a large part of this week. It’s been tricky.

Mike: You did a great job holding down the fort.

Nick: I appreciate that. Well, we got a lot of topics to go through once again this week, so we should just dive straight in.

GVC/partypoker Financials

Mike: You may have noticed a lot of information floating around these past couple of days about financial reports for some of the bigger online poker companies that are publicly traded. This is the beginning of the earnings season where we’re looking back at the end of 2018. A lot of the publicly traded companies are coming out with their financial reports around this time. I know we have seen GVC recently. Nick, what did they have to report for the end of 2018?

Nick: We getting, conveniently all the major online poker operators with one or two exceptions are publicly traded companies. We get some insight into their businesses every quarter, every half year, and this is probably the peak time because we have full year results for 2018. This week, we saw both GVC and The Stars Group. GVC is quite an interesting company, obviously GVC own party poker, party poker is resurgent in terms of revenue at the moment. It’s always an interesting talking point on the the analyst call.

With GVC we actually we get some of the, only perhaps least interesting information out of them for a couple of reasons. One is, they don’t break out their online poker revenue in absolute figures like most companies do. We have to read between the lines a little bit there. Also the thing with GVC is we actually get a Q4 trading update, which came out six weeks ago. The actual core poker numbers that we saw floating around this week, we’ve actually already known since January, which is basically GVC said that their online poker business is up,

I think 42% on constant currency for the year of 2018, I believe Q4 was 40%, something like that. We already knew that from a few weeks ago.

Mike: Nick, tell us a little bit about constant currency, just for the listeners that may not understand exactly what that means.

Nick: Okay. Very broadly, customer deposits are held in often the currencies that they’ll deposit in. You might deposit in euros and pounds, you might deposit in pounds, then that money might be held in a different currency and then when the company extracts their revenue from that money, from the rake, they’ll be taking a different currency. Ultimately, global currency FX rates will impact the purchasing power of their customer base, which will then impact the revenue in a short-term basis.

I’m sure there are some financial experts or economist cringing at my explanation of it. I think broadly speaking, we’re looking at companies are affected by their own customers purchasing power and their reporting revenue might be different from their customers currencies and their results in this constant currency calculation.

Mike: Basically, they’re trying to take out the fluctuations of currency out of their reporting?

Nick: Yes, sure. With Party Poker, we know that from a revenue perspective, they can grow in for the last two and a half years and they’ve been investing very heavily into their online poker product. It’s been growing at 30 to 40% for the last couple of years as they report. They don’t report their absolute revenue figures, but we do make estimations of that based on their previous performance and back in five years ago when they did report and their absolute revenue figures from poker we have estimations for that.

Which if you’re a PRO subscriber you can certainly dig into that a bit more on our site. We did get an interesting quote because it always does come up on the the analysts call. They will talk about party poker. If you like, I can read off GVC’s little bit about poker. Would you like to hear that?

Mike: Yes, for sure.

Nick: Excellent so he says party poker, it’s been a bit of a David Goliath battle with PokerStars. We’re growing 42% in 2018, we 're biting at their ankles but we are making progress, significant progress. We remain with our strategy at poker in in terms of trying to grow that business aggressively, in 2019 the first couple of months it’s been 38% growth, and we are number two, but we are definitely getting market share in poker. How’s that being driven? As I said, technology, brands, product, marketing, and people.

Mike: Yes, and also now that you’ve read that off, I do remember seeing that earlier, and the thing that jumped out at me, is that they consider themselves to be a David to PokerStars’ Goliath.

Nick: Yes, I thought that was an interesting characterization of their position. I mean they definitely are— I’m just trying to do some back-the napkin-maths, I think probably quarterly they make— Or say annually they make something like $150 million, something like that. PokerStars is 850 million, so we’re talking like they are a sixth to an eighth the size of PokerStars, that’s kind of the area we’re talking. Is that David to Goliath? I mean it’s not a million miles away I suppose.

Mike: Yes, I guess it just feels like when we look from an industry perspective, at all the things that are happening, the competition between the two companies, they seem to be holding quite a bit of the attention of the poker community.

Nick: Yes, I mean in terms of the companies themselves, they are actually fairly similar in statue, in that GVC as a global corporation. Obviously, they recently purchased Ladbrokes-Coral which has a lot of retail business in the UK. I think that just their online segment, they generate somewhere in the region of two billion pounds a year, I believe, and if you add on their retail on top of that I think it’s more like two and a half to three billion. I’m going off the top of my head here, so I might be fractionally, but that’s order of magnitude we’re talking about.

The Stars Group, their total group revenue is in that ballpark, in like the $2 billion, $2.5 billion type range, I think. In terms of company stature, they are very similar and they directly compete in many of the same markets. On the poker front of course, and we’ll talk more about PokerStars sums in a bit, but poker is, depending on which frame of reference you look at, somewhere between 30 to 50% of their business. With GVC, it’s probably more like 5 to 8% of their business, maybe 10%, but probably not that high.

Yes, maybe in that respect is David and Goliath— I mean obviously, the important point you mention in the middle of this, is that raising revenue can cost quite a lot, and absolutely Party Poker is investing a lot of money to grow that revenue. Again these figures are not broken out, GVC does not divulge. They did divulge a figure they call contribution, and contribution margin which is effectively like top of the line profit, so after they take into account marketing expenses, and taxes, and that kind of thing.

They never did it for poker, but they did do it for the games label of brands of which poker is probably about 40% or 50% it’s pretty significant. They stopped reporting contribution margin by label, so we don’t even know that yet. It wasn’t discussed on this conference call, the costs that they were putting into investing in the poker product. That wasn’t discussed at all. They basically just touted how big they were growing, and yes, they clearly have their sight s set on continuing to grow it, absolutely.

Mike: Yes, so while they don’t break out poker, I believe our model to estimate their revenue from poker is pretty good. They’ve reported strong growth in 2018, do we see that continuing in 2019? I guess that’s the question. Their trajectory is headed upwards, as far as I can tell. I don’t see any particular headwinds that seem like would impede their progress in the coming year, and as a matter of fact, it seems like with shared liquidity, even in the European market, the European share of liquidity, it seems like that only appears to be growing for them in 2019. Do we expect them to continue to do well this year?

Nick: Yes, I mean they’re clearly showing that they can spend the money to grow revenue, right? As long as they are willing to continue to do that, I can’t see why they won’t continue to grow their own— To grow their market share, that’s the main thing. Another big question is, are they reaching new poker customers, or are they just taking players, many of them perhaps high-volume players away from PokerStars, and away from 888.

Party poker seem happy to do that, they seem happy to be investing their money. We’ve talked previously on the podcast, and as well as content on our websites about their investment in their streamer program, their investment in their really high rewards program, so these things do come at a cost, but they can clearly feel they can justify. It’s still a very small proportion of their total company revenues. If they feel that that feeds back into the brands that it feeds back into their other products then I see no reason why that can’t continue into 2019.

Mike: Yes. Hearing you talk there, then the biggest risk that I see for the coming year would be the impact of courting all these high volume players. The impact that will have on their player ecology. I don’t know that that is something that will play out in that short of time between now and the end of the year that might be more of a long term effect. Beyond that I’m not seeing very many pitfalls.

The Stars Group/PokerStars Financials

Nick: Talking financial results it was the big one-two this week because it was GVC on the Tuesday and then The Stars Group on the Wednesday.

Mike: What I didn’t hear a lot of listening to the conference call for the Stars Group was I didn’t hear a lot of talk about poker is that been something that they’ve been deemphasizing in past conference calls or investor relations.

Nick: It’s just a result of the fact that how much the Stars Group has changed in 2018. The entire business has been transformed from we go back a year and the company was The Stars Group, it was PokerStars, PokerStars with 70% of its total revenue. They had a growing casino portion under the PokerStars Casino brand. They had a growing s ports betting operation under the BetStars brand, but it was still very much poker.

Over the course of 2018, the company acquired two Australian sports books, William Hill of Australia and Crown Bet which they rebranded into Bet Easy. They acquired Sky Betting and Gaming for $5 billion, which is a huge sportsbook in the UK and in other markets but is predominately in the UK. They also have a very successful casino and they have a small poker- independent poker operation called Sky Poker. They acquired all these businesses and obviously the investors now know it’s on the call want to hear about how they’re performing, how the synergies between these businesses will pay out in the future and that was obviously the focus of the call.

Obviously poker is still there. It’s still a very large part of the business, but where we might go back a year or two and we would have slides talking about product innovation and the live events that we’ve seen a PokerStars and how their brand is massive in the market they’re moving into there was very little of that. I don’t think there was really any mention at all of the big successes that PokerStars could point to, could point, analysts to in terms of launching five new games and running the PSPC. That’s all happened in the last quarter that didn’t get a mention.

Mike: Yes. What I’m hearing you say is that it’s just relative. When you have an acquisition of somebody like Sky Bet the $5 billion price tag that other things seem to pale in comparison. I would imagine that the investors were much more interested in that topic than perhaps how many new games have been released by PokerStars.

Nick: Yes. The numbers are certainly rosier when they look at the big picture because you acquired our companies and now your revenue has just doubled and that’s fantastic.

Mike: All right.

Nick: Of course, we should probably just touch on very briefly what the results are. Q4 was poor for PokerStars in terms of what they call their international segment, which is their legacy, PokerStars , Stars Casino that kind of thing. That business did decline the entire business, including the casino and sports, decline fractionally 1.5% in Q4 year over year. The poker component of that which is obviously PokerStars declined 10% year over year. They’re both big declines is the first time that the group as a whole has declined in basically in recent history since they launched sports betting and casino which have been very successful and it’s the first time it’s declined. Poker is fairly static.

That was a big drop. Going back to constant currency, which we talked back in the last segment they apparently suffered greatly from currency fluctuations in that quarter. They say poker declined 4.4%. The segment as a whole actually increased fractionally 3% or 4% and it’s going off memory. Overall that was a fairly weak quarter for them. The positive is over the course of the year of 2018 online poker PokerStars did grow fractionally about 1, 1.1% if I recall. Along with the casino and the sportsbook, it grew double digits I’m pretty sure. They were the top line numbers from like that international segment.

Mike: To recap poker up for all of 2018 but down let’s call it 4% to be fair with constant currency in Q4, correct? What are some of the reasons that we saw their decline? Listening to the call it seemed that they were quite focused on Russia when talking about the decline and poker?

Nick: Yes, I think it’s fair to say that they were— It was a little bit cagey for the reasons from previous conference calls. They have openly talked about some of these problems. In this call there were really only two things on Russia was the only specific thing that was talked about in the opening segment of the investors call. They have been facing regulatory headwinds in Russia and PokerStars is uniquely exposed to the Russian market. I think again they do not disclose this, but we have estimated that it’s probably 10% to 12% of the revenue in again this international segment comes from Russia. That has faced some issues which we talked about in Q2. I mean they highlighted back in Q1, Q2. They suffered from declines in Q3. They talked in Q3 that they thought these issues would be resolved quickly.

It certainly looks like that there was— That continued into Q4 and they talked about that they expect this to continue into this year. Although they do reassure investors that they have a positive outlook on the market.

Mike: Yes, and what I was able to decipher is the actual headwinds that are affecting their poker revenue in Russia are their ability to get transactions processed, financial transactions processed and their ability to openly market to players. Would you say that’s correct?

Nick: Yes. I think with broad strokes there that the main issues they’re focusing it’s not a white market should we say in terms of any online gaming company operating that and without getting into the real nitty gritty of the situation because it’s a fairly complex topic. Over Q4 posts did launch a PokerStars Sochi client, which we can only assume is specifically to neutralize or mitigate some of the problems they’re facing.

All we can say as obviously these problems do you continue to stay. A 4.4% decline is significant. That was the only major reason they gave. It was also hinted out that they had there an app removes and some app stores, Norway was mentioned and it’s something that we have talked about in the last quarter. That was unknown headwind. But they were the only two major ones. When we actually think so on the yearly front. They did increase poker in 2018 as a whole. That’s with the withdrawal from Australia, which was a big market that they withdrew from in the summer of 2017.

The fact that they grew in 2018 despite that shows that they can mitigate and grow despite regulatory pressures.

Mike: They did caution or try to temper expectations by saying that their goal is to grow their poker product by small amounts consistently.

Nick: Yes. To be fair, they have done that. 2017 was growth over 2016 and again, 2018 on 2017 and there’s favorable variable winds as well with obviously European share liquidity has been a big bonus for them. There’s regulation in the Netherlands coming regulations in Sweden will ultimately be positive, but there will be upfront costs involved in these new markets. The US is something positive to look towards potentially, Brazil potentially Argentina. All these were touched on in the call but just going back to what we’re talking about at the start, a lot was on the integrations with Sky Bet, the performance of the Australia market, these kinds of things.

Mike: They also seem to have a positive outlook on Italy and their potential to join the European share liquidity pool.

Nick: Yes. That was brought up again. There were some interesting questions actually during the Q and A segment. That was one of them. I didn’t think anything was said other than we’re still hopeful that it could happen. It would be a huge benefit to PokerStars. They are by far the largest operator in Italy. They are currently neck and neck with Winamax in terms of— That’s with Winamax they’re not in Portugal yet, and they’ve only just launched in Spain. The addition of Italy will be a huge win for them and would really help on the competitive front. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d say anything other than that. Everything that we’re hearing from Italy is that there was lobbying going on and there was a political pressures and there’s nothing really stopping it happening other than the right person signing off on it. They’re always going to say they’re hopeful. It’s going to be good for- it’s good for them, especially but it’ll be good for the whole industry. It’s obviously good for players. Fingers crossed that does happen.

Mike: Another area that I found interesting was their talk about the US market. Now, when they’re talking about US market, they are also considering the potential for sports betting. They specifically said that they have seen no slowdown or drop off in progress in their US operations as a result of the new DoJ opinion. I thought that was quite interesting. They continue to maintain positive momentum I believe as the words that they used within the US.

Nick: Yes. The US strategy for the Stars Group is interesting in the sense that the company that they acquired Sky Betting and Gaming experts in sports betting have done exceptionally well in the UK market. They don’t have particular knowledge of what emerging growth opportunities which are United States and potentially South America with Brazil, in particular, looking it’s going to pass potentially sports betting only bill. They have for a lot of money bought a company with a great brand and a lot of expertise.

It’s also a market that they were already doing well and perhaps not in sports betting and they definitely needed a leg up there. In terms of online poker obviously, they’re massive here. Yes, they need to justify this cost with these new markets. They certainly do not have- they’re facing some extremely tough competition entrenched competition in the United States and other operators with assets already in the market and better penetration in the market.

Pennsylvania Online Poker Launch and Wire Act Update

That plays nicely into what I suppose has come to a regular feature on this podcast which is Mike updating us on all the terrible things happening in the United States. There has been a couple of things this week which we want to talk.

Mike: Yes. The DOJ did come out as reported by gambling compliance. They got confirmation from the Department of Justice that they have extended their period- their compliance period by another 60 days which puts that date out to June 14th. That is the date that they want to make sure that everybody is in compliance by.

Nick: If I was to ask why do you think they did that?

Mike: Well, there is a lot of reasons why they did that. There is speculation out there that they want to give some of the court cases times to mature and perhaps avoid having to make any enforcement decisions based on the outcome of those court cases. The Department of Justice is going through a transition period itself. We do have a new attorney general in the US as we talked about in previous episodes.

There is probably a lot more pressing issues that the Department of Justice has as a whole going on in the US right now. I don’t find it surprising that they’ve put that off at all. It is interesting to see that that June 14th date does fall right within the time frame that the World Series of Poker is going to be going on in Las Vegas. As we know that’s an issue there because it has yet to be determined if players in New Jersey are going to be able to participate in the online events as they were able to do last year.

Nick: Maybe it’s just I’m an eternal optimist, but could this be seen as a positive light that if they are delaying it 60 days in part due to pending court cases against this decision it shows that they feel that there is some merit that this opinion will be reversed?

Mike: Yes. Well, the opinion itself came from a regime that is is gone from the DOJ. I believe at the time that that happened Jeff Sessions was still the attorney general. Then we went to Matthew Whitaker, who was the acting attorney general. Now, we’ve got a bar in that position so there has been a lot of transition over time. I do think that it is definitely a positive momentum or at least has the potential to be.

Nick: Yes. This news quickly impacted the situation in Pennsylvania as well.

Mike: Pennsylvania has officially came out and said that the DOJ opinion did cause a delay to their launch where they’ve given us some time frame. We’ve had some comments from the gaming board in a hearing this past last week that was at the end of last week that have given us some insights into what’s going on there. They’re looking at three to four months before they launch which puts us end of June, early July. They have, if you recall once the DOJ opinion came out, they gave operators 30 days to say, “Hey, we realize that this is a change from what you may have been planning. We want plans of how you are going to comply with this new opinion.”

The interesting thing is that 30 day period has well expired and their comments in the hearing this past week were and I quote, “They have begun to receive replies.” It sounds like they’re cutting some slack to the operators but that things are still quite up in the air. They also mentioned that they’re still working on some things, one of which is making sure that all of the servers and ancillary equipment is fully housed within the state.

Another thing that they’ve also mentioned is they’re still in the process of testing and certifying the let’s call them problem gambling features of the software to make sure that players have the ability to limit their time on a site or limit the amount of money that they’re losing. Those things are still in the testing phase. That leads me to believe that the delay is not entirely due to the DOJ opinion.

They’ve also claimed that they are and I quote, “Very far along with the licensing process.” If they’re not yet complete with that, that tends to tell me that there’s delays that are attributable to things outside of the DOJ opinion.

Nick: It’s interesting that I didn’t know and maybe this is just going to be the case of it that it’s almost like each state has to reinvent the wheel when it comes to responsible gambling measures and compliance and testing where this has already been done in three states.

Mike: I don’t think it’s a matter of reinventing the wheel. I’m sure that they are leveraging the successes of other regulatory bodies in the US and probably around the world when it comes to developing the requirements for this. It’s now just a matter of testing that the software is compliant and certifying it. That’s how I see that playing out there. The other thing that came out of that hearing was we for the first time heard the gaming board express concern about the banks and how they’re going to react to the DOJ opinion.

Knowing that that’s on their mind is I guess adds a bit more legitimacy to the topic and I think that that is perhaps in a cautionary type of conversation that they were having with the Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of, “Hey, this is how much money we can expect to be fulfilled in our budget that comes from online gaming.”

Nick: Right because this is a key point from our perspective, we might be focusing on the wire act interpretation and how it applies to online poker, which is fairly clear cut terrible for online poker because it’s going to stop liquidity pooling across state borders. If that were the only impact then as much as it’s bad for the online poker industry, the much wider online gaming sports betting industry might feel they’re less impacted. When we start talking about financial transactions this all of a sudden now we’re talking about online gaming as a whole and that’s a much bigger, bigger topic, a much bigger concern for stakeholders.

Mike: Right. Even if it were the case that it was limited to the shared liquidity for online poker, which it’s not, but let’s say that it was the financial institutions have no way of determining if a deposit or withdrawal is related to online poker or online casino, for example, which may be completely housed within the state. If they are taking the most conservative view, they are going to throttle financial transactions as a whole because they are not able to discern which ones are related to poker and which ones aren’t.

Changes to Automated Seating Scripts

Nick: Just quickly glancing at the clock here we are running really over time but there’s one more topic we want to touch on very quickly because it was something that we followed a lot in this podcast. Since episode 1 when we first released the details of PokerStars and changing the third party software policy on automated seating scripts that policy actually came into effect on Monday and we have an interesting article up on poker fuse yesterday, definitely worth checking out where we discuss the topic from the perspective of many of the developers of these tools and how they are trying to get around or mitigate the impact.

Mike: Yes, that piece on Pokerfuse was written by Anuj who reached out to a number of different seating script developers or companies that provide that service to get their thoughts on what has changed since this thing, the new policy was implemented and what they’re doing to keep their business viable going forward.

What we found is that, they are trying to find new areas to differentiate.

For example, the seating scripts are limited that they cannot use notes or any behavior of play of the opponents in order to determine where to seek the user, instead what we found that they’re doing is they’re trying to identify other criteria that can help them determine if the table is soft or full of rags. For example, they’re looking at things like when a new player joins a table and what they’re saying is rags usually don’t sit rex, if a new player joins a table, it is most likely a recreational player.

Mike: I find this fascinating for two reasons. One is that, PokerStars has implemented this policy to encourage a certain behavior and that is not this quick seating predatory behavior, and with policies like that in mind implemented by these tools, It’s almost finding a loophole or finding okay, we’re not going to directly use this but we’re going to use this proxy for this, the end result will be the same. I wonder if this becomes prevalent that PokerStars will just implemented a complete ban on tools that see players. I wonder if they didn’t even consider this as a clever workaround?

Mike: Right. Part of the risk is, or part of the difference is, when it comes to using notes that players have, or HUD statistics, that very accurately can identify softer tables or recreational players. The criteria that they’re using now, I think there’s still some question of whether or not it’s going to be effective in identifying the softer tables. We talked about when a new player joins a table, and other thing that they’re doing is trying to determine how quickly tables are filling and giving users of those seating scripts the ability to configure their software to allow them to join or to sit them at tables that are filling quickly thinking that those are being filled with new players or recreational players.

Another thing that Anuj was able to determine from talking with some of these developers is that they are offering users the ability to blacklist tables. For example, if the seating script pulls up a table and the user scans it and says, “You know what, this tables too tough for me,” and closes it down, they can then configure that seating script to be able to not open that table again for a certain period of time.

Mike: It just feels same to me, and it’s just my opinion here, and maybe you disagree Mike, that, now we’re almost going to bit of an arms race, they’re going to implement this and then PokerStars would just say, “Not this.” I didn’t because it’s following like the letter of the law but not the not the spirit.

Mike: The spirit of the law.

Mike: Exactly. It leads me to wonder like, why didn’t PokerStars just stop it entirely and that avoids these kind of loopholes. Obviously, I think the answer there is that, seating scripts overall are positive, right? It means a place it’s done they want full tables, they think that’s a better experience, it’s better from the operators perspective just from the right perspective and they want for labels.

This is why fast folders is so popular and the recreation page generally doesn’t want to play two or three handed on six on table, they want a full table. The reality is that, they want the tables to fill fast, they just want them to fill fast in not a predatory manner I suppose?

Mike: Yes. That’s the main advantage for the operator looking at seating scripts is, it reduces the time that players have to table select, the time of them looking through the lobby is now time that they are seated at the table because they have this tool that seats them more quickly. Which means, more hands are played with more players and more rake is generated. That’s the advantage that they’re seeing there. Like you point out, it’s just a matter of balance, and can they put restrictions in place that greatly reduce the predatory behavior behind it? If they can reduce that by a certain percentage, and still get the advantages of having more players at more tables more often, that’s probably the balance that they’re looking for.


Nick: We just about crammed in all the topics that we wanted to talk about.

Mike: Yes, one more topic that I think we should discuss is the additional way that the audience can consume the podcast. Why don’t you tell us a bit about that?

Nick: We have from last week we experimented a bit with posting up the full transcript of this podcast. Although I wanted to ask you that, Mike. Last week’s episode is 35 minutes, including music. How many words do you think we spoke?

Mike: 35 minutes music, I’m going to say five grand. [laughs]

Nick: 6000, you’re not far off. We are placing that transcript on the website. If you’ve got this far, obviously you’ve listened to the whole thing. Maybe if you want to go back, read a section, pull out some of the text with personal use It’s not a 100% perfect, accurate. I think the response so far has been very good, so we’re going to do this for a while. Do let us know what you think.

Mike: I have a question though.

Nick: Shoot.

Mike: When someone goes to the transcript now, as we mentioned earlier, I’ve been out of the office a bit this week, so I haven’t been able to fully play with it, but it looks like you can go to a particular segment and hit play and it automatically plays that segment. Is that correct?

Nick: It’s very cool. We’re time stamping just the different sections. At the top, you’ll have a little table of contents of the different segments that we’ve talked about and you can click on it, it’ll jump down to that portion of the transcript.

If you hit the play button there, next to that kind of chapter marker, it will start the podcast playing there. You can jump around different sections and just listen to one section or read one section if you want to. We only did it for the last episode. It’s a really popular maybe we can transcribe the previous ones as well so we’ve got a full library. We’re definitely going to do it moving ahead for now and see how it goes.

Mike: I think that’s pretty cool. I haven’t seen that for any other podcast so I’m pretty excited for [crosstalk]

speaker 1: We’re settings new trends in the podcasting world, Mike.

Mike: [laughs] All right. Cool. I think that’s about everything for the week. Thank you for joining us and we’ll see you soon.