In Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) defense counsel requested a limiting instruction which was denied. We reviewed the case to see if the trial judge's failure to give a limiting instruction on extraneous offenses caused the defendant "some harm." If there had been no objection at trial we would have looked to see if the defendant suffered "egregious harm." We look to see if Varelas has shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome would have been different. Although the majority looks at the effect of the judge not giving instructions on the extraneous acts, the majority does not look at how the outcome would have been different if trial counsel had not made the errors they are claiming. So under the majority's theory, if trial counsel had not made these errors, the jury would have received a charge that included a limiting and reasonable doubt instruction.