On the value of hand historys and of telling a tale

[happybhoy]

Before I start i'd just like to point out that I am not flaming the posting of hand histories per se. They generate some great discussions and theorising but my question is I see a lot of advise or opinions posted about these that seem pretty set about how this or that should be played. Now I've been playing a couple of years now but still consider myself relatively green, althought the boys got some game, so if I'm talking out my arse I apologise.

I can't see how HH's can really adequately describe the situation. They are so removed from the context of the game that aside from highlighting some strategy points I can't see a massive use in them. In any hand i've played your decision is made from cards, position, chips, reads, the past five hands, the past ten hands, that hand right at the start where billybigcards pulled a snazzy move, in short I think each game as a tale. If 3-way I've folded 10 hands then I can afford to put in a large bet with 22 as I've 'bought' respect for my raise. Conversely if I hit a rush and have won the past 6 hands unseen by min-raise preflop and all-in of the flop (with justification) then I can consider mucking that KT as people are primed to come over the top of me because I've sold the respectability of my raises and I don't want to face an all-in re-raise. (PS I'm talking about late stages of an SNG in these examples).

As I said before I'm not trying to flick peebles at the hornets nest and if I'm wrong then I'm open to being convinced but my instinctive position is negative.

<*Lights blue touch paper and retreats to safe distance*>

[PrayingMantis]

This is a great post and I completely agree with you. Thinking about a specific hand without the context of the whole game (I like your analogy to a tale, I often think about it that way), and the impact of many many variables, is doing only a very small part of the job.

However, especially for relatively new players, it is better, IMO, to think in terms of hand-to-hand tactics. When you are beyond this level, then what you say is absolutely true. There is much more to it than the one decision you are making on one specific flop. That's why it's such a complex game, especially if you want to excell in it, not just being a "winning player". For those who are interested in winning *something* (i.e - not losing), specific hands' HHs are enough, and so are rigid guides for how to play certain games (which, again, can serve well as a starting point).

[happybhoy]

Cheers for the reply, it's nice to know that my thinking isn't totally sqewed (squwed,sqewed how do you spell that? ah - skewed). I recently read a post where the guy had a link to a hand replayer he got flamed a wee bit for not posting it in 2+2 format but I thought that it was a brilliant way to post. I find HH's quite hard to visualise and I thought the replayer made it a lot more straight forward. In fact, in keeping with the whole game as a story analogy I think that posting a full SNG or larger portions that can be put through a replayer would be an excellent educational tool. Admittedly the posts would be quite long but I think the pay-off would be worth it in the longer run.

PS Does anyone know of replayers for UB HH's?

[Stoneii]

I think you have a very fair point but a lot of HH's that are posted are often accompanied by at least a small extract from the "story".

You know
I'm in MP and have a tight image because....
EP is a loosey goose because......
Big stack is a luck bag and a calling station...

which at least goes part way to paint some of the picture for the reader. The ensuing debate then can often fill in a lot of the blanks and take the reader in several directions.

Well, if he previously did this then.....or if your read was x then do y ...otherwise....

They always give me great food for thought

Good post though

stoneii

[happybhoy]

Cheers for the reply

I get what your saying and I do enjoy reading them and maybe its just been some of the threads I've read but its more the definitive nature of some of the responses that bothers me. Like I say I don't consider myself to be an authoritive voice on poker and I've worried that I've totally got the wrong end of the poker stick. My problem is thats I'm looking to up my SNG stats but I'm struggling to see where to find them. I don't think that posting one-off HH's is that helpful. There are times where I've pushed too far or not far enough. I guess what I need to look at is something like pokertracker so I can see what hands/positions/situations are costing me. Although being a UB player doesn't help there as pokertracker doesn't support UB SNG's yet. Is this the best way to track your play if you have a decent grasp of general hand-for-hand play?

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how HH's can really adequately describe the situation. They are so removed from the context of the game that aside from highlighting some strategy points I can't see a massive use in them. In any hand i've played your decision is made from cards, position, chips, reads, the past five hands, the past ten hands, that hand right at the start where billybigcards pulled a snazzy move, in short I think each game as a tale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I disagree generally, I've found them very useful.

A HH shows cards, position, chips. The only thing it can't show is your 'read' on the player - which is based on the previous play, both in this SNG and perhaps in past games. Although your 'read' can be mentioned in the post, I think this is often subjective based on the outcome of that hand, not previous play (e.g. "I know this is a bad call but like this guy bluffed like the last 10 hands").

I think there is too much emphasis on reads in the lower limits. I think in 90% of situations, there's a theoretical 'correct' answer based on chips, position and cards, regardless of anything but the most extreme of 'reads' (and in the case of extreme players it is probably less subjective).

Hand-histories seem a great way of introducing a thread on strategy discussion - e.g. this is how i played a flush draw in EP, here's a few hands of me on the bubble, whatever. From their people can give and recieve direct criticism that can then be applied to their game as a whole.

I think the main problems of current hand-histories threads being posted is

a) They are subjective (should I have folded here? how big would you have made this played?), and
b) The results are posted in the original message.
c) People reply as if their answer is fact, not opinion. However good you are, your play will always be opinion.

[happybhoy]

Cheers for the reply (is it just me or is this too repetative a way to open a post).

I agree that they are a great way of opening thread and starting a discussion and I've read some interesting stuff but as you stated its the black/white yes/no nature of a large number of them that struck me as just plain wrong. Sure the HHs give you cards,position and chips but even generalised read info is lacking in detail (this is not necessarily the fault of the poster, for brevities sake you just can't put all the detail into a post). Its alright describing player X as a loosey-goosey (i like that one) but there is an infinate number of loose players - its hard to get a scope on what flavour they are and how it relates to the posted hand (not to mention if the posters problem is misreading players /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

I've been mulling this one over during work today and I think that replayers coupled with full or large hand histories would be an excellent way of examing a posters play because

- Its not selective - you get to see all the hands played, I'm sure we all have little idiosyncracies (mine used to be calling with 74 cause its my favourite number - I stopped when I hit the magic flop of 774 and I've never done it again). The worst holes are going to be the ones you don't even realise you have.

- You have can see the whole texture of the game as its played out, making that isolated questionable play a great one

- Its a damn sight easier to follow. Or maybe its just a practise thing with reading HH's

I realise that posting full HH's onto the forum is probably unacceptable and I don't know if the technology exists beyond the one I've seen but I'd be interested to see this kind of thing emerge.

[gergery]

You’re correct, but so what?

1. Analyzing a 1-hand situation with some context is better than sittin here in the dark with only me thumb up me arse for help in figuring out what to do.

2. Posters thought processes come out which helps others how to think, not just how to play that particular posted hand

3. Replies usually converge around a couple ways to play a hand that are generally better than a couple other way to play a hand, which helps you rule out some options you might have considered. Many threads say “probably X, maybe Y, but Z is awful”

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
You’re correct, but so what?

1. Analyzing a 1-hand situation with some context is better than sittin here in the dark with only me thumb up me arse for help in figuring out what to do.

2. Posters thought processes come out which helps others how to think, not just how to play that particular posted hand

3. Replies usually converge around a couple ways to play a hand that are generally better than a couple other way to play a hand, which helps you rule out some options you might have considered. Many threads say “probably X, maybe Y, but Z is awful”

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all good points, but it is also extremely important to understand that what makes the difference in SNG play between OK, good and great players is the short-handed phaze (bubble and ITM play) play. If you are thinking about the SH play in terms of hand-for-hand, you just can't go very far. It is very much a matter of "feel", accurate reads, previous history with the specific opponents and other factors, like variance considerations and the like. There is much less "right" and "wrong", but more: best strategy against X and Y opponents at X and Y positions, stacks etc.

Still, analyzing 1 hand is very helpful at times, and it is certainly better than nothing. However, with me at least, I tend to think more in terms of what I did wrong (or right) in the process of the whole game, as a unit, and less in terms of specific decision in a certain hand, although that's where it all starts, of course.

[happybhoy]

CFTR

"You’re correct, but so what?"

Well to begin with I didn't know if I was, I'm sure I've seen it written that each hand should be played on its own and bears no correlation to any that have gone before it (although I believe that was in the context of going on tilt cos you feel your 'due' a win after a bad beat). I was interested in others opinions. Also I was at pains to point out that I wasn't trying to hammer nails into singular HH's but since my first post I'm quite sold on the idea of replayers. I don't disagree with anything you said but am interested in better ways to examine my game.