What's the best approach to reviewing HHs?

[Oluwafemi]

i'm looking for ways to improve my game by looking at individual hands i played, especially the ones that i've lost. only problem is, quite a few of the hands i'm losing are as favorites and are just unfortunate luck. tonight, i never lost a hand until we got down to the bubble and was dealt J 2 offsuit. the flop came 2 2 and some other card. it was checked around to me and i bet 3/4ths the pot and was reraised all-in. i thought for awhile then called the rest of my chips [a little over 2K] and the guy showed A 2 offsuit. i'm out in 4th with no payday. in the another SNG just before that one, i reraise all-in as the shortstack after limping with A K offsuit and am called by the raiser who shows A 10 suited. the flop hits K 10 and someother card but the river spikes another 10 so i'm out in 7th.

frankly, after losing those two hands, i don't see how reviewing those two hands in my HHs would've somehow changed the outcome. those were just two unfortunate situations where you just have to shake your head. but for those who do get a benefit out of combing through their HHs what are some things i should be looking for? is there a lesson that can be learned from losing hands in this fashion that i just can't see? any tips on how doing this [HHs]can improve your game?

[mrobi322]

Obviously, reviewing the hand histories wouldn't have changed the outcome there, but you can definitely find where you made mistakes.

The first situation was just unfortunate. It's always difficult to lay down a set.

In the second case, I don't understand why you limped with AK, especially on the short stack. Its good to randomize your play, but limping with a strong hand on the short stack is rarely the right play unless you're 95% sure there's a raise coming behind you.

Regardless of the fact that you lost after the cards were out, it would have been better for you to go all in right off the bat or at least put in a significant portion of your stack. The bigger stacks would have called with a multitude of hands that you have strongly beaten (like ace ten).

[spentrent]

If you know you always play correctly, then hand history review is useless.

Congrats!

[lorinda]

Assume you made a mistake at the beginning of the review.
See if you can make a good case for it being a mistake, even if it's an awful case, make it anyway... you may learn something in similar situations.

EG:

Hand 1:

You're on the bubble, maybe you should fold any two cards here.
He knows this and still wants to push, he must have the nuts.

Hand 2:

You have invited a gambling situation with AK by limp re-raising.
As it happens the opponent showed AT and you had him dominated, but he could easily have shown 77 and you'd have been out of the tournament half of the time.
Did your limp encourage this guy to gamble with you? Was it really neccessary to gamble at this stage? Could you have seen a flop before pushing? Would this have got him out?


Clearly hand 1 is just a farce, but make the case anyway, it may not help you play that exact hand any better, but you may still learn something from it.

Hand 2 raises all kinds of interesting questions, some of which will almost certainly apply to similar situations even if they do or don't apply to the hand you actually saw.

Lori

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Assume you made a mistake at the beginning of the review.
See if you can make a good case for it being a mistake, even if it's an awful case, make it anyway... you may learn something in similar situations.

EG:

Hand 1:

You're on the bubble, maybe you should fold any two cards here.
He knows this and still wants to push, he must have the nuts.

Hand 2:

You have invited a gambling situation with AK by limp re-raising.
As it happens the opponent showed AT and you had him dominated, but he could easily have shown 77 and you'd have been out of the tournament half of the time.
Did your limp encourage this guy to gamble with you? Was it really neccessary to gamble at this stage? Could you have seen a flop before pushing? Would this have got him out?


Clearly hand 1 is just a farce, but make the case anyway, it may not help you play that exact hand any better, but you may still learn something from it.

Hand 2 raises all kinds of interesting questions, some of which will almost certainly apply to similar situations even if they do or don't apply to the hand you actually saw.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

...a little more clarification

Hand 1. i was in the BB with two limpers and the SB [chipleader] who completed in an unraised pot. the last couple of orbits or so, he had either been raising my blind or completing it [everytime i had no hand]. a hand damn near tailor-made to seal your fate. all three players that were left including the guy who beat me could feel my pain. everybody at the table knew it was the only hand i lost all game.

Hand 2. part of the reason i limped reraised with A K was because the table texture was loose, i was out of position, the raiser [chipleader] was raising alot of pots and i planned on reraising all-in if he did on this hand, and the blinds were 50/100 so if i missed the flop i still had 9BBs to work with in other spots.

[lorinda]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the play was bad, I'm just saying that a good way to learn is to assume the play was bad and work backwards.

Lori

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the play was bad, I'm just saying that a good way to learn is to assume the play was bad and work backwards.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it's cool. my first go 'round was just lightly touching on two hands i lost but i never really hit on any other specific dynamics that alot of posters may feel are importatnt. can you give an example of assuming a play was bad and working backwards on it.