Notes on Players

[yabastid]

So I've been taking notes on players as much as possible for the last couple of months (primarily at the 22s)and I can't remember the last time I've played with a player I have a previous note on. Are there that many people playing the 22s or am I losing my notes? This seems weird.

yabastid

[WarDekar]

What kind of notes are you making? If you make notes about bad players, I think your answer is clear. If you're making notes about good players, I see the same guys relatively often because of the volume I play, I don't write notes but I remember for the most part.

[yabastid]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of notes are you making? If you make notes about bad players, I think your answer is clear. If you're making notes about good players, I see the same guys relatively often because of the volume I play, I don't write notes but I remember for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

95% Bad Players. . . hmm.

[fluorescenthippo]

there are that many players at the 22s. my massive amount of notes is only helping now at the 55s.

There are a lot of new ppl that join each day and flood some of the mid buy-in tournies, so you may not run into the same ppl very often. Some players may have moved up or down in accordance with the rise and fall of their bankrolls as well.

[The Don]

After 1600 $22s there are probably only 20 or so players that I have played with in over 20 games (these are the only players where I actually note tendencies). Most are horrible players that are single tabling and playing for fun. There are a ton of players that I have played with 5-10 times though and I just have them noted as "suspected 2+2er" or "solid player" (assuming they are that is). I loosen my call standards a bit and try to sit to their right. Also I become far more suspicious if they start to get aggressive early game.

[eastbay]

My general feeling is that notes are a waste of time through $55, and become valuable at $109 and presumably even more so at $215, although I don't play there.

eastbay

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
My general feeling is that notes are a waste of time through $55, and become valuable at $109 and presumably even more so at $215, although I don't play there.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, for me at least they are useful. I have a hard time remembering the tendencies of 36 players for an hour, so it helps to have jotted down something come level 4.

[eastbay]

You use them _within_ one game? That never even occurred to me. To each his own.

eastbay

[Mr_J]

"and try to sit to their right"

I couldn't even think of doing this, the tables just fill up so quickly I fire in the general direction of the corner I want (yeh I try to sit in the corners /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
My general feeling is that notes are a waste of time through $55, and become valuable at $109 and presumably even more so at $215, although I don't play there.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree. In my exp at the lower limits I didn't see enough repeat opponents to make notetaking particularyl useful. At the 100s its not uncommon to sit at a table with 5+ familiar names.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
You use them _within_ one game? That never even occurred to me. To each his own.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I wish I had a better memory.

[Ryendal]

I am really interested by what type of note you take.
Do you write something like " He called me with XX at blind XX etc, vrey hard to describe all the situation "

How do you simplify your note ? What is useful ?

[Bonafone]

I use a very simple strategy for taking notes:

1. Multi-tabler (whenever i see a name on more than 1 table)

2. Donk, followed by a brief note of what category they fall in.

a) bluffer or b?) caller

3. AVOID

[Ryendal]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Multi-tabler (whenever i see a name on more than 1 table)


[/ QUOTE ]

It is so obvious, now you tell it !

[ QUOTE ]
2. Donk, followed by a brief note of what category they fall in.

a) bluffer or b?) caller

3. AVOID

[/ QUOTE ]

It really ok for me.

for the bluffer and caller note. At which point do you put on them a note ? because it's so relative