session review, SSSH style

[numeri]

Hello all,

I know many of you are transplants from the Micros, (myself included) so you may already be familiar with this idea. For those that aren't, let me give a short synopsis.

The premise is that there are lots of us here looking to get opinions from others. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone to look at your entire hand history? We tried initially the idea of a "Microposter", who got to post an entire session anonymously and have everyone comment on it. That died after about 3 rotations.

So, why not just have one other person look at your session? That's when nomadtla suggested the "session review" idea. (Check out the original thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=micro&Number=3691014&Sear chpage=4&Main=3691014&Words=%2Bsession+-re%3A&topic=&Search=true#Post3691014), a poll (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=micro&Number=3698440&Sear chpage=4&Main=3698440&Words=%2Bsession+-re%3A&topic=&Search=true#Post3698440) about the format, and the other threads here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=micro&Number=3742181&Sear chpage=3&Main=3742181&Words=%2Bsession+-re%3A&topic=&Search=true#Post3742181), here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=micro&Number=3865317&Sear chpage=2&Main=3865317&Words=%2Bsession+-re%3A&topic=&Search=true#Post3865317), and here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=micro&Number=3978555&Sear chpage=1&Main=3978555&Words=%2Bsession+-re%3A&topic=&Search=true#Post3978555).)

Now that we have a real forum for small (and micro) stakes short-handed play, hopefully we'll get more people interested. Here's the way it works:

1. send me a PM saying you would like to be included
2. wait
3. by Monday evening, I will send you two usernames - the one you will be reviewing, and your reviewer<font color="blue">*</font>
4. PM your email to the 2+2er you will be reviewing
5. email a recent session (&lt;200 hands) to your reviewer
6. review the session you were sent and reply via email, PM, AIM, etc.
7. discuss

<font color="blue">*</font>I find this a bit clumsy and unnecessarily confusing - it seems better to just pair you up with someone. But, the people spoke in the original poll, so that's the way it's been. If there is no strong movement, we'll keep it that way.

I find it easiest to import the session into PT and then play the hands back from there. Then I'll pick out the ones I find interesting and send an email back with my comments. Sometimes more discussion will follow from a particularly difficult hand, sometimes not.

So I hope that's clear. The more I type, the more I realize how it may not make sense. Please post any comments or questions here, and PM me (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sendprivate.php?Cat=&amp;User=32089&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number =3698802&amp;what=showflat&amp;page=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1) to get on the list.

Monday, Dec 5th, ~6pm CST is the deadline.

Thanks,
~Dan

P.S. I just realized that this post sounds very dry. I should mention that I've really enjoyed this so far. I find it a learning experience to think about someone else's hands just as much as it is to get feedback on my one. I highly recommend it, regardless of your skill level.

[Koss]

I'd just like to add that so far I've learned a lot from these reviews. The leaks in your game will be much more obvious from having someone else look at 100 of your hands, as opposed to looking at one or two. I have done this the last month, and will keep doing it as long as there is interest.

I was thinking of trying to get something liek this together but with videos because replaying hand histories just kills me you can 4 table for like 20 mins and get in lots of hands to debate on. If anyone wants to exchange a weekly video ro something with me PM me

edit: sorry for the hijack kinda

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of trying to get something liek this together but with videos because replaying hand histories just kills me you can 4 table for like 20 mins and get in lots of hands to debate on. If anyone wants to exchange a weekly video ro something with me PM me

edit: sorry for the hijack kinda

[/ QUOTE ]
No worries on the hijack. I like the video idea, but hand histories are easily accessible for those of use without the time/inclination/skill to make a video. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

good point i just really enjoy watching videos because i forgot how to read

Sounds like a great idea. Im definitely interested.

HOwever, are you going to make any attempt to match people up by level of play or the site at which they play? Somethings that are quite profitable on the Party 1/2 game are definite losers on Absolute 1/2.

[numeri]

I think the idea of matching people up based on site and level is good, but I don't think we have the numbers for it. Particularly because the plan was in the past to match you up with 2 people - one to review your hands and one for you to review. It's just not possible to do that all within individual sites and then individual levels.

That is, unless you want to organize it. I'm trying to do as little as possible. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of matching people up based on site and level is good, but I don't think we have the numbers for it. Particularly because the plan was in the past to match you up with 2 people - one to review your hands and one for you to review. It's just not possible to do that all within individual sites and then individual levels.

That is, unless you want to organize it. I'm trying to do as little as possible. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing it just by limit shouldn't be that hard. You could use excel. Just have one column with the players name the other with the big blind at whatever limit they play and then sort the data by the big blind column. Then just pair the first person with the second and so on. I don't think matching people based on site is productive. I mean I've played at every major poker site.

[numeri]

I agree about the sites. I don't want to change too much this time, but we can consider changing the pairing system for next time.

I'm not necessarily adamant about mixing up the levels, but I think it's helpful to see how people on other levels are playing. Most things we're doing are really opponent dependent, not level-dependent. It's just that certain levels are geenrally occupied by different types of opponents. (If that makes any sense.)

If there is a general consensus that this should be split up by level, we can definitely do that for the holiday edition.

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a great idea. Im definitely interested.

HOwever, are you going to make any attempt to match people up by level of play or the site at which they play? Somethings that are quite profitable on the Party 1/2 game are definite losers on Absolute 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Good poker is good poker no matter where you are. If you're playing on Party, you may be up against more donks, which means that mistakes aren't as costly, and that you'll be making more plays against donks. There are donks at Absolute, though, and there are TAGs at Party. That's what reads are for. As a reviewer, you look at the session, you see who's showing down what, and you can make some inferences about who's the donk and who's the TAG. If you see a hand that you disagree with, but where a certain read might make it acceptable, you ask the player. Your phrasing sounds like people are playing LHE on Party and Royal Holdem on Absolute. The two are nowhere near that different.

[imported_leader]

Abs. doesn't have royal hold'em. That's UB

[Mister Z]

I love this idea. I'll be sending a PM.

[Disconnected]

This has been a fun activity -- sent you a PM. Thanks for bringing the idea over here.

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
Abs. doesn't have royal hold'em. That's UB

[/ QUOTE ]

http://medent.usyd.edu.au/photos/nit.jpg

[milesdyson]

that is the splitting of a hair.

btw, i'm in, and i think the site-specific stuff is pointless.

[Peter Harris]

I am in and will PM, but my sessions may be not regular post-xmas; i would still gladly review another person's session.

Hi Numeri-

I've done one of these so far and I found it really useful. Glad to see it's happening in this forum so I don't have to check micros :-)

However, I think it might be a lot better to pair up people and have us review each others. It's less logistics for everyone concerned and it gives a better chance of actually making friends through the review process (after doing this 10x or so I think it would be great to have a few buddies you work with to improve your game.) At least for me, sending the HH to one person and r/c'ing them from another was a bit impersonal.

I like pairing up people from .5/1 to 10/20, though, I think we can all learn a lot from each other. Regardless of how you do this, I'm in of course, thanks for putting in the effort!

[Guruman]

I'll add my .02 for some nuts and bolts on the actual reviewing process

What I personally do is copy the session into Word and do a couple of quick find/replace searches.

If my reviewee was MrWookie (which it is this time around)
I'll replace
"MrWookie with" - "<font color="blue">MrWookie</font>" (its important to do this one FIRST)
"MrWookie checks" - with "<font color="green">MrWookie checks</font> "
"MrWookie calls" - with "<font color="green"> MrWookie calls</font>"
"MrWookie bets" - with "<font color="red">MrWookie bets</font> "
"MrWookie raises"- with "<font color="red">MrWookie raises</font>"
"MrWookie folds" - with "<font color="purple"> MrWookie folds </font> "

--then I'll copy the whole thing into Excel.--

Here I'll:

Click the column with the hand history (which selects the whole column) then hold shift and select the two columns next to it as well. With all three columns highlighted, right click and select format cells

-click the alignment tab
-set vertical to center
-check the wrap text checkbox

this will format the thing so that it all stays readable in one column. It also gives me a column right next to the hand history where I can post my own comments. Now that the text is set to wrap, when I type the cells automatically expand to accomodate.

The reason I format three columns is so that when I send it back to my reviewee, he can reply to some of my comments in the next cell over and not have to worry about formatting. I'll also tend to change the font color of my own reply column.

Now, I just sit down and go over the session. I'll hit control+F (which opens the find window) and type "dealt." This takes me to the beginning of each hand (as in "dealt to <font color="blue">MrWookie</font> [7s 2h]")

If he folded I'll just click "find next" and move on. If he didn't, I'll go into full on stream of conciousness mode and type what I would do before looking any further in the hand.

Disconnected seemed to really like seeing his whole session reviewed (I'm most of the way done with yours Wookie), and I enjoyed making my own reads on the opponents and advocating plays based on those reads.

I'll post an ex later on when I get to the house. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Guruman]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think it might be a lot better to pair up people and have us review each others. It's less logistics for everyone concerned and it gives a better chance of actually making friends through the review process (after doing this 10x or so I think it would be great to have a few buddies you work with to improve your game.) At least for me, sending the HH to one person and r/c'ing them from another was a bit impersonal.

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience has been different, and I wouldnt mind continuing to work with two different people per session review.

In my own experience, there have invariably been a few hands that needed some back and forth discussion in both sessions, and a few hands that deserved to be posted when a consensus couldn't be reached.


I think that just pairing up would stifle that a little.

Guru, those are good points, and you've done more review sessions than I have. I retract my suggestion until I have enough experience to know what I'm talking about :P

Good tips about reviewing the HH, btw.

[Disconnected]

Yeah, I thought that format was great, but it was really cool how you not only converted the text (MrWookie bets, etc.), but you converted the cards with so that instead of 9h it was <font color="red"> 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif </font>.

[Guruman]

yeah, but changing that stuff ended up being complex. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here's an example (http://www.freewebs.com/rcoronado/poker/review%20ex.xls) of what I just described would look like.

[numeri]

Holy nice response, batman!

23 so far. Keep 'em coming. Excel has 65536 rows, so there's still room left.

[numeri]

Bump for the Saturday crowd. We're up to 27 so far.

As an update, we'll continue with the plan as was done in the past for at least this session: you're paired up with two different people, and all levels/sites will be mixed together. There does not seem to be a significant push to change this layout.

Since this will be the 4th running of it, maybe we can do a status report in a couple weeks to see if the format is still agreeable to everyone.

[Wynton]

Sure, why not? I'm a glutton for discussing hands.

[numeri]

Cool. Just so there's confirmation, here's the list so far:

numeri
bobman0330
Happydaz
DarkKnight
Levarkin
Chairman Wood
CollegeKid
PokerSparky
Peter Harris
MrWookie
scotty34
Disconnected
melquides
Mister Z
krimson
ADDboy
dietlime
milesdyson
mmmmmmbrother
lank4ever
leader
car ramrod
nadical
SnglMaltScotch
PokerPadawan
silencio
Guruman
Wynton
Koss

If you'd like in but aren't on the list, just PM me. (You can post here, but car_ramrod can tell you that it's usually best to send me a PM! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

[livinitup0]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll add my .02 for some nuts and bolts on the actual reviewing process

What I personally do is copy the session into Word and do a couple of quick find/replace searches.

If my reviewee was MrWookie (which it is this time around)
I'll replace
"MrWookie with" - "<font color="blue">MrWookie</font>" (its important to do this one FIRST)
"MrWookie checks" - with "<font color="green">MrWookie checks</font> "
"MrWookie calls" - with "<font color="green"> MrWookie calls</font>"
"MrWookie bets" - with "<font color="red">MrWookie bets</font> "
"MrWookie raises"- with "<font color="red">MrWookie raises</font>"
"MrWookie folds" - with "<font color="purple"> MrWookie folds </font> "

--then I'll copy the whole thing into Excel.--

Here I'll:

Click the column with the hand history (which selects the whole column) then hold shift and select the two columns next to it as well. With all three columns highlighted, right click and select format cells

-click the alignment tab
-set vertical to center
-check the wrap text checkbox

this will format the thing so that it all stays readable in one column. It also gives me a column right next to the hand history where I can post my own comments. Now that the text is set to wrap, when I type the cells automatically expand to accomodate.

The reason I format three columns is so that when I send it back to my reviewee, he can reply to some of my comments in the next cell over and not have to worry about formatting. I'll also tend to change the font color of my own reply column.

Now, I just sit down and go over the session. I'll hit control+F (which opens the find window) and type "dealt." This takes me to the beginning of each hand (as in "dealt to <font color="blue">MrWookie</font> [7s 2h]")

If he folded I'll just click "find next" and move on. If he didn't, I'll go into full on stream of conciousness mode and type what I would do before looking any further in the hand.

Disconnected seemed to really like seeing his whole session reviewed (I'm most of the way done with yours Wookie), and I enjoyed making my own reads on the opponents and advocating plays based on those reads.

I'll post an ex later on when I get to the house. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

freakin' brilliant.

[trainslayer]

I can't commit to making time for a review this round so I'll be sitting out this one. However, here are a couple of my thoughts on the process. (I've only participated once so far.)

1. Send your HH copied and pasted to an email, not as a file attachment. I had a bad experience couple years ago w/an attached file (from a friend - the problem was unintentional) and I won't even open most attachments from people I know personally, let alone someone I don't know. Nothing personal, that's just how I am.

2. Wish there was someway to sort by ability. I don't need to be advising anybody but noob's and maybe not even them. On the other hand I guess I get the best of both worlds - someone to critique my session and then someone to tell me how far off base I am when I screw up the critique of their's. I just think that a system of A-players, B-players, C-players and D-players (kinda like choosin up golf teams) might help. (I would rate myself a C-player and don't think I need to be advising A's or B's.)

edit: I was just thinking how absolutely fabulous guru's system is. I guess I'll have to get over my attachment phobia. It would have to be sent as an attachment wouldn't it?

[numeri]

Hey trainslayer,

Let me address your points:

1. I understand your concern. I don't have a problem with it, but either way works for me. I never open an attachment unless the email has an actual message addressed to me. Most viruses have messages like "hey, open this attachment." Also, there's no need to actually open the HH. I just save it to the desktop, import into PT, then delete it off my desktop. If it's not an actual HH, PT won't be able to read it and that will be that.

2. While I understand your sentiment, I think you're missing the point. All of the very experienced players here (the A-players, as you call them) realize that they're giving much more than they're getting. If they wanted to actually get as much out of this as possible, they'd hire a coach. Don't worry about it. I learn from evaluating the play of others - both good and bad - and I learn from explaining my thought process. So relax - don't feel guilty. You're not 'advising' the A and B players. You're giving your comments on their play and they're explaining their actions. It's all good.

EDIT: I just realized that my comments in part 2 made it sounds like I feel I'm one of the "A" players. Sooooo not true. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[trainslayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I just save it to the desktop, import into PT, then delete it off my desktop. If it's not an actual HH, PT won't be able to read it and that will be that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the tip. I'll try this. Besides my paranoia is probably overkill.


[ QUOTE ]
I think you're missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your right. Thanks agin.

[MrWookie47]

I disagree as well. I think even D players can catch mistakes made by A players. Even if they're not mistakes, it forces the A players to think and defend their position, to the benefit of both. If there are, hypothetically, 1000 things to do right in poker, and an A player does 900 of them right, a Be player does 800, etc, there are no guarantees that the A player is doing everything right that the B player is doing.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree as well. I think even D players can catch mistakes made by A players. Even if they're not mistakes, it forces the A players to think and defend their position, to the benefit of both. If there are, hypothetically, 1000 things to do right in poker, and an A player does 900 of them right, a Be player does 800, etc, there are no guarantees that the A player is doing everything right that the B player is doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[trainslayer]

I have come over from the dark side. I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree as well. I think even D players can catch mistakes made by A players. Even if they're not mistakes, it forces the A players to think and defend their position, to the benefit of both. If there are, hypothetically, 1000 things to do right in poker, and an A player does 900 of them right, a Be player does 800, etc, there are no guarantees that the A player is doing everything right that the B player is doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matter of fact I had begun to agree even before I finished typing out my post. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand I guess I get the best of both worlds - someone to critique my session and then someone to tell me how far off base I am when I screw up the critique of their's.

[/ QUOTE ]

either the way the point is to get the discussion going, not who benefits the most? If I tell you "raise the flop, fold the turn" and you prove to me that "fold the flop, raise the turn" is better, what do I care if I'm the reviewer or the reviewee. Thanks all.

[Dopey]

I just sent a PM as I am interesting in participating, sounds like a great learning tool.

I like that the person your reviewing is not the same person who is reviewing you. It provides a greater chance for you to get a different viewpoints. After reviewing 200 hands from a person you should have an idea of how they play and alot of the comments they would offer you on your play, so someone else doing it should work better.

I would prefer doing it with someone who is willing to do a video (and ive yet to do a video so I would have to learn myself) because if they are using PT and PA it gives a better understanding of the type of player they are playing against. A list at the beginning of the HH's would do that to but you wouldn't see the change of reads throughout a session (also important to see if they take notes when the note was taken, saying your read is a guy will call with any ace doesn't help when im reviewing the 3rd hand and you picked up this read on the 60th hand).

I currently play $1/2 6 max on party. Have only retuned to 6-max in the last week but hope to be at $3/6 by the end of the month.

Dopey /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[numeri]

updated list 12:00pm CST Sunday:

ADDboy
adsman
BigBrother
bobman0330
car ramrod
Chairman Wood
CollegeKid
DarkKnight
dietlime
Disconnected
Dopey
Guruman
Happydaz
have it all
jba
Koss
krimson
lank4ever
leader
Levarkin
melquides
milesdyson
Mister Z
mmmmmmbrother
MrWookie
mvoss
nadical
nmnewbie
numeri
Peter Harris
PokerPadawan
PokerSparky
scotty34
silencio
SnglMaltScotch
Stonewalled
WhiteShirt
Wynton
xwillience

Let me know if your name isn't on the list or if anything is mis-spelled.

Also, this is getting to be pretty long, so I may just post the pairings here. 40+ PMs is going to be a frickin pain in the ass. Who volunteered me for this [censored], anyway?

Oh wait... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[POKhER]

count me in! 6max though... and i want a sexy person to review mine. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Chairman Wood]

whatever makes it easier on you. I have no problem if you just post the pairings in the thread/start a new thread and then the person we are paired with we can get in contact with ourselves.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
whatever makes it easier on you. I have no problem if you just post the pairings in the thread/start a new thread and then the person we are paired with we can get in contact with ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

[nomadtla]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, this is getting to be pretty long, so I may just post the pairings here. 40+ PMs is going to be a frickin pain in the ass. Who volunteered me for this [censored], anyway?

Oh wait... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to see this is going over so well here. Now if only I could get the chickens in micros to participate. If any of you guys who have done this before wouldn't mind going over to micros and helping me get these guys on the bandwaggon I'd appreciate it. Obviously not asking you to join the list just go over and post how much the idea rocks and how short handed is kicking their a** or somethin along the lines that SH players must care about their play more.

[ QUOTE ]
SH players must care about their play more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's why I'm here. More nits to pick. The lack of enthusiasm is the micro forum is just sad.

I have an idea to make Guruman's idea even better. You can import the hh to PT and then check the stats of each player. Do a search/replace on the players name with their stats. Like replace "PokerPadawan" with "PokerPadawan (60/40/6)". Then the reads will be apparent, even while looking at the text.

This means that you may have a better idea of how to play the earlier hands than the reviewee did, but after a few hands this effect will be gone because the stats would have sort of converged on any HUD.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I have an idea to make Guruman's idea even better. You can import the hh to PT and then check the stats of each player. Do a search/replace on the players name with their stats. Like replace "PokerPadawan" with "PokerPadawan (60/40/6)". Then the reads will be apparent, even while looking at the text.

This means that you may have a better idea of how to play the earlier hands than the reviewee did, but after a few hands this effect will be gone because the stats would have sort of converged on any HUD.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a lot of work. Why not just use the hh reviewer that comes with PT? Then the stats are right there.

[numeri]

leader:

That's what I do. I was wondering - when you're in the PT HH reviewer, does it show the cummulative stats for all the players, or just the stats up to that point?

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
leader:

That's what I do. I was wondering - when you're in the PT HH reviewer, does it show the cummulative stats for all the players, or just the stats up to that point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just up to that point if you click on the stat icon. The only problem is that you have to look up AF with is based on all the hands. Another problem I have is the datamined stats I have in another database, those stats aren't included when I review my hands.

[POKhER]

Lol, You guys with your "Genious" ideas /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

i thought everyone was doing this? "manual import" Search for users name, find him go to session tab, Find the session(Game name) highlight... and play the whole thing through PT...

Lol wtf was everyone doing then?

Then go to position stats, Find some of the biggest winners/Losers... Review them. Add in things like Equity/Pot odd's to help ya check +EV decisions...

Bob your uncle /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Also get to have stats on the guy so if you ever play him MUHAHA. Ahem.

[Guruman]

I actually feel like I get a lot more out of doing it my way, since I'm able to not only critique my reviewee's play, but also the play of his opponents. I can also make my own reads and suggest raises vs some opponents and folds vs others.

Slowing down the process takes up more time, but I personally get more out of not only doing it, but also reading the responses.

[ QUOTE ]
That seems like a lot of work. Why not just use the hh reviewer that comes with PT? Then the stats are right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it's hard to make notes.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That seems like a lot of work. Why not just use the hh reviewer that comes with PT? Then the stats are right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it's hard to make notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Open a word doc...that's what I would do at least.

[numeri]

updated list as of Monday morning:

ADDboy
adsman
BigBrother
bobman0330
car ramrod
Chairman Wood
CollegeKid
DarkKnight
dietlime
Disconnected
Dopey
GME
Guruman
Happydaz
have it all
jba
Koss
krimson
lank4ever
leader
Levarkin
ligastar
meep_42
melquides
MexKrax
milesdyson
Mister Z
mmmmmmbrother
MrWookie
mvoss
nadical
nmnewbie
numeri
Peter Harris
PokerPadawan
PokerSparky
POKhER
scotty34
silencio
SnglMaltScotch
Stefan_K
Stonewalled
WhiteShirt
Wynton
xwillience

I'll make a new thread posting the pairings this evening. There's still time to get in if you're interested. Just PM me.

This sounds like a good idea. I'm always looking at different ways to find mistakes in my game. Thanks a lot numeri, I hope it gets up and running. I will now have to go off and play my best 200 hand session...

[numeri]

There's still time to get in! I'll be making the pairings when I get home (about 2 hours). The list has grown to over 50, so I'm definitely not sending PMs! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Look for another thread soon.

Is it better to send a session where you feel like you made mistakes, or one where you feel you played perfectly?

I was thinking of sending a relatively average one, with a few mistakes and a few brilliant* plays, where I ended the session about even. I felt it would bias the results to send a downswing or huge upswing session.

*IMO