How do you review your play?

[MrDannimal]

I think I've got a pretty good handle on the game, and playing ABC with some improvements. However, I know that my games still needs a lot of work, especially if I ever hope to move up in limits.

To do this, I know one of the things I need to do better is review my play for learning and leaks. The problem is, I don't really know how to do that. Because I'm not really sure if what I do is good or enough, I tend to not do it as much as I should.

So, what do you do? Re-watch all your hands in PT's replayer? Just look at certain hands (if so, how do you decide what to look at)? Do you make notes on other players based simply on their stats, or do you start there and add notes based on hand observation? Do you try and add notes during play or in reviewing hands offline? How many hands do you need to play against someone before you can make reliable observations on their play?

I know another big component is posting hands, and aside from some obvious cases how do you decide what might be a good hand to post?

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, how do you keep yourself on task and making sure you spend enough time reviewing play? I can't be alone in wanting to play, and time spent reviewing play is time spent not playing. It's like eating vegetables. You know it's good for you, but you'd rather have ice cream.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I'm in the same predicament. As far as which hands to post/review, I would say any hand where you were surprised at the showdown or had to think a bit longer about what play to make is a good one to look at, as well as any hand where you lost a decent amount. You might also question hands where you folded to a hand you would've beat had you stayed in. It's harder to identify hands where you won but maybe should've got more money out of it.

I'd like to see the replies to this as well.


Patrick

[sin808]

I review more hands than I play. Mostly cuz my work schedule (graveyard-weekends). So I don't get to play at prime-time. I play about 5 hours a week, and spend 10 or so reviewing hands and studying. Other than reviewing the hand histories before importing them into PT, I also look to see what hands have been making the most, and losing the most and specifically look at those to see where they could be played differently. I also do this for those hands based on each position. I also try to reply alot here to hand postings, if I'm wrong on a play, I'll get corrected (and learn), I'll be correct (which reinforces what I already knew), or I'll learn a new play that may work better in certain circumstances. The balance of 'study lots, play some' works well for me. I'm not in a rush to become an 'expert' or move up. I've got the rest of my life to play. Eventually as time and my game allow I'm sure those numbers will reverse.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like eating vegetables. You know it's good for you, but you'd rather have ice cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

My 2 cents - hope it helps:

Personally, I tend to spend a little time prior to getting on a table in Poker Tracker looking at my stats, what hands I've been screwing the pooch with or winning with, etc.

Right now, I'm working on my play from the blinds (too tight!). So I look at positional stats from the last few sessions, see where I'm stumbling, and try to refine how I play from the blinds that night.

If I am involved in a hand and feel there was something I missed or whatever, I will request the hand history for that single hand so I get an email with just that single hand. That way the questionable hands don't get "lost in the mix" when the auto-requestor sends 100 hands at a time. Just makes it easier to remember and sort out the hands that you obviously need to play back in PT. If you don't have an epiphany while replaying the hand, post it on the forum for comment.

For player notes, I use a combo of PT stats and specific examples taken as the hand is played or shortly thereafter. As far as the # of hands you need to accurately judge a player, it's really hard to say. If I need 10,000 hands before my PT stats mean anything, how many would you need for a stranger? Of course notes about extreme cases of maniacal players raising every hand preflop are more accurate than notes on a guy who is TAG and only has 25 hands in your database.

[astroglide]

i make printouts in PT sorted by -bb/hd and rank, go through them with a highlighter to note hands that i know should be better, and contrast with pokerroom.com's latest ev charts to see where things stand overall. i use this to set better mental preflop guidelines and how far i take things overall. i tried doing individual position printouts, but even with 100k hands you have a miniscule sampling of each hand.

[Duke]

Every time I play a hand of poker I think about the actions I made on every street, and ask myself where I could have done better.

After a while you've played most every hand already so there are fewer questions to answer for yourself.

A lot of play depends on specific opponents, so don't confuse bad luck with bad play against, say, a complete nutjob.

~D

[LetsRock]

I haven't implemented poker tracker into my game yet. I'm not saying this is good, I just haven't.

Reviewing every hand you play seems like it would be a little overkill and quite possibly a waste of time. Assuming you are playing under one of the poker authorities guidance, most hands are actually pretty straight forward and often there's just nothing you could have done differently to change the outcome of the hand (who drags the pot, how much you drag, how much you donate). But, there are those hands (maybe 5%?) that may have had different outcomes if you had put a raise in here, a c/r there. Maybe you would have donated a little less by mucking at the right time or maybe you could have avoided trouble all together by not playing the hand in the first place (this is the first place I would look if you're looking at your game).

Now these hands, I spend a great deal of time pondering the "what ifs" on. "If I had done this", what might have happened. Replay the hand as much as you need to and see if there was something that you might have done to influence someone else's decsion.

"Would he have layed that down if I had put a little pressure on him?"

"How would he have reacted to my check through on the turn?"

"Would a c/r have scared him away or built a bigger pot?"

"Why didn't I get away from that hand at THIS point?"

This kind of stuff. Of course, you can never be sure of your answers because you're basing a lot of your answers on pure speculation - you don't know what he'd have done (unless he was stupid enough to tell you that he'd have layed it down if you had bet the turn - remember that stuff!) so you just have to consider what possible outcomes would have happened in your imaginary alternative universe. Just experimenting in your mind allows you think these things through a bit more, which will leave you more prepared the next time a similar situation pops up.

Take that hand and try to find some references in the textbook of your particular guru and see what he says about how to play that situation. Did you follow his advice? Would it likely have made any difference if you did?

Honestly, the best way to review your play is to submit hand histories here and get a bunch of different opinions on what could have been done. Even if you don't agree with what someone says, you'll at least get a different view point on the hand which, if nothing else, will let you see how others may be looking at the same hand - you get an insite into how others may be thinking at the table. If you think you played it right and we all disagree, tell us why you think it's right and then we'll either tell you why you're wrong or see that your point is valid. It's all about learning.

[Petomane]

I think Pokertracker is invaluable and I like to compare my stats to those of good players.That's why Internet players are so much better than B&M players - they see the big picture.
I make two mistakes - folding a hand too quickly or not quickly enough. A lot of that depends on your opponents. However, I know immediately when I've made a mistake, so no need to replay that misery.
If you've achieved a level of playing tight-aggressive, with relatively few mistakes, it's out of your hands now. In small stakes limit poker, it's impossible to outplay anyone, especially if they won't fold. The cards have to go your way in low limit poker.
I think your time is better spent playing the actual game & observing the other players. If you don't have fools at your table, you won't be making money either.
If you're playing tight aggressive, there's no reason not to be making money, unless the site you're at has tightened up. The swings in poker are enormous, people panic too easily during a bad run of cards and start looking for leaks. It's always good to be improving your game, but never confuse a good run of cards with good play, either your own or your opponents'.

[Warband]

[ QUOTE ]
just look at certain hands (if so, how do you decide what to look at)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have notepad open when I play. Any hand I want to review I copy the stars game # into notepad so I know what to review later. Some times I add a note as well which is often player related.

T.