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, a poll about the format, and the other threads here, here, and here.)

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 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. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ 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.