simple rating system ideas...

[tolbiny]

villan is 35/14/1.5- is he decent or terrible? I keep running into this type of situation, even against players i play a lot with and have a note or two on. The problem is that bizzare and badly played hands stick out to me and tend to make it into my notes an inordinante amount of the time, and thus i am likely weighting abberations to much. So here's my thought-

In my notes on players the first line will consist of a string of number 1's. Every time we go to showdown and i have him on a range of hands that make sense he gets a 1. The second line is 2's. every time we go to showdown and his range of hands is outside of some kind of rational thought play he gets a 2.

simple, no?

[stigmata]

interesting idea.

It does help to know the type of errors they make, of course. I normally do the same as you did -- list a catalogue of badly played hands in shorthand. This is biased, as you state.

I actually find my notes are much better when I descriptively describe the way thay play after forming a good opinion of their play, describing those things that complement the raw statistice.

[Catt]

I generally form a conclusion about the quality of their overall play when I feel I have a good sense of it (rather than tabulating 1s & 2s) but I think this system has merit. Honestly, most of my note-taking consists of a short overall assessements ("goofy," "decent, loose calls," "solid, aggressive" "adjusts specifically" etc.) and focuses more on specific aspects of play on various streets / hands ("auotbets flop when checked to," "waits till turn with overpair," "donks weakness" or "donks tricky," "capable of WA/WB," "capable of free SD") etc.