Evaluating Mistakes
Every day before I play, I check the previous day in PT. What I've consistently found is that my session's boil down to a few big hands (wins and losses), so I always check the 5-10 biggest net win/loss hands to see how I played. Using the replay, I step through the hand and think about the right play at each stage. In a few, I see that I played correctly (or what I think is correct 
) and that's fine. But in some, I'm finding that I made a mistake that ended up turning the hand into one of my "big losses". Overall, I usually have winning sessions, but the wins are far less due to mistakes in 1 or 2 big hands (I'm not sure if this is the same for limit, that it boils down to a few big hands). A few questions:
1. Is this pattern of "big hands" normal in NL ring games? Does your session usually boil down to a few big hands, or is it normally lower variance (small/medium pots). Winning or losing these hands isn't as relevant as whether the session is based around a few key hands.
2. Is this pattern of "mistakes" normal? I'm still learning, so I expect to keep getting better over time. However, in the micro-evaluation, my decision today is different than the one I made yesterday which caused a big loss. Over time I would expect my decisions to change, but for my decision to change within 1 day indicates to me that I wasn't thinking as clearly while playing. Further, these mistakes are not "tilt" mistakes (such as being dumb after getting sucked out), they are simply making a bad decision during the hand. Is it normal to have a brief lapse of judgement during a session, or is this something that you eventually develop a skill to avoid?
3. For those who evaluate their play regularly, is this method of "big hand" evaluation too narrow? If so, how do you determine which hands to evaluate (since I'm assuming evaluating every hand simply isn't feasible).
) and that's fine. But in some, I'm finding that I made a mistake that ended up turning the hand into one of my "big losses". Overall, I usually have winning sessions, but the wins are far less due to mistakes in 1 or 2 big hands (I'm not sure if this is the same for limit, that it boils down to a few big hands). A few questions:1. Is this pattern of "big hands" normal in NL ring games? Does your session usually boil down to a few big hands, or is it normally lower variance (small/medium pots). Winning or losing these hands isn't as relevant as whether the session is based around a few key hands.
2. Is this pattern of "mistakes" normal? I'm still learning, so I expect to keep getting better over time. However, in the micro-evaluation, my decision today is different than the one I made yesterday which caused a big loss. Over time I would expect my decisions to change, but for my decision to change within 1 day indicates to me that I wasn't thinking as clearly while playing. Further, these mistakes are not "tilt" mistakes (such as being dumb after getting sucked out), they are simply making a bad decision during the hand. Is it normal to have a brief lapse of judgement during a session, or is this something that you eventually develop a skill to avoid?
3. For those who evaluate their play regularly, is this method of "big hand" evaluation too narrow? If so, how do you determine which hands to evaluate (since I'm assuming evaluating every hand simply isn't feasible).
Comments
NL cash games are not my main source of income. That said, I do dabble. I believe winning the big pots is a skill which separates the good players from the bad players. That said, if you can't grind out the other pots, and just win the big pots, I still believe you won't be a long term winner. There was someone who did an experiment by only playing AA-JJ and AKs (I believe) and pushing those hands to the max. He was able to grind out 3BB/100 hands because he only played the big pots. As it was lower limits he was able to get action on those hands.
While a session is often based on a few key hands a week's worth of hands will provide a better picture.
I don't think I've ever had a session without mistakes. Tilt has many different meanings. For me, I view Tilting as taking an action I should have known was incorrect. So, if I would have properly thought through the problem, I would have come to a different conclusion on a better day, I view that as tilt. Then there's the mistakes you made because you didn't have the knowledge to make the correct decision. One startling conclusion I've come to is calling a small raise from the BB with a weak ace in certain situations. It's amazing that many times you think you're getting good odds, when in reality you're giving odds to others and setting yourself up for a big loss. However, without careful analysis of the numbers and the type of game you play, coming to that conclusion in the heat of battle is extremely hard. So, I wouldn't call that a tilt mistake. Now, if I do that after I've done the analysis, I view that as tilt.
Brief lapses in judgement happen all the time. Sometimes we call it Monkey Man, sometimes other things. I still view it as tilt. And, it's something I'm working extremely hard at stopping. Keep in mind that's why Andy Beal can't beat the corporation. He likely has a better game than they do, but they have years and years of experience in curbing their tilting actions. That's one edge Andy will never overcome until he grinds it out over years of playing.
Every hand is feasible. The nice thing about evaluating every hand is that you can sit back and enjoy the awesome plays you made. You can watch others play the hands and try and get into their heads. Just this morning I was wondering why the heck someone would make a certain play. As I thought, it became clearer as to what they were thinking. It was incorrect, but I figured out what they were thinking.
I would suggest taking a day or two to look at 10,000 hands. This way you can spot trends better. Also, I would review it by position.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
Magi