Hand analysis threads - pointless?

[Matty H]

I await a barrage of abuse for this thread, but that's kind of the point really. I am slightly playing devils advocate, although I do have a genuine query. Anyway:

I have to confess to being 'slightly' unsure as to the point of hand analysis threads as regards what you can take away from them to help your game.

With anyone hand you can post the statistics and analyze it to pieces, but the fact is you are unlikely to ever come across the hand again with the same betting patterns, the same type of players involved in the hand in the same table positions, the same chip stacks, the same blind levels etc etc etc, the list is endless. There are thousands of combined variables involved with every individual hand.
You then factor into it that everybody generally has a slightly different opinion of how you should or shouldn't have played the hand. Yet more variables.

All this adds up to me being throughly confused as to the point of analysing any one particular hand. I could understand analysis of a persons play over an entire tourney as you are taking a much broader scope of a persons play.

So given the thousands of variables involved in every hand you play and the fact that you will probably never find yourself in that exact situation again, and even if you do you probably wont remember what was discussed on here, and then add to that the confusion that everyone has their own opinion of how to play any particular hand, and you have to question what you can actually take away from these threads of any benefit???

Be gentle. I am somewhat hoping for a certain response here. Lets see if it occurs

[Dice Man]

I agree. The only exceptions would be examples where somebody just plays atrociously like calling all in on the river with 10 high.

[PokerWoody]

The situations are not as unique as you think the are. In fact I find myself in the same sort of situations the whole time and there are often very clear right and wrong answers about what to in them.

There will be hands where it's hard to say without being at the table but there are many more instances where you can say - 'don't raise that hand with the short stack behind you', 'you can't call the reraise with your pocket pair 'cause you're not gettin the odds' or 'checking is better than raising here becuase you'll get more value from busted draws' etc etc. All these things are not player specific.

Anyway, im not sure how many players on this forum are interested in getting any better anyway, so I think the point is mute.

[trustme]

Talking about hand histories and situations can only improve your game. If you look through the history of poker the players that are still around are the ones that got as much information as possible. Back at the start there was Brunson, Roberts and Slim. They had no books just playing experience and they would spend hours talking about all the different situations you can end up in playing poker. Also from the Mayfair Club you get Lederer, Seidel and Harrington. They did the same, hours and hours spent talking after hours and hours of play. Getting other peoples perspective really helps.

Im playing a lot of cash games at the moment and threads from this forum have really helped my game. I would go quickly broke if I took my tournament game to a cash table.

[Raiser]

My 2p worth!.... (just ignore it)

I 'used' to think HH were a fantastic idea and you get some feedback on how you play cetain hands. I used to post them all the time and the same thing always happened - i got slated!!

The trouble with HH's is they are very 2D. If i posted a HH where i was making play against a player i would get slated in this order: You shouldnt have played it preflop, you shouldnt have raised it on the flop, why the hell did you flat call him with 8 high & you got lucky on the river by raising him off it!!!

Thats why i dont post HH's any more and thats why i rarely reply to them...

HH's are only good for ABC poker (IMO)

[Prowler]

they are worthwhile IF you get the full information on the players also at the table (any reads, playing style) the stacks, position, the game type and depth if an mtt and all other relevant info.....

also othe players view can only help, if you flat called a turn card and are advised you should of raised, and also told fold was the best move, as long as both reasons are fully explained even if you disagree with their value on that hand it still offers you 2 extra options and reasons to think about the next time your in that position

i agree with raiser, due to competitiveness amongst us (not a bad thing in itself) people found it far easier to slag ppls play off than give them constructive criticism or even bother to give them valid reasons why they could of played it differently

so to answer your question, hh analysis isnt pointless, its the replys that can be pointless if not taken seriously or just plain flamed,

[alexross1977]

yep
what prowler said.

[Dice Man]

The only good play is the one that wins you the pot. The bigger the pot the better the play.

[Thor2007]

That's where you are wrong, Diceman.

There is a stark difference between playing well and winning.

Have a look at the thread about sucking at poker and the hand between myself and trust_me. Tell me he played that well...

[Dice Man]

Yeah he played it badly then. But how else is one supposed to analyse skill but through winning pots?

Skill + luck = winnings, and winnings are either negative or positive.

Luck is like a random element that goes away in the long term, leaving just skill left to be analysed. In the long term if you have high skill, your winnings will be positive in spite of that bad beat for a big pot.