Im curious of what others think about this:

the general 2 options of hh study are reviewing a hand or session immediately after playing the session (immediately after to within an hour or so)

or

delaying your hand reviews so you are reviewing them (same consistency as above) a day to a few days after playing it so that you can review it with a fresh perspective.

We can also wait so long that we 100% forget the hand even being played but I don't think that's much different than option two tbh. after a few days we may remember it being played and the scenario/emotions/meta as they were but we won't be within that mindset as it were in real time so we can step back and view it with a more relaxed and logical perspective.

I think that completely forgetting the hand can cause us to lose interest in reviewing them thoroughly anyway, whereas if we still remember it, it may remind us of why we wanted to review it at the time and cause us to be more invested in the review.


I personal go with option two nine times out of ten, but I'm wondering if there may be any hidden benefits im not thinking about to reviewing more hands immediately after being in them?

If you review hands after the session it's easier to recall your thought process that led to whatever errors you may or may not have made.

Good for fixing execution leaks.

I agree with that even if I do the opposite, review my hands after one day takes the logic and maths back in my mind and allows me to isolate from emotions/tilt I felt at the table, who usually can make you take the wrong decisions.

Recognize the emotions during the session, and eliminate the resulting changes to your decisions (tilt).

This is a problem that has nothing at all to do with when you study your hands. If your database contains tilty decisions, then there is really no point in even studying those hands. Instead go study a mirror, so to speak.

Looking at it immediately has the advantage that you don't rationalize too much. It's easy to find excuses with lots of time (which you don't have at the table). So I find it to be a more 'honest' analysis, expecially since later you might misremember particulars (perceived tells that influenced your decision, bet sizings, stack sizes ...).

This doesn't stop me from looking up the math later if I'm unsure. I think an immediately reveiwed hand also sticks better (more accurately) in the mind for later analysis.

do both

its not uncommon for me to think about a hand in my head, review it intellectually, then review it in pio after the fact (ignition player)