Lesson: Hands 3000-4000: Read and Profiles
Total hours: 1.60
Total hands: 130

Session 1 - 1.60 hours - 130 hands

Study Notes: I like the quick and easy introduction to different player types. I think it might be worthwhile mentioning a couple of additional basic principles along the lines of this: Assume a tight aggressive, somewhat skilled opponent until proven otherwise. Don't be afraid to trust your reads - if a hand proves your read wrong or the player worse than you thought - fix it afterwards. There's enough to worry about during a hand before you start trying to fix reads on people.

For the range additions - we're getting Axs and I'm feeling so-so about it. I'd rather have started opening 76s before Axs. They're easier to hit and miss flops with. If you miss it's a straight fold and no worries. If Axs hits a flop you may still be sitting on a second best hand. Combine that with 76s being able to hit not just flushes but also straights and straights tending to be more disguised (and, some say, more often paid off) than flushes that's not a bad thing. Anyway point being - Axs is more likely to land you in tough spots than 76s. 76s is easy to play in a fit or fold manner. Cbet with initiative and the right opponent, otherwise flop strong or fold is basically the word. Speaking of opponent - play Axs vs calling stations and LAGs and 76s vs weak tights and TAGs. Maybe.

All of the reading material is excellent on its own. The two required reading articles are perfectly suited for this lesson. The suggested reading articles goes a completely different way - and actually both disagree with the premise of this whole set of lessons (teaching poker through a TAG play style). Also the ISF post that is referenced does contain two links - one is to an article that ISF wrote, the other is to Sredni's Shania post on 2+2 - an alltime classic. Only one is written by ISF and I'm sure he's flattered to be considered the author of the Shania thread - but he isn't.

Session notes: I paid special attention to a donkish LAG at my table and it paid off quite well. I can feel that I categorise players more or less correctly, but I don't always adjust and exploit them correctly. There are too many times where I play my hand based on my hand strength. It is ironic actually, as my game before I started on this nit school thing was a lot more situational - every hand I was dealt I looked around the table at who was there, what their stacks were, what I knew about them, who were already in the hand and how interested in the hand they were and I asked myself - this is the situation I'm in - can I in this situation profitably play a hand? Do my cards matter in answering this question? If my cards matter, do they allow me to play a hand now in a profitable manner? Now I'm a lot more standard TAG in looking at my cards and playing my cards. It feels a bit like regression tbh. That said, my adjustments, exploitation, hand reading and at-the-table hand range analysis isn't really strong enough for the other type of play yet. I'll play along with nit school a little more and try to provide some decent feedback.