Operation: How to play like a newbie.

[Erpel]

Synopsis:
In this operation I will follow Robb's Noobie's First 5k Hands at 10NL curriculum for learning poker and report on associated thoughts and hands.

First Post !!11!one!!
I am embarking on this adventure for two reasons:
1) To contribute, if only through feedback, to the educational side of FTR.
2) To improve my applied understanding of poker fundamentals

Further to the first point: I came across FTR first about 2.5 years ago when I made my first deposit and found some excellent material to get me started understanding poker. Then I stopped playing before I really got started. When I started up on poker a few months ago FTR was my first port of call, and I've spent some time poring over the assorted guides and noticed a few shortcomings. Not surprisingly all the guides are limited in scope and unconnected - as they are typically written by different people. This leaves someone coming to the site with no knowledge at something of a loss as to where to start. The other side of is that lots of excellent discussions never made it to digest/sticky status/format and are probably by now forgotten by all except those who took part in them.

I've ever so loosely started to consider what kind of framework I would establish for teaching someone completely new to the game - what kinds of lessons to work on first and so on, but haven't really put pen to paper. Like I imagine Robb is doing I would do this for my own benefit - to structure my learning, demonstrate gaps in knowledge and generate short-hand lessons for myself to re-learn when I get rusty - as I am certain will happen next time real life puts my poker on hold for a good long while.

I think what Robb has begun in his post that I reference above is very much along the lines of what I would have liked to do - to make a basic curriculum for learning to win at poker starting with very basic lessons and moving on to more and more advanced topics. I think it's a fantastic initiative, and a fantastic effort - and I offer myself up as at the very least a guinea pig, and I hope I can find other ways to make myself useful. I really like the way that key articles and discussions have been unearthed and referenced and he's found several that I didn't know about and which are very good.

As I go through each lesson of the curriculum I will be doing the mandated exercises while also trying to critically assess the content of each lesson and provide feedback on it.

Commitment:
I commit to study the lesson I am working on before I begin play every session.
I commit to taking a break minimum 50 minutes and maximum 75 minutes after each start.
I commit to playing only 10NL
I commit to playing only 1 table
I commit to my one table being slow (as in non-fast) to give me time to ponder my decisions and make the right ones.
I commit to follow basic table selection strategies and leave bad tables
I commit to not browse or post while playing a session. I will spend 100% of my attention on the table or the hand history for that table.
I commit to stopping every session at a predefined time (22:30 for every day followed by a work day)
I commit to doing a post-session report in this thread for every session.
I commit to playing only as part of this curriculum for as long as it takes to complete.

I'm not committing to playing every day or to only study the material posted or linked by Robb. I may spend time on this or other forums while not playing, but the poker I do play must all be played in accordance with Robb's instructions so I can provide fair feedback on it. If I spend time practising my own crazy stuff I can't very well provide feedback on Robb's lessons based on that activity. I hope also to add some study discipline to my play and improvement as part of this exercise.

And now on to my first session, which after re-reading lesson "Hands 0 to 1,000 - Playing Tight-is-Right Poker" will probably be less than an hour long.

[Erpel]

Lesson: Hands 0 to 1000 Tight is Right
Total hours: 0.78
Total hands: 44

Session 1 - 0.78 hours - 44 hands

Study comments: Zook's and Biondino's posts, both of which I've read before, are both very good reads for a beginner player. Great choice of reading material. Upon reading through the instructions it all seems to make sense, and I kept the description of how to play open through my session and checked some plays and pre-flop hand selections against (and cried).

Session: Lessons misapplied. Let me go straight to hands and explain.

Hand 1:
Preflop: Hero is BB with 7, 9.
UTG calls $0.10, MP calls $0.10, 3 folds, Hero checks.

Flop: ($0.35) 4, K, 9 (3 players)
Hero bets $0.25, UTG folds, MP folds.

This should be ok with the bet every time you have a pair better than 88 rule.

Hand 2:
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP ($11)
Hero ($10.05)
Button ($24.30)
SB ($6.75)
BB ($10.55)
UTG ($6.90)

Preflop: Hero is CO with Q, A.
2 folds, Hero raises to $0.35, 1 fold, SB calls $0.30, 1 fold.

Flop: ($0.80) 5, 3, A (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $0.6, SB calls $0.60.

Turn: ($2) K (2 players)
SB bets $1.2, Hero calls $1.20.

River: ($4.40) 2 (2 players)
SB bets $4.5, Hero calls $4.50.

Final Pot: $13.40

Results in white below:
SB has Kc 4s (straight, five high).
Hero has Qs Ac (one pair, aces).
Outcome: SB wins $13.40.

I included results here because this is the kind of hand that as a newbie would confuse me, then tilt me. I honestly overlooked that a 4 alone made a straight.

I misplayed this hand according to the instructions. This villain played 50/0/0.6 or so around this time. When he bet the turn I thought he had a king for sure, but I wasn't sure why he'd called the flop bet then. I thought maybe KQ or something similar and just not trusting that I had the A. I figured on the turn if I were to re-raise I would fold out all the hands I beat and that therefore it would not be profitable to raise. In retrospect I also should not have expected to get value from worse on the river and should just have bet and folded him out on the turn and he wouldn't have sucked out on me on the river.

The instructions tell me what to do on the flop (bet) and says that I need a plan for the hand - for turn and river. I didn't have a plan and ended up reacting passively - in part because I am trying to play a style that is not my normal style and therefore I feel uncertain and play it more passively than I normally would. I messed up this one. Considering his range (any K - even K4 apparently in his range, so several two-pair hands will also be) I should have raised with confidence on the turn to put him all-in.

I am not sure the instructions for the first lesson can go into turn and river play any more than it already does, but this hand was the first one where I read the section and wasn't sure exactly how it was supposed to help.

Hand 3:
Preflop: Hero is BB with J, A.
3 folds, Button calls $0.10, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: ($0.30) 4, A, 3 (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $0.2, Button calls $0.20, SB folds.

Turn: ($0.70) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $0.5, Button folds.

Since AJo is a CO and BTN hand it is also a do-not-play-in-blinds hand and I check it. I naturally bet when I hit the flop, and I bet again on the turn hoping that my customer didn't have an A but did have a Q. I am alert to the flush and if played in the style of a made flush (as opposed to a draw) I am ready to fold. This hand is fine.

Hand 4:
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

UTG ($11.85)
Hero ($10.35)
CO ($5.60)
Button ($14.45)
SB ($11)
BB ($2.35)

Preflop: Hero is MP with J, J.
UTG raises to $0.4, Hero calls $0.40, 1 fold, Button calls $0.40, SB raises to $2, BB raises to $2.35, UTG folds, Hero folds, Button folds, SB calls $0.35.

With my normal style I would be more inclined to call this, but I checked the instructions and it said something about how to play AA or KK against re-raises but didn't say anything about calling 3bets. I decided to err on the side of folding, and I'm not sure I really want to include that much pre-flop complexity in the instructions. At the time it seemed like a gap, but I agree that the instructions can't and shouldn't cover everything for the most basic level. Perhaps a slight rephrasing is in order to suggest that you should only play AA or KK for more than the first pre-flop raise and fold the rest - or add a 3bet section and put QQ and JJ in that saying that you can make the 3bet or call the 3bet with them.

Hand 5:
Same villain as in hand 2 (up to 60/0/0.6 by now though)

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP ($11.35)
Hero ($10)
Button ($5.75)
SB ($13.45)
BB ($14.60)
UTG ($10)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, J. UTG posts a blind of $0.10.
UTG (poster) checks, 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.45, 1 fold, SB calls $0.40, 1 fold, UTG folds.

Flop: ($1.10) 8, K, J (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $0.7, SB calls $0.70.

Turn: ($2.50) 5 (2 players)
SB bets $2, Hero raises to $8.85, SB calls $6.85.

This hand is fine tending towards spew. On the flop I cannot give him credit for a king and I have to bet (also according to the flop betting instructions). I would be perfectly happy to play a small pot and go check + check on the turn, but he bets. When he bets I check stack sizes and determine it is a commitment decision. If I just call the pot is $6.5 and I have $6.85 behind. Thus if I call I need to be prepared to be put all-in on the river if he continues his aggression. While a lot of kings are in his range so is a lot of other junk including lower jacks, some 8s, some flush draws and some straight draws with the likely being a combination of weakly connected hands. My choices are to fold or raise all-in. I need the fold equity of an all-in to make continuing in the hand positive EV. This player is bad and something of a gambler and could imo have shown up here with a bluff also. It turns out he showed up with AQo giving him two overcards and a gut-shot (10 effective outs) and my hand held up.

This was a very short session, and the first following this regimen, from now I will only post hands that I have anything at least a little interesting to say about.

Summary of potential things to address for Robb:
I noted something about turn and river play but probably nothing that can be done without adding information that would confuse a pure newbie.
Consider if a pre-flop 3bet section is appropriate. I would tend to think that it probably isn't as flop etc in a 3bet pot is a different story - leave 3 and 4 bets pre-flop to AA and KK with the aim of getting all-in. Maybe put in a bet size structure for AA and KK to all-in as it is not obvious for a newbie why we raise to something like 3 or 4 times the pre-flop raise. Or maybe that comes in a later lesson (I think it does now that I think about it)
Maybe add a rule of: "If in doubt - fold." As in - don't pay unless you know what you're paying for and you are happy to pay for it. Unless of course that is too weak-tight.

[Erpel]

Couple additional comments/corrections:
Hand 1: I was prepared to give credit for the king and check/fold the turn or any flop raise.
Hand 5: I made a mistake in stating 10 outs - he has 7 outs. He might think he has 4 tens and 3 aces as outs where his outs are actually 4 tens and 3 queens. When playing the hand I read him as not having a king. He has played big pairs like that a little too honestly for him to just check it on the flop. I felt my read of him on a draw and behind me was good, and I expected him to fold to my raise. When he called I was surprised, but I found that he'd called while behind, confirming my read.

[Erpel]

Discipline is a challenge when playing only one table and very tight. It is tempting to spew when you actually have a (starting) hand because you play so few. I need to be alert to this.

On the positive side the nit play style makes post-flop spew an almost +EV play style as people will give me more credit for hands (in general) if they are the least bit observant and fold more.

On the way in to work I was thinking about Ed Miller's: Getting Started in Hold'em and how one of the first thing he focuses on is learning to read the board - as in determine based on the board what the nuts are in this situation. I think a lesson on board reading might be worth considering, maybe even before this one on playing tight. For every hand look at the board on the flop, determine what is the nuts, second nuts, third nuts - do the same on turn - do the same on river. Regardless if you're playing the hand or not. This is one skill that needs to become automatic (just as checking stack sizes needs to become automatic, but that's a more advanced topic than just reading the board to determine nuts).

[Erpel]

Ok, no playing yesterday or today, but hope to get a session in tomorrow (of 3 or so hours). Did have some time to think about some things though.

I'm having a little trouble agreeing with the apparent purpose of the very first lesson. I can kind of see where we're coming from. We want to transform someone who is probably a calling station or weak tight to a TAGG, thereby making him profitable and having him learn poker from a profitable stand point - which can be argued is more fun.

My problem with this is this:
We are not teaching any skill - rather we are arbitrarily deciding to plug what we think is the beginners biggest leak (him being weak tight or a calling station) with the TAGG cure-all. While there is nothing wrong with plugging leaks I would feel better about this regimen as a learning regimen if we were actually teaching a key skill.

I happened across a book review thread on 2+2 where the book was overly fond of the word dominating but apparently begun by instructing people in playing weak tight, stationish etc to help people understand how that approach 'works' both tactically but also emotionally for the people playing - so you can better exploit them. I find this idea interesting, but I wouldn't use it for the starter lesson. But it does underline that there are reasons for teaching other play styles that TAGG. While I agree that TAGG is what the learner will first become profitable with I would not automatically choose to instruct a learner in a TAGG play style, but rather ask myself which skills the learner needs to develop, and come up with a framework for developing that skill.

I think the starter lesson might already presuppose a bit too much skill on the part of the learner. I think it might be beneficial to have a first level of the class with this type of level of assignment/focus (roughly pulled from Ed Miller GSIH):
On every flop, turn and river:
Determine the nuts, second nuts, third nuts
Determine the absolute strength of your hand.
Determine the relative strength of your hand (considering the nuts)
Determine the absolute and relative strength of the hands that you can improve to if you hit your outs and consider (without going into exact odds calculations) if you are very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely to get there.

Do the above even when you have folded your hand as a practice.

On every showdown determine the best 5 card hand each person showing their hand has (without being told by the software) - use hand histories if need be. Get better at it - this needs to be an automatic skill and you need to be making very few if any mistakes. It is a pre-requisite for more advanced board reading, which in turn is necessary for hand reading.

You could combine the above with a must-play-tight line where I would make it a 100% positionally ignorant tight play style (anywhere from the 15 to the 21 hands - just only one set) and accept that it might be a somewhat losing play style. For the first level I would probably even make the instructions simpler (and weak tight) along the lines of: If you think you're ahead bet or raise. If you think you're behind or are in doubt - fold. My focus for the first level would be on reading the board, determining nuts, determining absolute and relative hand strength. And I wouldn't play this lesson at 10nl but at 2nl or play money.

I think a lot of beginners will not have the patience for the above and will think that they don't need it as the software will determine who is winning the hand anyway - it is exactly the other way around imo. A solid understand of basic basic fundamentals need to inform all decisions made - and decisions are the bread and butter of poker. It is famously said to be a game of incomplete information - which is relevant only because you need to make decisions based on the best incomplete information you can get and these decisions will earn or cost you money. It's obvious when you know it that centrifugal forces is what allows you to keep your balance on a bicycle better, but when you learn it is counter-intuitive that going faster on this two-wheeled fiend is going to make it more stable and easy to keep your balance.

It's babysteps. I don't really want a learner to be focusing on becoming a winner by learning a play style - but rather have the learner focus on becoming a student of the game by acquiring basic skills that more advanced skills will build on.

It's easy enough to sit down quietly with a deck of cards or a list of exercises (even self-made ones) and do this kind of thing, but it needs to be something that you do automatically at the tables every time you play a hand, and I think practicing it can make it instinctive faster and will help as a foundation for other skills.

Amusingly, I think the lesson I described would teach me more than the first lesson as described - I've tried a variant of the 19-hand strategy and built my game on from there already and I see in Lesson Tight is Right basically a repeat of what I've done before - but after having played many many hands I haven't put enough deliberate effort into improving my board reading skills and I still sometimes don't connect the most basic dots. Anyway, enough rambling for now. I think I'll do an early bedtime tonight.

[Erpel]

Oh, one additional note. In addition to the "If you feel good bet/raise, if you feel bad or are in any kind of doubt fold" line - I would tag on that in addition to the absolute/relative hand strength and nuts determination also decide (with no guidance) what size of pot you think your hand strength justifies.

[Erpel]

Lesson: Hands 0 to 1000 Tight is Right
Total hours: 1.52
Total hands: 103

Session 2 - 0.73 hours - 59 hands

Study notes: Having thought a lot the past few days about beginner and learner topics the lesson still stands as solid for what it says, but I have an increasing amount of reservation regarding whether it teaches the right things.

Session notes: I have trouble with this nitty play style. I fold hands I know perfectly well I can play profitably and when I play a hand everyone folds to me - and then I make a spewy call out of boredom (costing 10-15bb). I am not really questioning the value of this lesson given the right premise, but I don't really live up to the premise. I think it's also stated somewhere in the initial lesson post that these are intended for someone who's playing loose and not understanding why he's losing money over time. For that audience I think learning to play tight is probably plugging one of his bigger leak and putting him on the path to profitability.

I'm not going to post any hands. I did make mistakes, but I know what they were and don't really need to ask opinions. I'm thinking about skipping ahead to the next lesson.

[Erpel]

Lesson: Hands 1000-2000: Betting the Flop
Total hours: 0.98
Total hands: 71

Session 1 - 0.98 hours - 71 hands

Study notes: This whole thing is so familiar I suspect I'll end up skipping the majority of this lesson also. I think the order here is very good. When I was going through my tight is right phase when first learning one of the things that I ended up thinking a lot about was betting the flop - it sort of naturally follows. I got tired of pot sized bets causing so many folds and started varying bet sizes a little at random, then thought maybe I should try to vary according to hand strength in obvious and non-obvious ways. The study material is really good - it is a good coverage of the subject, what to think about, how to think about it and it should ring true with anyone who's started putting some hands in as a beginning TAGG player. Spoon's posts are very good, but slightly more advanced. While we can relate it back to Robb's coverage I'm not convinced a beginner will immediately fathom why the When not to Cbet applies.

Session notes: It ended up being a short session with me not seeing that many flops and having to fold on many of the flops I did see. No tough spots and bet sizing decisions were pretty trivial. The only thing I did note was that I scrolled back and forth between the hand range chart from Lesson 1 and the c-bet table from Lesson 2. I'm not sure if it would be beneficial to re-list the hand range chart next to the table so the beginner who needs to refer to them can see them without scrolling. Presumably writing down a copy by hand or printing it out will also work.

Maybe consider an assignment along the lines of writing a plan for each of the hands in the starting hand range. Low pocket pairs being the simplest I'll just use them as an example of what I mean:
1) See any flop for one standard raise (raised or call any single raise)
2) Try to get all-in on any set without overbetting the pot too much.
3) With no set and no draws on the flop - check/fold flop, or check through to river and do a thin value bet on river against what is presumably missed overcards or similar. Don't call any raises.
4) With no set and draws on the flop - bet the flop for implied odds and fold equity - if the draw hits you want to be able to get it all in on later streets. Flop bet near pot-sized given a gut-shot straight draw (6 outs as the 2 set outs also count as outs) and with flush draws (as the flush will be a low made flush that anyone with a higher suited card beats - so fold equity is needed). Flop bet 2/3 pot with a gut-shot + backdoor flushdraw (about 2 outs worth) or an open-ended straight draw. If called and missed on the turn try to check through to the river - and check the river also. Consider calling a smallish bet on the river if you have the villain on a missed draw turned bluff - but be prepared to fold turn or river.

This second thought followed a stray thought from the writing by hand comment. In my life I've done a short course or two on teaching where the point has been made that people tend to learn and remember things that they practice better than things that they just hear about. As an example was the percentage of people who remember something they've been told (audio only) vs. shown visually vs. something they've been told to write down themselves - where the writing things down themselves seemed to stick much better. This should be enough reason for any poker player to write thoughts down.

[Erpel]

Lesson: Hands 1000-2000: Betting the Flop
Total hours: 2.53
Total hands: 181

Session 2 - 1.55 hours - 110 hands

Study notes: Re-reading the study material (and linked threads) I'm pretty happy with it. It's hard for me to really criticize it because it's pretty exactly the way my thinking has evolved from playing nitty when I started trying to play winning poker. In a sense it kind of goes without saying, but if we assume someone completely new to poker having finished his first 1000 hands then reading this as he prepares for his next 1000, I would think that it would resonate a lot with him, and would accelerate the thinking process that would have gone along pretty much those exact lines as well. I see this lesson as a true accelerator for someone who has done his first 1k hands.

Session notes: During this session I didn't actually have much chance to apply this lesson - there were only a couple of instances of me being on the flop, checked to and having raised pre-flop, but I did monitor the play of others at my table and considered (based on what I thought they held) how I would have bet in the situation they were in - and once or twice ended up having to recategorise poor players as somewhat decent as a result.

I'm still finding fully nitty play somewhat painful, but it's beginning to resonate with me again - in that I'm again developing an intuitive feel for why it works. But I am looking forward to opening up a bit more - and for that reason I think I'll jump on to the next lesson. My feedback on this lesson is that it's pretty perfectly placed and with a pretty perfect amount of content.

[Erpel]

Lesson: Hands 2000-3000: Position Poker
Total hours: 2.02
Total hands: 125

Session 2 - 2,02 hours - 125 hands

I skipped ahead another lesson. I think I'll probably stick to something like two session on each lesson as I'm not really coming to this as a complete newbie that needs to get routine in this play style, but rather as someone who's gone through this or similar already and who's reviewing the study material and scope/content of the lessons. When I do start running into things in lessons that I feel I need to work more on I'll be more inclined to do full 1k lessons (or even longer if I feel it will benefit me).

Study notes: Expanding the button range with A9o, ATo and QJ leaves it still pretty anorexic. KJ is of course already in the button range (and should not be listed in this lesson notes as an addition). I can see the system here - ensure that newbie isn't making too many changes to his play style but instead builds on what he knows. I do want to disagree, but I can't really. When learning the game a basic routine in a basic strategy is very valuable, and expanding upon that strategy to include more and more advanced considerations and more difficult plays is... a solid principle. I just also like the idea of throwing extremes at the newbie. Saying play nit - then play the same range but any hand with promise (any two suited and any connected up to three-gappers) from the button and see how much you can get away with. I trust it to be -EV for the newbie, but it should show the point of playing the button somewhat more loosely and expose the newbie to lots more challenging spots.

Spoons post on Blind Stealing is as most of his stuff pure gold. Renton's guide I'm a big fan of (and have been for some time) but he does use different ranges and though you do mention that future lesson will help us approach his ranges I'm not sure a pure newbie would know which range to use as the more 'definitive'.

Session notes: I ran hot, and didn't make any big mistakes according to my session review. I had a guy who insisted on calling my flop and turn bets only to shove in himself on the river with air thinking I'd read him for great strength. I didn't as his line didn't make sense considering the board, so my pocket QQ and AA held up to his J8o and the like (that totally missed the board). I was fortunate enough to select some juicy tables that allowed lots of limpers so I actually got to play many more hands than I otherwise would have - almost all my big blinds! I won more than my share of those also due to correctly assessing the post-flop situation and stealing orphan pots.

[Erpel]

Lesson: Hands 2000-3000: Position Poker
Total hours: 4.07
Total hands: 283

Session 2 - 2,05 hours - 158 hands

Study notes: Ok, something really sticks out this time on my post-session review of the lesson. I thought adding in another 3 hands for 'position poker' was similar to calling tipping 1% 'generous' (tipping is optional right?) - of course the hand ranges were already positionally aware so that wasn't such a strong point in isolation - but I would have liked more liberal hand selections available from the button - and upon review I guess I do. I think it would help to state more clearly that blind stealing is entirely appropriate things to be practicing during the positionally aware lesson - instead of now where it is indirectly suggested through the required reading list. It might be useful to discuss initiative also for this lesson.

I know we're told constantly to do our own thinking also, but if I do that I just end up running less tight than the lesson specifies and not really testing the material out so I try not to be too creative in my application of the lessons - this means that I do make some stupid mistakes someone who was honestly following the lessons (with the right premise) wouldn't be making as they would at least be using their brains at the same time.

Further to the positionally aware thing a couple of extra mini-assignments could be considered - when folding think through which hands you would have wanted to play considering your position - when other people get into a hand consider which hands you would have played in that position and consider if the position that your opponents play change the strength of the hands they are playing (whether it be against you or each other).

Session notes: I lost a couple of medium to big pots on mistakes where I played a hand too aggressively when I didn't have a strong enough reason to think I was ahead, but I understand why it was wrong and where I should have played them differently, so that's something for me to look out for. In regards to the positionally aware lesson my hands didn't provide that much material - maybe because I'm already considering position an awful lot. The only times I felt I got something extra out of the positional focus was when I was looking at hands played by some of my opponents - I had at least once where I said to myself that it seemed like a mistake for someone to call in this position because the hand I had him on was strong enough to play IP, but not OOP (and he was OOP).

I'll grab a snack and then probably do another lesson sometime later today, depending on what I end up doing with my wife.

[Erpel]

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.