Going to H.H.

No, I don’t mean Hell-in-a-Handbasket. I want to discuss Hand Histories. C.C. has a interest in them of late. A lot of blogger use them. If a magician was also a poker player, he’d understand hand histories. His stock in trade is deception.

Part of the reason I have disdain for them is I don’t read them well at all. As far as cards go, I am a very visual animal. I can ‘get it’ when Pokernews uses their graphic hand net applet. It is a bit better when someone goes to one of the sites that adds the suit icons in and does the hero/villan bit to protect the innocent.

There are two types of hand histories. One that tells you everything after the fact or one that leaves you guessing. Depending on the site, you may or may not see the full showdown. If you go out swinging, you won’t see more than XXXXXX muck cards on many sites; others show those who went to the showdown and lost. In the ‘good old days’, PokerRoom used to show all the down cards in their histories. You got info on who had what when they folded or called down to muck. Talk about getting great reads!!!

You see hand histories in the forums all the time. Occasionally, someone will post a part and not disclose the continued play. It is among the better ways to seek advise. But, it still leaves the responder out of context. You have no feel. It is like my telling you the teams 4-spot tried a drag bunt and stuck out. Should I call the manager a bonehead? A hand of poker is like a pitch in baseball. It is a bit of data that means little in determining the whole.

On Poker After Dark a while back some players discussed a hand that had just played. I think it was Boat over Boat. The genius professors of poker debated why so-and-so should have laid down the hand. Gus Hansen put it in perspective with the comment who in their right mind would lay down Queens Full or whatever the losing hand was without a working crystal ball.

We listen to Sexton give a nice commentary and tell us what a great lay-down or call that was or how the bonehead was neatly deceived. Well, it is true, I guess. You need the same faith in being right or wrong to make either play. And the line between genius and sucker is very fine and may have nothing to do with the cards you hold.

Hand histories can be very instructional. Fuel55 occasionally pulls that off. The best I’ve seen have come from Shirley Rosario’s blog; but, they are very infrequent. It isn’t the hand history but the thing that was involved as the play progressed that make a hand history great and that only comes from the person playing the hand. And, who won the hand really doesn’t mean squat; what you are getting is a look into the mind of a fairly complete player’s thought process.

Besides calling an all-in play, there is little that is black & white at the poker table