Review/studying/analyzing vs. Playing
Furthering your poker game
isn't just about practice (playing the game), it's also about reviewing your play, analyzing your hands and studying the game. Say you have a leak in your game, and do nothing but play poker. You're not going to realize you actually have a leak, nor are you going to fix it without reviewing and analyzing those pots you've been losing because of your leak.
My theory is that this is why some people have a 'losing streak' (due to leak), and when they take a break, they often find themselves playing better than they were before they took that break. This is because they get the time to come down from the tilt of the losing streak, clear their mind, and are able to review their play effectively, and pinpoint what it is that is wrong with their play.
I'm only starting to realize the true effectiveness of the balance between practice and review, having realized with my recent small break that I do have a leak, and I've identified it. If you're curious, my leaks are my impatience, and my lack of emotional control in the game ie tilt.
My question for all of you is what is the perfect balance between studying/reviewing, and playing? 50/50? 0/100 (which is 100%)? Maybe you just play until you find yourself in a losing streak and decide to break and review your play until you've realized your leak?
Another thing that made me think about this was this question in the interview we have in the articles section with Dave ColClough:
Q. Which single piece of advice would you give to a player starting out and hoping to be a pro?
A. Patience patience patience..sit, watch, learn and only play occasionally.