I utilize it, but not to it's fullest. I tend to rely more on my notes. I really only use three colors, a default color for regular players that I have notes for, green for bad players and red for strong players. I have a ton of green tags out there, but only a handful of red ones. It takes a lot to get a red tag from me. Besides, I usually remember the good players and don't need tags or notes for them unless they have distinctive tendencies.
For the most part, I consider the majority of player to be decent and don't bother tagging them unless I have notes on them which might indicate their style of play or any tendencies that I may have picked up on, as well as method I can use to exploit them. Bad players get a green tag along with notes detailing what kind of bad player they are, because there are many different ways to play bad. I will also include any tendencies that I have noticed, their calling and raising ranges if they can be defined, and of course what I can do to exploit their weaknesses.
For example a player may have a green tag indicating that I condsider them to be a bad player. When I wave my pointer over the tag it might say:
- wants to play every hand (ATC)
- raises light (3x w/J-8, 3x w/Q-8, 5x w/A-7 off)
- calls raises light (3x w/10-8 off, 3x w/7-6 suited)
- will call them off or shove them in on a draw
- not afraid to bluff shove
> bet two streets, then give him a chance to bluff at the river
These are my actual notes for one particularly bad player. They could actully be longer, but it became unneccessary for me catalog this person's bad play any further. When I see them I just expect horrific play.
Another example of one of my green tagged players is:
- constant and repeated pre and post
- any pair, any Ace
- habitual bluffer
- all-in on draws
> stand back and watch him work (which means let him bet/bluff at it)