This is a study workflow, not a promise that any line is universally correct. Check the rules and tools available on the platform you use, and keep review separate from decisions made in the moment.
Why cleanup comes first
A hand history often arrives as a wall of abbreviations, timestamps, player labels, and action codes. My first reaction used to be to jump straight to the result. That made the review fragile. If I misread the position, forgot an earlier action, or filled in an unknown detail from memory, every later conclusion rested on a guess.
Cleanup is not about making the hand look tidy for its own sake. It is about creating a small reliable record. I want to know the format, position, effective stack in broad terms, action order, board cards, and the exact decision I am reviewing. I also want to mark what I do not know. An honest blank is more useful than a confident invention.
The seven-minute pass
Minute one: name the hand
I give the entry a plain label such as “button versus blind, turn check-raise” or “river decision after missed draw.” A good label tells me where the review lives without telling me what the answer must be. I record the date or session tag only if it helps find the source later.
Minutes two and three: rebuild the action
I rewrite the action in order, one street at a time. I do not compress a sequence just because it feels familiar. Preflop, flop, turn, and river each get their own line. If an action is missing, I write “unknown” rather than smoothing over the gap. I mark who acted first and who still has a decision after each action.
Minutes four and five: separate facts from impressions
Facts are cards, positions, bet sizes, timing notes that were actually recorded, and visible actions. Impressions are “this player seemed capped,” “the board felt scary,” or “I probably looked weak.” I keep both, but I label them differently. This prevents a feeling from quietly becoming evidence.
Minutes six and seven: isolate the review point
I circle one decision. If a hand contains three interesting moments, I create three linked notes rather than one sprawling verdict. The review question should be specific: “What information did I use before calling?” is better than “Did I play this badly?” A narrow question produces a note I can reuse.
What I preserve
I preserve the original record separately from my cleaned note. The original is the source; the cleaned note is my interpretation. I keep the visible board sequence, action order, relative positions, and the sizing language used by the source. I also preserve unusual details such as a disconnected table, a missed prompt, or an interrupted action if they affected my attention.
I avoid copying every technical field into the study note. A field belongs when it can change the question. If a number is useful, I explain why it matters. If it is not available, I say so. This keeps the review readable and makes it easier to compare similar hands later.
How I mark uncertainty
My preferred labels are known, inferred, and unknown. Known means the record states it. Inferred means I made a reasonable interpretation, such as identifying the likely aggressor from the action. Unknown means I cannot recover it. I do not treat inferred details as facts when I revisit the hand.
I also record confidence in the question, not in a final answer. For example: “High confidence that I missed the position check; low confidence about the best river sizing because the available context is incomplete.” This wording keeps the note open to revision and stops one uncertain spot from becoming a sweeping rule.
Turning clean data into a question
After cleanup, I ask what kind of review is needed. A range question asks which hands plausibly reach the street. A process question asks whether I followed my own pause routine. A position question asks how the seat changed the available options. A communication question asks whether the action or interface caused confusion. Different questions need different evidence.
For a practical example, suppose I see a turn call followed by a difficult river decision. I do not immediately label the turn call as the cause. I write two notes: “turn: what changed after the card?” and “river: which value and bluff combinations did I consider?” This preserves the chain without assuming that the earlier choice explains everything later.
When I finish, I choose one follow-up exercise: review three hands from the same position, compare two similar board textures, or rehearse a pause cue away from the table. The exercise should be small enough to complete. A useful study note ends with an action I can actually test.
Minimum viable capture
When the export is incomplete, I use a minimum viable capture instead of delaying every review. I write the game format, the seat or relative position, the street, the action immediately before my choice, the available options, and the missing detail. That small record is enough to preserve a question without pretending the hand is fully reconstructed.
For example, “cash game, late position, turn, faced a check-raise, stack size unknown” is a usable queue item. It is not a conclusion. I attach the original export or screenshot if I have one, then list the one fact that would most improve the review. This makes incomplete notes easy to finish later and keeps them from being mistaken for complete evidence.
Repeatable checklist
Before I archive a cleaned hand, I check: source preserved; action order readable; board sequence correct; position named; review point isolated; facts separated from impressions; unknowns marked; one question written; one follow-up exercise chosen. If any item is missing, I leave the note in a review queue rather than pretending it is finished.
That final queue is helpful because not every hand deserves immediate analysis. Some entries need a better export, a missing screenshot, or a quiet reread tomorrow. Deferring a note is not avoiding study. It is protecting the quality of the study record. The point of cleanup is to make the next decision clearer, not to force a conclusion before the evidence is ready.