Building a Checklist Around Your Post-Session Review, Not Your Pre-Game Hopes
Most poker players who keep a checklist use it before they sit down. They remind themselves to stay patient, watch position, and avoid tilt. Those reminders have value, but they describe intentions rather than evidence. A checklist built around the review that follows a session can do something different: it turns your memory of what happened into a short, repeatable set of questions you can answer honestly. This article walks through how to build that kind of checklist, what it should capture, and how to keep it from becoming a vague journal entry. Nothing here is a promise of results. It is a method for organizing your own observations so you can decide what deserves more study.
Why a review checklist differs from a pre-game list
A pre-game list answers the question of how you want to behave. A review checklist answers the question of how you actually behaved and what that reveals. The two serve different purposes, and mixing them often leaves both weaker. When a single list tries to be a reminder and a record at once, the record tends to be shaped by the reminder: you write down the decisions you wish you had made rather than the ones you made.
A review checklist works best when it is written shortly after a session, while your memory of specific hands is still reasonably clear. Its job is to convert a long, blurry block of play into a few concrete items. Each item should point to something you can check later, such as a hand history, a note, or a stake-specific tendency you want to verify.
Choosing the questions your checklist should ask
The most useful review questions are specific enough to answer with yes, no, or a short number. Vague prompts like How did I play? produce vague answers. Better prompts name a situation: Did I fold to a river bet more often than I intended? Did I play more hands from the big blind than my plan allowed? Did I change my sizing when I was behind? Each question names a behavior you can test against your records.
A workable checklist usually has between five and eight questions. Group them by category so you can scan them quickly. One group might cover preflop choices, another postflop decisions, and a third mental state or pacing. Keep one line at the bottom for anything that felt unusual but does not fit a category. Avoid making the list longer than you will realistically complete after every session. A short list you finish beats a detailed list you abandon.
Separating observations from conclusions
One of the most common mistakes in session review is mixing what happened with what you think it means. An observation is a factual note: I called a river bet with a pair of sixes on a four-flush board. A conclusion is an interpretation: I call too much on the river. Your checklist should record observations in one place and mark conclusions separately, ideally as questions to test rather than final verdicts.
This separation matters because a single session rarely supports a firm conclusion. Variance can make a reasonable decision look bad, and a poor decision can happen to win. When you write observations first, you can later count how often a pattern appears across several sessions instead of reacting to one memorable hand.
A practical checklist format
Here is a plain-text structure you can copy into a notes file. Under Session, record the date, the game type, and the approximate number of hands you played. Under Questions, write five to seven prompts that apply to your current study focus, such as how you handled bet sizing on the turn or whether you stayed within your planned opening ranges. Under Observations, list two or three specific hands, each with a one-line description of the spot and your action. Under Tests, write down one thing you want to check in your hand history before the next session. Under Carry Forward, note any single adjustment you will try, limited to one item so you can judge whether it helped.
Keep the whole checklist to a single page. If you find yourself writing paragraphs under each heading, the format is too loose and you should trim it. The goal is a document you can complete in ten or fifteen minutes and revisit in a few weeks without rereading everything.
Questions to ask about the checklist itself
Periodically step back and evaluate the checklist. Are your questions still the ones that matter, or have you answered them so consistently that they no longer teach you anything? Are you recording observations you can actually verify, or relying on memory that has already smoothed over the details? Do the carry-forward items get tested, or do they quietly pile up without follow-through? If you cannot say whether a particular adjustment helped, the checklist is not yet giving you useful feedback.
Finally, ask whether the checklist is pointing you toward study you can carry out. A good review tool narrows your attention to one or two leaks at a time, which makes improvement measurable. A poor one generates a long list of concerns that feels productive but leaves you unsure what to work on next. Revise the format until each session produces a single, concrete item to examine.