More hands, more data, more predictable opponents — online should be easier than live, not worse. If it isn't, there's a specific, findable reason. It's in your own hand history.
Wherever your graph is right now, there's a specific, findable reason it isn't better.
Timing tells. Physical reads. One table, minutes to decide. Instincts built for a room, not a screen.
No faces. Bet-sizing is the only tell left. Four tables, seconds per decision, a population that's read the same solver outputs you have.
Live gives you the whole hand to think. Online, especially multi-tabling, the same decision gets a fraction of the time — habits that relied on unhurried reads start defaulting to autopilot.
No faces, no posture, no timing-in-the-room. The information that's left is sizing, frequency, and betting patterns across a sample — a completely different skill from reading a person.
Online opponent pools skew toward players who've studied solver output directly. Lines that exploited a typical live rec often don't hold up the same way.
A leak that cost little over a live player's smaller sample gets magnified across thousands more hands a year online — and it hides inside results, because folds cost nothing visible.
3-bet sizing barely adjusts by position or stack depth — a habit that worked against live recs calling too wide, now getting exploited by an online pool that folds correctly to the predictable ones and re-raises the small ones.
Fold frequency to aggression rises sharply on tables 3 and 4 versus table 1 — a pace effect invisible in net results, only visible reviewing folds as decisions, not just the hands that reached showdown.
Trap lines that made sense when a live opponent's face gave away strength are firing into a population that just plays back at the range, not the person.
Folding the big blind far more than the pot odds and blockers justify — a live habit of protecting the blind conservatively, well below what modern defending ranges call for against a late-position steal.
Online cash and Rush & Cash run 6-max, where a real UTG open is closer to 16-17% — this range got away with it against a live table full of loose recreational players, and is now getting 3-bet relentlessly by regs sitting behind it who don't extend the same courtesy.
Illustrative example — every real report is built entirely from the client's own hands, personally reviewed, with real hand examples cited for each finding.
Pull a hand history export from your site or tracker (Hold’em Manager, PokerTracker, or the site’s own export) — cash games or Rush & Cash. Whatever recent sample you have; pricing below scales with how many hands there are to review.
Before you send anything, write down — as thoroughly and specifically as you can — what you think is actually costing you money. Not “variance”: your real, reasoned guess. Send that along with the file.
A written, decision-by-decision report once every hand's been reviewed, checked against your own theory, plus a short written follow-up — or add a video call to walk through it together.
We're new, and this is our launch push: a handful of full-depth reviews done for free, no shortcuts, in exchange for an honest testimonial we can reference afterward — whatever it says. This is where the process gets proven out before anyone pays for it.
Once the free reviews are gone, pricing scales with hand volume — since a person is actually reading the hands, a bigger sample is genuinely more time, not a free extra for a script.
Guarantee — write your own thorough, specific theory of why you're losing money before you send your hands. If it turns out you were right, the report is free. If it's not the real answer, you'll get the one that is.
We're cash-game and Rush & Cash players ourselves, and we hold every review to one strict rule: no leak gets called without checking it against the actual hand data first — no generic ranges, no population assumptions asserted without verifying the sample.
That same standard is what we apply to your hands. Every finding in your report is something that shows up in your sample, cited with your own hand examples and checked against your own theory — not a repackaged strategy article.
No — and that's the point. The hands in your file are read by a person, decision by decision, not scored by an algorithm. If you're looking for an AI or leak-finder tool to scan your stats — like Kevixo, SplitSuit's LeakFinder, or Leak Buster — this is the alternative: those tools flag whatever pattern they're tuned to catch, the same way for everyone. Nobody here calls a leak without checking it against your actual hands first.
No. That's the transition we see most often, and it's a real pattern worth naming, but the audit works for any cash-game or Rush & Cash player who wants to know what's actually costing them — whether you're deep in the red, bleeding slowly, or already winning and want to find whatever edge is still on the table.
Online cash games and Rush & Cash (fast-fold) only, at any stake. Tournaments and sit-and-gos aren't part of this yet — send cash-game hands only, so the sample stays clean.
Typically 3–5 business days from when we receive your hand history export, depending on sample size — larger files take a little longer, since a person is actually reading every hand.
You still get the full report, with the real answer instead of the one you guessed. The guarantee only doesn't apply if the theory is skipped, or too vague to count as a real answer — something like “just variance” on its own.
Just the person doing your review. Your hands aren't resold, shared, or run through a third-party tool — they're read once, for your report.
We're new, and this is our launch push — a limited batch of full-depth reviews done for free in exchange for an honest testimonial we can reference afterward (anonymously, if you'd prefer). Once that batch is done, standard pricing applies.