Recently I started paying more attention to the difference between learning poker theory and actually analyzing my own game. These two things are connected, but they are not quite the same. I can understand a theoretical concept and still make the wrong decision at the table because of an old habit, a misunderstanding of ranges, or an incorrect adjustment to the player pool. That is why I became interested in services that work with real hand histories. I wanted to find a way to see not only what the theory recommends, but also where my practical decisions may be moving away from it. During my research, I came across BaseAnalise and looked through the different analysis formats they offer. The service is focused on reviewing played hands, identifying leaks, and finding situations where a player may be losing EV. I also visited baseanalise.com to get a better idea of how the process works. What I liked was that the analysis combines technical aspects with practical considerations. There is attention to advanced range and GTO concepts, but also to population tendencies and exploitative strategies, which seems especially relevant because real opponents do not always play according to theoretical models. I also noticed that the available reviews cover different formats, including NLH cash, MTTs, Spin&Go, Short Deck, and several PLO variations. Some options are focused on particular strategic areas, while others allow a player to submit a limited number of difficult hands for a more targeted review. For me, this seems like a useful alternative to simply spending more time studying random topics. While looking into different learning approaches, I also came across the term online poker school, and it made me think about the difference between general education and personalized analysis. An online course can provide a strong theoretical foundation, but reviewing my own database can show which concepts I actually struggle to apply in practice. I also appreciate that follow-up support is available after the analysis, since understanding the reasoning behind a recommendation is much more useful than simply being told that a particular decision was incorrect. Overall, I see this kind of review as a starting point for a more focused study routine: identify the most expensive leaks, understand their causes, work on alternative decisions, and then return to the database to see whether the same mistakes continue to appear.