HIT AND RUN

It is with a great deal of respect that I disagree with the notion that the "hit & run" is a product of fuzzy thinking. In almost every 2 + 2 book that I have read, and have learned quite a bit from, It is stated that players that set a stop win in their bankroll are making a fundamental error.


For example lets take a 10-20 game that you buy in for $500. Lets say that the game is full and each of the other nine players have exactly $500 in front of them.

Fast forward 3 hours, you are now up $1000 at this point I would consider leaving a good game. Here is my logic:


1. In the absolute best case scenario, your total upside potential is limited. if you win every penny your opponent will go home broke, unless you give loans to strangers (not smart)


2. You have separated your opponents from 22.2% of their collective bankrolls. It would be flawed to assume that in 3 more hours you will be up $2000 sine this would require taking 44.4% of the money off the table.


3. By continuing to play you will risk damage to your $333.00 per hour

rate.


4. Your expectation of profit is damaged by 3 more hours of rake.


5. The argument that "your 4th hour of poker will be played, it may be now it may be next week, this may be a better game then the game you play next week" ...is a good argument, however I believe that it is debunked by the following:


A. To wait for the next game will allow you to take some of those chip off

the table.


B. If your next game is not as good as this one you don't have to play in it.


Can anyone offer a reasonable argument that taking a dime off a 10-20 table

in 3 hours and going home with it is a bad thing?


Respectfully

Jdoe

That is all 2+2 is saying, that you should base your decision not on your bankroll, but on your ev going forward. I believe it was Sklansky who said, when you take half the money off the table, stand up.


leroy

You sound like my wife. Whenever I speak to her and I'm winning in the poker room she will tell me to quit before I lose it back.

A couple thoughts


- There isn't a finite amount of money at the table so your upside isn't limited. The players either will buy back in for more or new players will come into the game with refreshed bankrolls. There is always more money being pumped back into the table.


- If you're up $1000 bucks, there's a good chance that you're better than your opponents.


- In a 24 hour period, would you rather play for 3 hours and be up $1000 or play for 7 hours and be up $1400? I'll take the $400 bucks, and you can keep your $333/hour statistic.


-Rube

that's the right answer mason..the secret to a long and happy marriage..gl

"Can anyone offer a reasonable argument that taking a dime off a 10-20 table in 3 hours and going home with it is a bad thing?"


It's not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing.


However, it's not as good as taking $2000 off the table in 5 hours.


I think we can agree on that.


- Andrew

Just think this way, if were to get up and come back to another table like you were just arriving to the casino for that day what stop you from wining another $1000 or lose a $1000?(assuming the games are still good and you are not exhausted)


Greetings,


Le_blanc

be it going up, or down, just when to stop is allways a bit of a problem


I dont do this mysely, but have friend that ( when he is ahead a fair amount) decides just how much he will lose back and stops at that point


if he continues to go up, then he raises the stop point,,,,,etc etc,,,,he locks in some win, but does not close the door to MORE

I see both sides to the argument. On the one hand, if you're a favorite in the game, you should continue playing. If you play better than the other guys, you're going to lose less money on the hands you lose than they do, and win more money than they do on the hands you win. In addition, you'll be winning a larger percentage of the hands you play than they do.


On the other hand, poker is a game of luck and skill. If the cards turn sour, you will indeed lose less than the poorer players, but you will lose nonetheless. And for those of us who are not professionals (and, I would suspect, for those who are), the psychological benefits of booking a win without giving any back are substantial. I feel a lot better winning $1,000 when I started out stuck and clawed my way back than when I got up $2,000 and gave back half of it.


Sklansky says it is all one big, long card game, and indeed it should be, but it's not for me.

Save the analysis for later on at home.All it's doing to you in the game is making you unsure of yourself.

Assuming that the games chemistry has not altered radically due to influences other than your rush,there are to many positive intangibles in hand when one gets up 50BB's in a few hours that it's pretty self defeating to talk one's self into quitting.

Assuming you are correct that you should leave when you are up a large amount, there must be some ideal (or at least minimum) interval of time before you play again. This is pretty obviously not the case (if you don't think this is obvious, try to derive this magic number)...therefore, you should continue, so long as you can still play well. Waiting 10 seconds before your next hand is no different than waiting 10 weeks. However, if it makes you feel better to leave a winner, then by all means do what makes you happy. Just understand that you are not increasing your EV.

A few points...


1. In the absolute best case scenario, your total upside potential is limited. if you win every penny your opponent will go home broke, unless you give loans to strangers (not smart)


if it's a home game true, in casino's they keep the games freshly stocked with fish. when one goes broke another takes the seat.


2. You have separated your opponents from 22.2% of their collective bankrolls. It would be flawed to assume that in 3 more hours you will be up $2000 sine this would require taking 44.4% of the money off the table.


why should it be any more difficult than it was in the last 3 hours? Your expectation is meassured in a fixed $ amount, not a percentage or your opponents buy in.


3. By continuing to play you will risk damage to your $333.00 per hour

rate.


your hourly rate is your hourly rate. period. if you exceeded it your last 3 hours, great. but if it's positive, you should keep playing if you feel well rested and you are still enjoying yourself. why forgo money to keep the rate of the session high? your next hour played wherever it is is going to affect your overall hourly rate anyway.


4. Your expectation of profit is damaged by 3 more hours of rake.


once again, your expectation is your expectation. it isn't damaged by playing longer (unless playing longer affects your game). It's not like your true expectation is now somehow higher because you just had a winning session. Going forward, your last sessions results don't affect what your expectation is (in a mathematical sense, if your last sessions affects the way your opponents play that is a different story).


5. The argument that "your 4th hour of poker will be played, it may be now it may be next week, this may be a better game then the game you play next week" ...is a good argument, however I believe that it is debunked by the following:


A. To wait for the next game will allow you to take some of those chip off

the table.


the chips you have on the table don't matter. buying into a 3-6 game for $1000 or $2000 isn't going to change your expectation for the session. do you believe and understand this?


B. If your next game is not as good as this one you don't have to play in it.


whenever that next hour comes though it will be your next hour of play. if you've just won $1000 in a 10-20 game then you are probably in a good game and that is the best reason to keep playing. you want to take advantage of situations where you are getting the best of it.


rob

One legitimate reason to "hit and run" in my mind is if you are playing very straightforward and you're not intending to bluff or semi-bluff and your opponents do not know how you play. If you make a decent score because you've had some good hands and received more than normal action because the players didn't know you, then booking the win before they adjust seems like a good idea to me. Normally though I don't recommend focusing on individual sessions as I feel it's counter productive. Read John Feeney's book and his essay on this site for some thoughts on handling fluctuations.

There are many arguements for or against your logic with regard to the dollar amount in question, and your winnings or expectations withing the session. However, I feel that you may be judging the incorrect criteria. You should base how long you play based more on game conditions, and how you measure up against your opponents instead of the money won or lost. I would want to have other imperical evidence for leaving that table aside from being afraid that I would lose. However, if you looked at that $1000.00 and were afraid to lose some of it back at that time then leaving was obviously the correct decision. I see this as more of a personal decision based on economics than a decision grounded in poker theory one way or the other. I have more than the money on my mind when I leave the table or the game.