Time Spent per Table.. How Long Do You Stay?

[RockPile]

How long do you stay on one particular table?
Do you have any general rules or guidelines you go by?

For me, I used to stay on a table, win average between 1-10BB then jump off then go to a new table and hopefully do the same. If I had passed the hour mark on a single table and was down but relatively close to what I brought into the table I would leave.

I noticed this bumped my Win Session % up a fair amount but the amounts were relatively small, and there still were loosing sessions in there.
For the loosing sessions I would say on until I either got back to even or busted. This doesnt happen as frequently but still does happen.

What does everyone else do? Pocket a small profit and jump to another table to lock it in, but then how do you limit your loosing sessions that inevitably happen?

[JinX11]

I stay until the action becomes poor.

Putting a time/win limit on your stay is kinda silly, really. If you are a favorite to win money at a given table, why would you leave? If you're not, why would you stay?

[pfkaok]

How about stay at a good table with bad players as long as they're there, and leave when the table starts getting bad... it'll hurt your win% though, if thats the only stat you're concerned with

[rt1]

ill sum up your strat in one word.... STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID.

OK, you stay in games when they are good. When you can clearly outplay people and you know exactly how you play. Why Win Session % is a stupid stat. Big deal what it is.... Most good players will have an average Win Session % of about 50-55%. You want to look at bb/100. This is just stupid, someone shot me!

[emonrad87]

Win session % is really a pointless stat. I'd rather win 20% of sessions for 30BB than 95% of sessions for 2BB. (Do the math, it works out). I stay as long as I;m playing good and others are playing bad, or until i have to go do something else.

[RockPile]

Okay.. lets expand the idea.

Generally the idea is to play as many table hours as possible right?
So then jumping to another table doesnt interfere with this, so long as you are playing.
Because every table is different based on players, cards dealt etc its pretty easy to tell within at least an hour if this is going to be a winning 'session' or loosing.
Just like multi-tabling to lower your variance wouldnt table jumping lower your variance.

How many times does it happen that you first have earned 5-10BB and continued to play only to loose it later on?
Yes there are times that you can Earn 50+BB a session but those arent everytime, those may account for what, 5% of someones sessions?
How what % of sessions do you get up to at least +5BB? Maybe 85%??? How many of those times have you stayed in to loose $$ or break even? 35% of that 85% you started off being up? That would put you around 55% total winning sessions. But now you've lost the 35% you were up to start.
I dont know if any of that just made sense.

Basically, if multi-tabling lowers variance wouldnt changing tables more frequently do the same thing? especially if you can change when you are up?

[RockPile]

[ QUOTE ]
Win session % is really a pointless stat. I'd rather win 20% of sessions for 30BB than 95% of sessions for 2BB. (Do the math, it works out). I stay as long as I;m playing good and others are playing bad, or until i have to go do something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how do you limit your loosing sessions? I think your logic is a little flawed as well. Do you have a stop loss? When do you get out of your tables? When you lost it all or when you loose a little?

20% wins of avg. 30BB + 80% losses of avg 10BB = -40BB
95% wins of avg. 5BB + 5% losses of avg 10BB = +425BB

That doesnt look so bad ... ?

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, if multi-tabling lowers variance wouldnt changing tables more frequently do the same thing? especially if you can change when you are up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, think about what you're saying... in terms of TOTAL $$ won at end of day/week/month, not in terms of % won. If you still don't understand why your logic is flawed you'll have a tough time ever being a long-term winner.

[college_boy]

Is this a joke? I hope so.

[Hermlord]

I think there is some advantage to moving tables frequently, but it has nothing to do with % winning sessions. It is basically a hit-and-run strategy, where you play solid, ABC by-the-numbers poker, win some pots, then leave before they realize how straightforward you're being and adjust.

I am not saying I always play this way, or that I'll leave a soft table just to follow this rule. But if I feel the players are smart enough to play back at ABC poker, I *might* just leave rather than have to think harder. Especially multitabling, where I try to minimize my thinking :-)

[Zetack]

I don't get this at all. If you were talking about stopping your session to lock in gains that would be one thing (it'd run against the it's all one session thingy, but I'd at least get the idea)...but you're not talking about stopping playing, your talking about jumping tables to "lock in" a gain....wha????

If you are going to keep playing the only question should be are the tables I'm playing any good and are there any better tables around. I've stayed on tables where I was down 40 BB's but 4-7 people were seeing pretty much every flop or the pots were averaging 11 BB's and I've jumped off tables where I've been up 60 or 70 BB's as the flop percentage plummeted. I've never changed tables just because I was up or down on the particular table--stopped sessions, sure but changed tables--no. And I find the idea a little puzzling.

--Zetack

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
But how do you limit your loosing sessions? I think your logic is a little flawed as well. Do you have a stop loss? When do you get out of your tables? When you lost it all or when you loose a little?


[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not a game of a bunch of little sessions added together and that the more sessions we "win" the better. You have to think of poker as one long continuous game where the first hand at a new table is just the next hand after the last hand of your last table. They may as well be part of the same session.

One more thing, usually when you're arguing a point that everyone else is telling you is wrong, it's time to step back and maybe, just maybe consider that you might actually be wrong.

Justin A

[RockPile]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is some advantage to moving tables frequently, but it has nothing to do with % winning sessions. It is basically a hit-and-run strategy, where you play solid, ABC by-the-numbers poker, win some pots, then leave before they realize how straightforward you're being and adjust.

I am not saying I always play this way, or that I'll leave a soft table just to follow this rule. But if I feel the players are smart enough to play back at ABC poker, I *might* just leave rather than have to think harder. Especially multitabling, where I try to minimize my thinking :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, thats a much closer explanation of what I'm trying to say.

[RockPile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But how do you limit your loosing sessions? I think your logic is a little flawed as well. Do you have a stop loss? When do you get out of your tables? When you lost it all or when you loose a little?


[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not a game of a bunch of little sessions added together and that the more sessions we "win" the better. You have to think of poker as one long continuous game where the first hand at a new table is just the next hand after the last hand of your last table. They may as well be part of the same session.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean poker is not a bunch of little sessions? Every time you sit at a table is a new session, some people play 4 sessions or more at once.. at least thats how PT looks at it.. yes I agree that you add all the individual times you sit at tables into one long coninuous ongoing experience.... And why not the more you win the better? The more you lose the better?

[ QUOTE ]

One more thing, usually when you're arguing a point that everyone else is telling you is wrong, it's time to step back and maybe, just maybe consider that you might actually be wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove a point anyways, I asked a question because I am curious how other people determine when the right time to leave a table is.
Besides, people just saying "You're wrong" isnt good enough for me to say 'Ok'. I like to hear some reasoning behind people thoughts otherwise you're just another sheep. Thanks for coming out.

[edfurlong]

Wow.

[Bluffoon]

I agree that you should stay when a game is good and leave if it gets bad. This poster may not understand the process involved in making that decision. So here is the process I use...

When I first get to a table I observe each player and categorize them as loose or tight and aggressive or passive. Then I look at their pre-flop raising standards and I look for common mistakes like cold-calling pre-flop and not paying attention to position and going too far etc..

If there are not some loose players who call too much and I can not identify many mistakes I am soon looking for another table. Sometimes I will stay at a table for as little as a single poor opponenent, especially if he is playing particularly badly and If I am in a position or if the table is allowing me take advantage of his mistakes.

I will leave a table if the poor players leave and are replaced by better players. I also find that there are a group of better players who like to jump into games with high average pots. I frequently find that the game goes bad when too many of these players come in and I will often leave or prepare too leave quickly if I see too many players from this group come in to my table.

I will also leave a table if I am losing badly, sometimes even if I think the game is good. Maybe something is going on that I don't understand, or the game is for some reason not as good as I think it is. I study these sessions closely for tilt, playing errors, and to see if I made any errors in evaluating the table and the players in order to be able to better evaluate similiar players and situations in the future.

Comments?

[Swampy]

In your original post, you mention only setting a period of time and whether you're ahead or behind at the end of that period; those are meaningless factors. Concentrate on whether the game is good or bad -- stay as long as it's good. Leave when it's not. "Good" or "bad" is a function of time only when it relates to your ability to focus; it's a function of money only when it affects your ability to play your optimum game. When you talk about "locking in" a win, it's possible that getting 10BB ahead or so is affecting your play. If that's so, then I agree you should be thinking about changing tables -- but you also might want to think about why you start to bleed chips after you win a certain amount. Could be you're looking at a band-aid solution (changing tables) to a big leak in your game (tilting based on the size of your stack).

[RockPile]

[ QUOTE ]
In your original post, you mention only setting a period of time and whether you're ahead or behind at the end of that period; those are meaningless factors. Concentrate on whether the game is good or bad -- stay as long as it's good. Leave when it's not. "Good" or "bad" is a function of time only when it relates to your ability to focus; it's a function of money only when it affects your ability to play your optimum game. When you talk about "locking in" a win, it's possible that getting 10BB ahead or so is affecting your play. If that's so, then I agree you should be thinking about changing tables -- but you also might want to think about why you start to bleed chips after you win a certain amount. Could be you're looking at a band-aid solution (changing tables) to a big leak in your game (tilting based on the size of your stack).

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine what is 'Bad'? Is it when you've lost your whole buy-in or a certain % of it?
I agree that you can get a feel for the table but, most time you are sitting down at a table with people you have relatively few hand data on. dO YOU STOP AT -10 OR -20bb and move on? Gut or trying to read the texture is one thing but at Micro limits it is sometimes more difficult.. when do you say 'enough of this table' and move to the next?
or dont you and play to decimation of your buy in a % of the time?

[helpmeout]

1. Poker is one big session
2. A table is profitable when people make significant number of mistakes, like playing any 2 cards. You may not win every session against these players but you will win much more money over the long term compared to playing against people making fewer mistakes.

I suggest you go learn about probability.

Based on the way you think, if I flip a coin 10 times it'll end up heads 5 times and tails 5 times.

[edfurlong]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Poker is one big session
2. A table is profitable when people make significant number of mistakes, like playing any 2 cards. You may not win every session against these players but you will win much more money over the long term compared to playing against people making fewer mistakes.

I suggest you go learn about probability.

Based on the way you think, if I flip a coin 10 times it'll end up heads 5 times and tails 5 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you are smart enough to grab a new coin after you've won the first two. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Swampy]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you determine what is 'Bad'? Is it when you've lost your whole buy-in or a certain % of it?
I agree that you can get a feel for the table but, most time you are sitting down at a table with people you have relatively few hand data on. dO YOU STOP AT -10 OR -20bb and move on? Gut or trying to read the texture is one thing but at Micro limits it is sometimes more difficult.. when do you say 'enough of this table' and move to the next?
or dont you and play to decimation of your buy in a % of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let me take another run at this. Whether a table is good or bad has very little to do with how much ahead or behind you are at any particular point. Setting a "stop loss" point beforehand is useless, unless you know at exactly what point your stack size will have a psychological effect on the way you play.

When you sit down at a table, you should be able to tell very quickly which of your opponents are weak players and which ones are going to play tough against you; that's a basic skill. You should already be aware of how alert and ready to play you are. When those factors are in your favor, that's a good table. When tougher players join the game, it may be time to leave. When you get tired and begin to lose focus, it may be time to leave. When you tilt because you're losing or winning (NOT just because you're ahead or behind a certain amount), it may be time to leave. When dinner's ready and your wife is yelling at you because the meatloaf is getting cold, it may be time to leave. But avoid prejudging at what point you should leave by pinning those decisions to amounts of money; that's approaching the problem you're observing in your results from entirely the wrong angle.

[RockPile]

[ QUOTE ]

OK, let me take another run at this. Whether a table is good or bad has very little to do with how much ahead or behind you are at any particular point. Setting a "stop loss" point beforehand is useless, unless you know at exactly what point your stack size will have a psychological effect on the way you play.

When you sit down at a table, you should be able to tell very quickly which of your opponents are weak players and which ones are going to play tough against you; that's a basic skill. You should already be aware of how alert and ready to play you are. When those factors are in your favor, that's a good table. When tougher players join the game, it may be time to leave. When you get tired and begin to lose focus, it may be time to leave. When you tilt because you're losing or winning (NOT just because you're ahead or behind a certain amount), it may be time to leave. When dinner's ready and your wife is yelling at you because the meatloaf is getting cold, it may be time to leave. But avoid prejudging at what point you should leave by pinning those decisions to amounts of money; that's approaching the problem you're observing in your results from entirely the wrong angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, thanks

[Sunshine]

For Casino games, I've noticed that after 4 hours in one chair, I am not as observant so I look to leave if the action is not good after 4 or so hours with the thought that I am more likley to be easier to read, etc. For home games, it does not matter: the longer I play, the more $$ I make.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you determine what is 'Bad'? Is it when you've lost your whole buy-in or a certain % of it?


[/ QUOTE ]

How much you win or lose has little if any effect on good or bad. I was on a table last week where a crazy guy won 150bb in under three hours. About 25bb of that was mine which he won on complete suckouts that were rather annoying. It was still a good table. It stopped being a good table two or three hours later at 2:30am when he lost it all back and only non-crazy players were left.

[Cerril]

I'll usually hang out at a table until the people I'm there to play with leave (unless people leaving have been replaced by other Lx-P types), or until I feel like leaving. usually my sessions 4-tabling are rarely longer than an hour and a half, and never longer than two hours. I hope to get my endurance up but after that long I start to get antsy and my concentration wavers a bit, so I take a break to get a drink or something (or often a longer break) before jumping back in.

Table conditions or personal conditions (need to take a break, aren't playing as well, etc.) are really the only 'good' reasons to leave a table.