In the long run...

[RJT]

The eminent economist, John Maynard Keynes, quipped in reply to long term economic policy, "In the long run...we are all dead." With this in mind I have a question regarding playing "every so often" as opposed to playing daily (where I see odds being a bit more relevant-if I don't hit my flush on the river this time, odds are over the long run I will hit it x many times). By every so often I mean going to a nearby (2 hours away) casino once or twice a month.
Should an occasional player play the same as one in for the long run? I would think "every so often" playing, I would be more selective and maybe more aggressive than I might otherwise. Now I am asking in general, not that I would only play solid cards and become obvious.
In the same vein, when SSHE talks about the pre-flop, playable hands and the positions, does this mean we should play the hands all the time (so long as in position)? Or does this mean we can play these hands. For example: late position 53s, should be played or can be played to no raise (vs sometimes folding). Again does this answer change if "long term" play versus "every now" and then play.
Maybe "every now and then" play should be played somewhat like tournament play?

[KenProspero]

I'm not sure whether your question is mathmatical or philosophical.

Mathmatically, the answer shouldn't matter whether you play ever day or once in a lifetime. Your EV is maximized by correct play.

If you play a tight passive game (and fold hands which offer good pot odds, but not good absolute odds), you'll either be a loser (or won't win as much) in the long run (yeah, I remember we're dead), but will go home a big loser less.

If you play the odds, you'll win more overall, but will have more nights where you're a big winner or a big loser.

So, if you play twice, would you feel better if you broke even both nights, or won 250 one night and lost 225 the other?

[RJT]

Point well taken. I think my question really is: If play only a few times is it better to be passive/agressive tight/loose?

[RJT]

I think I found the answer to my last post on page 79 of SSHE - the 4 fundamental principles.
My other question still stands - in the e.g 53s loose game, late position, no raise - is this optional pre-flop -is it ok to fold. As I understand I should play it because the odds are right. It would be like me asking is it ok sometimes to sit out with AA.

[AleoMagus]

What you seem to be asking to some degree is a question about maximizing EV as opposed to minimizing variance.

The fact is that as we attempt to maximize our EV in poker, we will also increase our variance (this is nearly always true anyways). Playing the late position 53s in a small stakes game with lots of limpers is an example of this. The hand can be profitable, but playing it will also increase your variance.

The reason for this is that those hands are only slightly profitable and if you should run badly in a session, you can expect to lose more as you will be investing more with these kinds of marginal hands. Similarly though, if you run well, you will make a lot of good hands out of your marginal holdings and can expect to book some big wins.

SSHE is a book all about maximizing EV. It makes this very clear in my opinion, and as such, does not pull any punches when it comes to advising all kinds of 'advanced' ideas about maximizing profit with only slightly profitable hands and slightly profitable situations.

You will notice that many other 'beginner' books out there will advise much tighter play and will try to keep the new player from making mistakes by keeping the starting hands and post-flop guidelines very simple. The reason for this is because they know that simple advice can make a person a winner. In fact, simple guidelines are probably more likely to turn a very weak player into a winner, than more complicated (but more accurate) guidelines. To be the biggest winner, however, you need to find every single edge and exploit it to the maximum.

So, I guess to get back to your question... it really depends. If you want to come away a winner as much as possible when you travel to play, then reducing variance can be a good thing. You might not value the money as much as the enjoyment of walking away a winner frequently. On the other hand though, you WILL make more on average by increasing your variance. This of course, assumes that you are a winning player to begin with, becasue if you have some serious leaks in your game, your would be better off keeping it simple in the hopes of making your decisions easier.

Hope this helps

Regards
Brad S

[aron]

If I were only to play like everyother month I wouldn't bother that much about theory. I'd probably be more concerned finding a table with nice people making sure I had a good time.

Maybe that wasn't your question but it's another aspect.

[EliteNinja]

Play your best at all times no matter how short/long the session.

Your 'best' should mean maximizing your expected value on each decision you make.

Conclusion:
Always do your best.

[wdbaker]

If you only play once in a while and its more for entertainment then you can do it a couple of ways.
1. see the flop 30-40% of the time if you catch on the flop then run with it, consider any loss as entertainment fee.
2. Play tight aggressive(TAG) less than 30% seein the flop, if you catch on the flop jam it else muck it. Don't worry about small edges, your looking for the hands that win big often.

Just my thoughts

One Street at a Time
wdbaker Denver, Co