Stopping when I'm ahead

[Jakesta]

This is my second post re-posted from the Psychology forum, by request.

"Hello folks, this is my first post on the 2+2 forums.

I currently play Stars .25/.50 and have a bankroll of $125. I have been playing this game for about 2 weeks after moving up from 5c/10c, and before that I played .02/.04.

I experience huge fluctuations in my bankroll and first I wonder if this is to be expected. I figure that it is because there are like 6 or 7 people in pots frequently, so better hands(like straights and flushes) are required to survive.

Today, for example, I was down as low as 81.00, and as high as 140.00, and I finished the session up 5 dollars. I just want to make sure that this is normal. I currently 4 or 5-table this limit for a couple hours per day.

Secondly, I find myself stopping when I am up for the day. I know that Sklansky says that it is all one long session, but psychologically I just like the feeling of getting up when I am ahead. I get really sad when I am down for the day because I know I played good poker, and I attribute it to just variance. This Stars .25/.50 is the swingiest game I have ever played in, by far. This could be because I play the SSH tight-aggressive style. Sometimes I go on huge tears and win 15 out of 16 pots, and other times I lose 12 out of 14. Is that just the way it is at the micros?

Thanks for reading this folks."

[bottomset]

maybe play less tables

120BB swings in 1day are pretty large at passive tables

always attributing losing sessions to variance is a bad idea, mainly because most of the time its not variance thats responsible for most of the loss, but bad play

if you are a really good player, then losing sessions tend to be just variance, but for most of us, its bad play brought on by a varieties of situations that really cause the bleeding

[Jakesta]

This is the thing though, set.

These tables used to be very passive, but now thye are full of LAGs, believe it or not. It seems that the LAGs outnumber the loose passives sometimes.

When you take AA into a pot with 6 other players and it is capped, then it won't hold up that often. I completely understand that, and that is what I attribute the variance to.

I know that I don't play perfectly, but I just think that this is a swingy game, especially because I play a lot of tables so when I am losing on 3 or 4 of them in a short period of time then that tends to deplete the bankroll rapidly. Likewise, if I am winning on 3 or 4 tables, that tends to increase the bankroll rapidly.

[cold_cash]

I've never played the Stars micro games, but there's variance everywhere.

When I first started playing I was sort of like you are. Sometimes I would get down early and then scratch and claw my way back up to even and log out. While this did make me feel better, I eventually realized it wasn't always the most profitable move.

Now I will keep playing as long as the game is good and I'm feeling good, no matter how much I happen to be stuck. I think if you're too quick to leave because you've reached some arbitrary number you're going to miss out on a lot of hands in a lot of good games.

You'll figure it out for yourself eventually; probably after you've gotten to used to the swings.

[SCfuji]

LAP or LAG who cares? they are both beatable. 6 ways capped with AA? thats a dream hand. you wont win as often as if it were 1v1 or 1v2 but you are going to win a MONSTER POT when it holds up.

[Jakesta]

There are always good games at this limit on Stars though. It's not like I am playing a Party 15/30 table that is really juicy. The Stars tables are all equally juicy(VP$IP ~50). That's why I think that my stopping after reaching a goal for the day is fine. But you are free to disagree.

[cold_cash]

I'm sure that there are some Stars micro tables that are better than others.

Either way, evidently I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were asking for opinions/advice, not confirmation.

[Jakesta]

I think I wanted both.

Sometimes I wonder if it is not all variance. Maybe I am a bad player, or I just run well sometimes. I don't know if I'll ever know. Good thing i am at such a low limit.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I wanted both.

Sometimes I wonder if it is not all variance. Maybe I am a bad player, or I just run well sometimes. I don't know if I'll ever know. Good thing i am at such a low limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post and respond to some hands.

[Jakesta]

Lol I don't think I am qualified to give any advice on here yet.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol I don't think I am qualified to give any advice on here yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to be. Give your thoughts, what would you do in each situation and someone will usually come around and tell you if you're wrong. Or respond and read the other responses to see if what they said is consistent to your take.

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol I don't think I am qualified to give any advice on here yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

trust me, i know i'm not. i post wrong stuff all the time and have only been playing for like 2-3 months. but it really is the best way to learn: it'll stick more when you post and have people slam you.

[Jakesta]

Ok will do.

[deception5]

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue5/blade0505.html

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue5/blade0505.html

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good link, thanks.

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]

These tables used to be very passive, but now thye are full of LAGs, believe it or not. It seems that the LAGs outnumber the loose passives sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

in two weeks of playing at 2 different limits you've noticed the type of player you're up against changing? First, stop playing so many tables. By playing 1-3 you get great reads and you save yourself money by making extra bets/raises and folding to certain bets/raises. I didnt start multitabling until well after a month of playing since i wanted to get the basics down first. It's easy to blame variance, but the fact of the matter is people who have played 50,000+ hands still lose and to think that after 2 weeks you should be good enough to win all the time is insane. About the big swings- happened to me when i first started, too. ANd i dont think it's variance at all. Again, it comes down to knowing poker. You're winning hands, because anyone can play when the flop hits them hard, but then you're giving the money back, and more, by playing other hands poorly. Once you cut out or drasitically reduce the poorly played hands you should have a nicer positively sloped graph, like those in the thread about the graphs.

[MDO67]

I forgot about that article. Nice job.

[HentaiGaijin]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue5/blade0505.html

[/ QUOTE ]

His system is flawed. I kissed a waitress on the lips and they escorted me out of the building.

[Kumubou]

I don't fully agree with that article regarding 'stop-loss' plans. They might be a good idea, if only psychologically. Mainly because when you drop a lot of units in a session, it is not just due to bad luck usually -- bad play figures in at some point. I had a session recently where I managed to drop 80 BBs in the span of 200 hands -- but the game was so freakin soft I felt compelled to keep playing; knowing that the chips would come back to me at some point (this was partially correct). However, upon further inspection I was playing far far far too passively, on a passive tilt of sorts after so many random-ass hands.

The moral of this story: I need to get psycolgocally tougher. Detatchment from the game, and crap.

-K