Playing When Losing?

Are you more willing to get up from the table when you're winning, or losing? If your answer is when you're winning, then why are you more willing to play when you're losing, than when you're winning?

(Just a little food for thought.)

interesting point!

I read an article"The Will to Win:is Losing Optional?"by Robert Copps in"CanadianPoker".

The following excerpt is from his article:


""If I was well ahead and started to get tired,I cashed in.When I got stuck and the table broke,instead of going home,I went to another game and got my money back.This SOMETIMES MEANT PLAYING ALL NIGHT,but I was confident and my confident was justified because I was on my BEST GAME".


Notice his rationalization for continuing to play all night when he was stuck--he was still on his BEST GAME. Yearight!


I personally suspect that most consistent top money winners play an average of no more than 4 hours/session. Whether they are winning OR losing,the majority of these players pack it in after about 4 hours.((This statement is spectulative--NO EVIDENCE).

However,I did arrive at this conclusion based upon the following analysis:


According to Mike Caro, most players who play long sessions will usually burn themselves out after a given number of hours of play(Over-concentration).

Their focus or concentration will start to deteriorate after playing a certain number of hours.

Hence,their plays will start to degenerate.

This is the major reason Y most top money winners will not play long sessions.

The reason Y many players continue to play when they are stuck is similar to the reason many players play trash hands and play hands when they are big dogs to the field. They play "wishful poker" or "hopeful poker"--throwing all mathematics and logic out the window. SOMETIMES their "wish" comes true;MOST of the time ,they go home crying.

So,when players extend themselves beyond the point where they can no longer concentrate sufficiently to beat the game,they are playing "wishful poker".

As long as there is a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel,they will be in there battling it out.


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

This is a good question CH. I personally like to play more when I believe I have an edge on most of my opponents. So, if I believe it's a game I can win, I'll continue playing, whether or not I'm ahead or behind. On the other hand, if I'm playing in a tough game, and don't believe I have the edge, I'll leave a lot quicker whether or not I'm ahead or behind.

However, to state the obvious, poker is always alot more fun when your winning!

And to Bull's point, I also am not a fan of marathon sessions.

That has been my problem. When I win I quit to make sure I have a "winning" session. When I lose, I keep playing hoping to catch up. As a result, my losing sessions are bigger than my winning sessions. I am aware this is not rational but I cannot help it. It is kind of like a form of neurosis.

I am a consistent winner, and I put in sessions of ten hours or more about every week. My usual game only goes two or three nights a week, and I try to be there for as much of those nights as possible. None of my sessions are as short as four hours. It's a long drive to the card club. I'm able to maintain a reasonable level of concentration for a long period of time. I'm relatively young (34), so that probably helps some. I pace myself, and my mind tends to wander some when I'm not in a hand. I play mostly against familiar opponents, so this doesn't hurt me too much. I suspect, Larry, that you are just flat wrong. If one is grinding out 1 BB/hr, he's not going to be able to make a living unless he puts in some serious hours or plays for fairly high stakes. There aren't a lot of pros in my area, but all of the ones I can think of play sessions longer than four hours.


To answer the original question, I am much more inclined to stay when I am winning than when I am losing. Winning tends to beget winning, and losing tends to beget losing. I will stay when I'm losing if the game is very good, and there's nothing quite like coming all the way back from being down $2000 in a $15/30 game. It's almost as good as winning. /images/smile.gif

play a 5-day week. U have ample time to rest your mind after playing 10 or more hour sessions.

But do U think U would be able to maintain your consistent hourly rate if U played 5 or more days per week?? Hmmmm.

For those players who are playing 2 or 3 days per week, they MUST play longer hours AND they WILL be able to concentrate for longer periods of time because their minds will have had a chance to rest.

However, players playing 5 or more days per week will have difficultly focusing sufficiently on their the game . If they are playing in a division(game limit where MOST or ALL of the other players are about equal in ALL other skills)the only edge they might have is a higher level of concentration edge to take advantage of "small errors" made by their opponents.

In playing a 5-day week game,their edge will probably start to deteriorate sufficiently so that they will become a dog to the field against similar skill-level players if they play long sessions.

However,in those cases where they are more of a favorite against their opponents,a reduced focusing level will probably be sufficient to maintain a consistent win--however,their hourly rate would probably still suffer.

I'm assuming that most full-time pro's play at least a 5- day week session.

If they are playing beyond the 4-hour limit/session,their other playing skills would have to be much better than most of the other players to maintain a consistent win rate.

Did U ask any long-term successful 50-100 and higher limit player who plays 5 or more days per week about the # of hours that he/she plays per session??

Remember,I was speculating on this point.

No evidence to back up my assertion.

The fact that U are able to "maintain a reasonable level of concentration for long periods of time"

is probably because U play only 2 or 3 days per week,giving U ample rest time in between.


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

Playing when the game is good -and your mind is still sharp, are really the only considerations you should be thinking of. If the game is too tough, you won't win unless you get lucky and chances are you won't. If the game is good, but you are too mentally tired, you generally won't win either.


As far as staying in a game, I believe loosing or winning is not to be considered in a particular 4 or 10-hour session. Gains or losses in such a small sample are no measure of good or bad play. Therefore, using this to judge whether or not to play-on is not good practice at all. By nature (to some degree) we all think this way, but taming that thinking and discarding "the ill-logical" takes much discipline and practice.

Hi Larry,


$30/60 is the biggest limit in my local room, so there are no $50/100 pros for me to ask. I can think of one successful $15/30 pro who plays five or six days a week, twelve hours on many of those days. For good measure, he plays a fair amount of bridge. One might chalk this up to youthful vigor, but he's 48. I actually play three or four times a week, not two or three. My preferred game is $30/60 stud/8, but that only goes two or three times a week, so I play a fair amount of $15/30 hold'em. You don't have to remember all of those damned cards, so it's less taxing. It's also much less profitable, because of the reduced stakes and my reduced edge (I'm better at high-low, and people play high-low worse than they do hold'em). I think I total about 30-35 hours a week, with 20 or so being stud/8. Frankly, I do think that if I were able to put in 40 hours a week playing stud/8, I'd be able to maintain my hourly rate.

He didn't say that the winning. or the losing was measured by either good play or bad play, he simply described the state of winning or losing. Assume you always play excellent, are you more willing to stay when you're losing, or stay when you're winning. You really didn't answer the question, you more avoided it. That's something to think about.

CH- "Are you more willing to get up from the table when you're winning, or losing?"


JimBraker- "As far as staying in a game, I believe loosing or winning is not to be considered..."


Seems pretty direct to me. Which post were you referring to?