Shorter sessions, good idea?

[SlyAK]

Hi all,

Lately I have had a lot of sessions where I make a quick couple hundred and then give it all back, (either bad beats or bad play), and end up either about even or behind. I am slumping at the beginning of this week, and have had a few slumps lately where I cant seem to come up with winning sessions. I usually play fairly long sessions, around 3 hours is probably average. Should I try shorter sessions, like an hour or so?

The general lack of winning is starting to lower my confidence a bit, would quitting after winning a bit, say $100 be a good idea?? Then after a break of 1/2 to 1 hour I could start a new session. I think a couple winning sessions would help my 'poker esteem' so to speak.

Anyway, thanks for any suggestions...

Sly

[Ulysses]

Because of the max buyins, I don't think short sessions are a good strategy in online NL.

[theBruiser500]

The idea being that if you play longer you can accumulate bigger stacks so you can cover everyone, and thus win more money?

[SlyAK]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea being that if you play longer you can accumulate bigger stacks so you can cover everyone, and thus win more money?

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think so, but here is what happens. Today I get my stack to $320 after a buyin of $200. Nothing huge but not bad. I get AJ, and get it all in with KQT on board. Get beaten by other person who also had AJ, but caught runner runner flush. OUCH!! Stack down to $120. I know I am bitching about bad beats but I can think of so many times that I have lost most of my stack after a nice gain that it seems some sort of strategy adjustment is necessary..... probably just temporary, just to give me that good feeling of a winning session or 2, instead of the disappointment of "I was up $150, but now I am finishing down $100 again".

I have never really played well with a big stack. I play the same as with a medium-stack really, probably a big leak in my game too. My game seems like a bucket with a hole about the size of a golfball in it lately anyway.

Sly

[Samiam888]

Most folks here would have to agree, that the best strategy for you is the one that gets the most money into your pockets... If you find that you play better with a median stack, either packrat or pop around a bit.

--Samiam--

[schwza]

you can also consider taking breaks but staying at the table if you're worried about stamina. and yeah, if you think it would boost the confidence to have a few winning sessions, sure, walk away with a small profit a couple times to remind yourself you can win.

[turnipmonster]

I always play short sessions. I am a pretty good reader at the beginning of a session, but I degenerate into mediocre after 4 hours or so. so, I try to keep it short and play my best. no reason not to keep playing if your game doesn't deteriorate though.

--turnipmonster

[fsuplayer]

I find that the 6 Max games take more concentration than the full ring games for obvious reasons. When playing 6 Max, the longest I will usually play for is 3-4 hours. I only go longer if the table/game is wonderful,then I stay til the fish leave.

Sometimes I play for 2 hours, take a .5-1 hr break, then start again for 2 hours.

Concerning stack size: I def. like to have a bigger stack, bc there is usually a maniac at the table with one too, and I want to double up on him.
This usually doesnt have much of an effect on my session length however. I play til the tables dry up, or I am bored/tired/have something else to do. My decision doesnt usually have too much to do with stack size.

SLY-
Learn to play your big stack well! Nothing worse than doubling up, then losing it all back slowly.

In the end, I would say dont do a hit and run for quick profits. You are a better player than that, and should know that you have a certain hourly rate: more hours=more money.

John Feeney has a great article about this sort of thing in his book: Inside the Poker Mind. Buy it if you havent already. Reread it if you have.

Best of luck,

FsuPlayer

[fsuplayer]

I find that the 6 Max games take more concentration than the full ring games for obvious reasons. When playing 6 Max, the longest I will usually play for is 3-4 hours. I only go longer if the table/game is wonderful,then I stay til the fish leave.

Sometimes I play for 2 hours, take a .5-1 hr break, then start again for 2 hours.

Concerning stack size: I def. like to have a bigger stack, bc there is usually a maniac at the table with one too, and I want to double up on him.
This usually doesnt have much of an effect on my session length however. I play til the tables dry up, or I am bored/tired/have something else to do. My decision doesnt usually have too much to do with stack size.

SLY-
Learn to play your big stack well! Nothing worse than doubling up, then losing it all back slowly.

In the end, I would say dont do a hit and run for quick profits. You are a better player than that, and should know that you have a certain hourly rate; more hours:more money.

John Feeney has a great article about this sort of thing in his book: Inside the Poker Mind. Buy it if you havent already. Reread it if you have.

Best of luck,

FsuPlayer

[SlyAK]

Hi all,

I played 3 short sessions today- 1 hr 10 min, 1 hr, and 45 minutes.

Results were- approx. +247, +16, +236 respectively for pretty close to $500 even. I dont really think that playing this way long-term should have much impact on profits. There should be an average hourly win rate, but I think lately I have been losing concentration and giving back too much money. Also, I needed the confidence boost, trust me when I say that I havent been playing my A game lately. I thought that other than one hand where I butchered my big slick, I did pretty well today.

Probably wont stick with the 1 hour sessions for an extended period of time, but I will probably try to keep things to more like 2 hours, then take a half hour break. I think the 3+ hours straight is not too profitable.

Thanks for the input.
Sly

[Zag]

If you play a large stack (100+ BB) the same way that you play a medium stack (30-60 BB) then you have a serious leak. One solution is never to do so: as soon as you make a big win so that you have a large stack, then leave the table and buy in again with a medium stack. Meanwhile, try to learn how to play the larger stacks better. Here are the changes that I recommend:

1. The bigger the stack, the more important position becomes. AJ now gets folded in EP, whereas I now limp on the button with hands as low as 56s or 68s or 89o. I continue to be aggressive in the cutoff, where a raise might buy me the button. Also, if I have position, I will also now call a single raise with small pairs and any Axs where I would have folded them before. (The raiser must have a big stack, too.) The point is that if this raise is less than 5% of the smaller of our two stacks, then my implied odds make it worthwhile to call with these, hoping for a big flop.

The corrolary to #1 is to get position on the unpredictable players that scare you, even if you think that they are overall worse players than you are. If they have a big stack, too, then you are giving up lots of implied odds to a loose-aggressive player who arrives at the flop with a large and unpredictable variety of hands. If one of these players has position on you, then leave the table and bank your winnings.

2. TPTK is no longer the goal. I want top two pair or better. Remember this: if someone else is willing to go 100 BBs deep, he probably beats TPTK. This means that AK is suddenly devalued, because TPTK is what you are hoping to make with it. It doesn't become crap, but it is worth a lot less, and I would rather have a middle pair.

3. Playing a good hand (i.e. a set or top two on the flop) against a drawing board is different. You actually can afford to bet LESS on the flop, because you will still have a pot-sized bet available to you on the turn. (This bet comes down to as little as 1/3 of the pot, if there is only one type of draw available -- i.e. either a straight or flush draw possible, but not both.) In other words, the opponent won't be all in and therefore have two chances to draw. This means, of course, that you have to lay it down when the draw gets there and the other person comes alive. Don't be the one giving up the implied odds. Assuming a call and the draw does not get there, bet again with your set. If it isn't top set and the opponent check-raises you on the turn, you have to consider laying it down. Consider if the opponent would play two pair that way.

4. Step out of traps: make some tough laydowns and don't step into the check-raise. For instance, suppose, despite your best hope, you do flop TPTK. This isn't crap, and you have to bet it. If you are checked to, make a decent bet that a draw would not be able to afford to call. If he calls the flop bet, then check behind on the turn, avoiding being check-raised. On the river, since you have just asked to be bluffed at, you have to call some of the time if the opponent bets, and fold some of the time, at a correct game-theory ratio (half of the time, for a pot-sized bet). Of course, this assumes that the river doesn't look like it helped him -- call a lot less often in this case (but still not never). This also assumes that you know nothing about the opponent. If you know that he bluffs too often or not often enough, then call or fold, as appropriate.

[theBruiser500]

Zag, I'm surprised you say that when you get a big stack you start calling with pocket pairs. Pocket pairs and their set value might be my most profitable hands... Blinds .5/1 - If my opponent has $50 and bets $5 I won't call, if they have $80 I will, if they have $100 it's a no brainer. If they bet $3 with a $50 stack I'll call that. Also a lot of the time it will be a multiway pot increasing my odds. I'm surprised you need 100+ BB to start calling with pocket pairs - as you can see from my examples I'll frequently call in situations where me or my opponent does not have 100 BB

[Zag]

I think it is reasonable to say that I will call a raise with a small pair if it is less than 5% of my stack AND I am pretty sure there won't be another raise behind me. I was operating on the assumption that the raises were typically pot-sized, but, of course, they are not always. I don't think that we disagree, here.