[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Two strikes is far too few for many, if not most people. It may be close to optimizing effectivness though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, everyone should hold themselves to their own standard on this.

[ QUOTE ]
Problem: When you are not 'sharp' you are less likely to recognize a mistake. Therefore you will still play longer when you are less sharp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't thought of this, but it makes perfect sense. Two things I can think of:

-Many of the things I count as "mistakes" are things that are so objective I can't deny them even if I am on tilt (making vastly incorrect reads). Other situations specifically cause me to examine my recent play to see if I made a mistake (I go through this thought process every time I get checkraised, not saying getting c/r'ed is always caused by a mistake but it's a good candidate)

[ QUOTE ]
Problem: Some people are much better at regonizing their own mistakes than others. They need to allow significantly more errors before shutting down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, ironically the ones who catch more of their own mistakes are the ones who would have to be most lenient on themselves. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Then again, the people best at recognizing their mistakes may also be the ones who think so fast that they don't make as many. Either way, I'll personally stick around if I have an unusually high mistake count when my opponents are also making a lot of errors, so maybe the hypercritical should focus more on their opponents then themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
Making more than 2 mistakes in a specified time-block, or number of hands played, is more realistic. And workable. I tend to do this, without actually counting the mistakes. When I'm not playing well enough, it's time to stop.

Good thoughts, though. Liked the read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, this reply gave me a few more things to think about.