[PygmyHero]

I've been thinking about this topic a little bit following my end of the month recap / analysis. Basically, it seems like a trend may be starting to emerge showing how my win rate is related to the length of my session.

From the limited data I have, it seems like my optimal session length is either one hour, or more than twice that. That is, I tend to do poorly with short session and, to a lesser extent, sessions of 1.5 hours - 2 hours. Oddly, if I play for 2+ hours, then I seem to do fine.

I rarely play less than an hour, but it would also be hard to make any statements about too short a session because individual hands would have too much of an impact on the session (i.e. I play really poorly in 30 second session since I tend to post a BB and don't win that hand too often).

Here are my thoughts: if I am playing a short session (let's say 30 minutes or so), I feel rushed and tend to make sub-optimal plays. I believe it is hard for me to escape the mindset that I have very little time, and will not see too many hands, so I better make the most of each one. This can lead to overly aggressive play.

If I play more than an hour, my results seem to drop off. Maybe I am falling into the trap of not varying my play or betting patterns.

If I play for longer, it seems that I regain some edge - maybe I do start to vary my play again. Maybe I refine my reads on other players. Maybe my table image is strengthened and I am in better position to take advantage of it.

I am wondering if others keeps track of this sort of stuff, and what they think their optimum length is, especially if they have many playing sessions to back up their statements. I would also be very interested in hearing why certain session lengths may be good / bad for different players, especially if someone found a way to relate them to a certain playing style (e.g. a LAG may do well in short session because they try to run the table over and leaves before people catch on and start to fight back).