players who sit with odd amounts, under suggested buy-in

[Wynton]

Sometimes, if I sit at a table, lose a bit, and then decide to switch tables, I'll sit at the next table with the same amount that I left the first table with (though I never sit with substantially less than the suggested amount).

I'm wondering if many other people do this, and if it might explain why I sometimes see a new player sit at a table with a peculiar amount (e.g., $179 at party 5/10). The reason I ask is just that it might amount to relevant information, in assessing the player's attitude. And if anyone else might think similarly, that's reason enough for me to stop sitting at tables with anything other than nice round numbers.

[obsidian]

They're broke.

[Alobar]

It would make me think they are results oriented and more concerend about their short term plus minuses, than actual good play.

Truth be told, I never thought of it before, and in the midst of my normal 4 tabling, I never even notice such things. But if I had, and did think about it, thats the conclusion I would have come to.

[stripsqueez]

i sat in a 20/40 game that was running short at paradise yesterday - 5 players 4 of whom had less than $400 - i dont practice much if any table selection but i could gaurantee this was a good game

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
They're broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that explains it. I'm not talking about people who buy in with substantially less than the suggested amount; but people who sit down with less, AND with strange amounts.

I think there are three possible explanations: (1) they are broke, and sitting at a 5/10 table with their entire br (which seems pretty unlikely); (2) they have picked a strange amount, totally arbitrarily; or (3) they have consciously picked that odd amount for some reason.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[(1) they are broke, and sitting at a 5/10 table with their entire br (which seems pretty unlikely);

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are prolly vastly under estimating the time that this is true. To most people its gambling.

[donger]

Losing players don't have bankrolls, they're losing players. They only have X dollars in their account; when they run out, they reload.

Think about the conversations you overhear at the local 4/8 game, how the wife would kill them if she found out they took out more money to play poker, etc, etc. To losing players, poker is an expense.

[ode]

I track my winnings (also) manualy, by starting new table in my tracking software when I open new table.

Sometimes when I leave a bad table, I might be down in that table, and I can find a new table right away... and will just buy-in with what I had left from previous table, and don't have to adjust the ending balance to previous table in my software, but just keep playing.

Well, might not be case for most people with odd amounts :P

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[(1) they are broke, and sitting at a 5/10 table with their entire br (which seems pretty unlikely);

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are prolly vastly under estimating the time that this is true. To most people its gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I think bankroll management does not exist for many players. I have quite often seen half decent players (e.g. read a book or two), buy in with the last of their bankroll, "go broke" and leave.

Furthermore, as alobar suggested, you are probably being to interested in your short-term fluctations, and might want to think about this. ITPM is a good remedy for these silly little nuances that we all suffer from....