When to leave a table?

[Leo Bello]

I have an interesting question... I have been winning a good par of sessions at 1/2 but having one problem. Knowing when to stop. Normally I get to my profit early in the session, like in the first 20 minutes, then I begin to even up, losing some, and winning some.
In other situations when I start falling behind, I manage to catch up and make it even after some time (normally a long time, little by little, tightening my play the most I can).
The problem is this become long sessions, 2, 3 hours to:
one had an even or low profit sessions
or
have a session with winnings I made practically in the first 20 or 30 minutes.

(one of the reasons seems to be people start reading better when I tighten, so some good hands like KK and AA end with low pots, after all slow playing after a raise pre-flop to cut limpers, is something difficult in limit, unless u have nuts and let people do the betting).

Anyway, how do you guys feel it? Set a goal/target per table? Set a time per session? Let it vary?

[Al Schoonmaker]

Read Mason's "The very silly subject of money management."

It's in one of his Essays books.

The stay or go decision should NEVER be based on pre-set criteria such as play for two hours or play until I have won X BB or lost Y BB.

From a profitability perspective, it should be based on your assessment of your future EV. If it is positive, stay. If it is negative, go, regardless of what has happened thus far. Of course, if you know that you play poorly after losing Y BB, quit when you have lost that amount, but the criterion is still your EV.

From other perspectives such as enjoyment, different criteria should be used. For example, if you don't like the game, go, even if you have a positive EV (unless you play for a living).

But regardless of the criteria, do NOT make your decision by some formula.

Regards,

Al

[jdl22]

Dr. AL,

I'm a little thrown off by saying you should NEVER play for a preset amount of time. I frequently will do so. For example, if I have to meet someone in a couple hours or really want to watch a soccer match that starts in 2 hours (currently the case) then I make the decision to play for only that long.

Surely this is ok?

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely this is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can do that. In theory, to make the maximum amount of money you should always stay if it is positive EV. In reality, you have to stop at some point. And it won't make a huge difference if you always decide to play 2 hours and then stop.

What you might want to think about though is not sticking to a table where you are running bad. Maybe you are running bad 'cause the other players are better than you or have a good read on you. By having a set goal of not quitting until you reach a certain amount of money (or have a time limit) you could actually lose more. I'm not saying that you should always quit here, but have a look at the situation, analyze why you are running bad and act thereafter.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Of course, it's OK. In fact, I believe that balance is an essential part of a healthy life. Poker is an important part of my life, but I make sure it never becomes the center of it. I think far too many people let poker take over their lives.
If there is something you want to do at 4 PM, do it. If the game isn't fun, change tables or go home. If you feel tired, or see that you're playing badly, quit. If you had intended to play for an hour, but love the game and are crushing it (and you don't have an important commitment), keep playing.
I must add that Dan Negreanu, whom I like and respect, said he played a certain number of hours per day and went home when his "shift" was finished, even if he had to leave a great game, was stuck a lot, was running over the table, or whatever. His position made sense to me also.
I object to making the stay or go decision on some preset formula about results. You should not think in terms of playing until you have won or lost a certain amount.
Regards,
Al

[schroedy]

The good sense of Mason's essay, notwithstanding, I think that I will continue to apply the Annie Duke/Howard Lederer rule of 30 Big Bets. Down 30, either I have misidentified some other players as the fish or the cards are running so badly against me that there is no hope. In either event, I think I will go read Dostoevsky, cruise the internet chat boards, see a movie with my wife, or doing something else more fun than getting my brains beat in.

My game is at its best, by the way, when I am with 30 BBs of my starting point either way.

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "My game is at its best, by the way, when I am with 30 BBs of my starting point either way."

That point is critical. You are quitting when you get outside the range at which you play best.

Your position is a long way from quitting just because you've won or lost a certain amount. You're quitting because your game will deteriorate, a VERY different reason.

Regards,

Al

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The good sense of Mason's essay, notwithstanding, I think that I will continue to apply the Annie Duke/Howard Lederer rule of 30 Big Bets. Down 30, either I have misidentified some other players as the fish or the cards are running so badly against me that there is no hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree with the principle that you should keep playing when the game is good and quit when it isn't. I would never say it is time to quit just because I am up XX BBs. But the down-30 rule may be a good way of quantifying (or waking you up to) the fact that the game is bad and you need to leave. This can overcome the denial factor, thinking I've been sucked out and getting bad cards, and I'll make it all up soon when I get some cards.

The other thing is that if you are down that far, it becomes obvious to all but the totally unconscious fish, and they start to play you like a loser, putting you into a death spiral. At the very least, I agree that some kind of down-XX alarm should be cause to stop and seriously reconsider this game. And it probably means you should quit for the day, or take a break and find another game. I don't do it that formally, but I make the standard 25BB buy-in online, and if I get much below 10, I'm usually out of there. There are always more fish in the sea.

[Leo Bello]

Annie´s Duke 30 BB is one I am trying to follow.
I have had moments of deciding to leave a table when I was winning but other opponents were good as well. At a 0.50/1 table last week, I played tight aggressive for the first hands (low VP$IP but when I had the hands, I made bet and raises and or made people fold or won with the hand), and in like 25 minutes I was up 32 dollars. I said, well all is going well, let me continue here. Two things, people started to not call my early bets, and call only when I was beaten, and another new player, very aggressive came into play and has begun raising all flops and winning a lot.
Psychology... I began losing a few, and decided to leave while I still had control and my stack. Actually it was a good decision also cause of image. On the next day, I happened to play at the same table form a guy from the nigh before. After a couple of hands, he said I was with you yesterday, you rocked at the table. I don´t need to say that some hands later he was folding to every raise I made and I ended up with another nice catch of BBs in hand.
Irt was the good image. Maybe if I stood in that table longer the day before, the image would be weaker the next day.

Just two more cents.

[PDosterM]

One thing a formula based on results can do for you is to compensate for an inability to distinguish between bad play and bad luck (or between good play and good luck). But it can’t be plus or minus the same number of bets (like plus or minus 30 big bets). It has to be something like “leave after you lose 20 big bets or win 40 big bets.” This would have the effect of having you play longer in favorable games than in unfavorable ones. Over enough games, the luck factor washes out and the game texture dominates.

I’m not recommending this, just pointing out that plus or minus the same amount accomplishes little.