Know yourself, stop the agonizing

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may still have a positive expectation as far as the players at the table, but the feeling overides my theoretical edge over the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically, you leave because you feel your thoughts are affecting your play. That's fine. But basically you could be saying that you'd leave a game you are a favorite in, just because you are up, so you can come back to a game later on that you may not be as much a favorite in. If you are a favorite, and you're playing well, you stay. You, and no one else can predict how the cards will turn. Cliche as it is, that is the fact.

The more experience you get with swings the less this becomes an issue. You have to disassociate yourself with shortterm results. The shortterm results usually trickles down eventually to hand to hand results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, no. I'm not leaving because of my thoughts. It's because of feelings I get about when a good run has run it's course.

Even though poker may be one long game, I believe profit-taking is prudent. In the stock market bulls and bears make money, but pigs gett slaughtered. Cliche as that is, that is the fact.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
General: I think alot of this is rooted in experience, fear and lack of confidence in one's game.

[/ QUOTE ]

With experience, I've learned to trust my instincts about when to rack out. Just like we learn to trust our instincts about reading opponents...

I don't play with fear. I do play with confidence in my game. And that confidence grows with each positive session.

Losing sessions don't bother me. They happen and I can deal with them. I leave when I lose one rack. I will give some leeway when winning, but when I get the feeling that I need to rack out, I do.

Since Dan is in this thread, I'll throw in anoher stock market analogy. Loss limits are essential in poker and stocks. Letting winners run is important too. However, nothing goes up forever. At a certain point profits must be booked. Future stock growth is theoretical compared to the profits already achieved. Each win builds bankroll, buying power and confidence. Giving back profits already achieved does the opposite.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. You'd rather stay and give back profits as well as stubbornly stay without stop loss protection and risk losing more and play 9 more hours while tired and down to try to get back to even

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about being tired? If I'm tired I stop regardless of whether I'm up or down. Nice try though. Btw...I won during that session. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

You conveniently missed my point completely. I wasn't concerned with where I was in my stack. I was playing well in a great game. I don't use a stop loss per se. I use checkpoints after certain times have been reached. Then I reassess my play and game regardless of how well I'm running.

You risk losing money whenever you play, not just when you are stuck. Don't be so pessimistic. (slavic will love seeing me type that line [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
"Get back to even"--the swan song of gamblers...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever feel you played well even though you played many hours and lost the session? I mean, just how tied to shortterm results are you? Again, hours are hours, no matter when you put them in given that you're playing well. If you win 100BBs in 3 hours, do you really think if you leave that will make any difference on how you will run? (Im not talking about leaving on a high note, I'm talking about swings)Obviously, 33bbs an hour is unsustainable, why not just quit poker for good at that point since you will eventually regress to the mean whether through a losing session(s) or a prolonged period of break even?

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At a certain point I stopped getting action and also felt the rush going as far as good hands. I knew the feeling and knew this was the time to cash out.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're psychic? I've had this feeling myself before, but I realized it was results oriented crap that was affecting my game. That's why I'd cash out, not because I don't 'think' I'm going to get any more hands. But because it affected my game negatively. With experience, you get hardened to that feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't purposely mis-interpret what is plainly written. I said feeling, which is entirely different from esp. I get intuitive feelings about how the game is going, even when I'm getting hit with great hands. I can also feel when the texture of the game is changing at my particular table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though you are talking about predicting the likelihood of future events that are totally random? You based your statement on the fact that you were all of a sudden not hitting hands as much.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may still have a positive expectation as far as the players at the table, but the feeling overides my theoretical edge over the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically, you leave because you feel your thoughts are affecting your play. That's fine. But basically you could be saying that you'd leave a game you are a favorite in, just because you are up, so you can come back to a game later on that you may not be as much a favorite in. If you are a favorite, and you're playing well, you stay. You, and no one else can predict how the cards will turn. Cliche as it is, that is the fact.

The more experience you get with swings the less this becomes an issue. You have to disassociate yourself with shortterm results. The shortterm results usually trickles down eventually to hand to hand results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, no. I'm not leaving because of my thoughts. It's because of feelings I get about when a good run has run it's course.

Even though poker may be one long game, I believe profit-taking is prudent. In the stock market bulls and bears make money, but pigs gett slaughtered. Cliche as that is, that is the fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it has nothing to do with whether you're actually playing well in a good game? You're saying that if you stay, you will give it all back? Since after all, given your cliche...

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
With experience, I've learned to trust my instincts about when to rack out. Just like we learn to trust our instincts about reading opponents...



[/ QUOTE ]

These are apples and oranges. One is more definitive, the other is pure speculation.

[ QUOTE ]
Loss limits are essential in poker and stocks. Letting winners run is important too. However, nothing goes up forever. At a certain point profits must be booked. Future stock growth is theoretical compared to the profits already achieved. Each win builds bankroll, buying power and confidence. Giving back profits already achieved does the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing a winning game, loss limits are less essential as it will eventually turn around. The graph is always jagged on the way up. You cannot run and hide from the downswings as much as you'd like to think you can. Are you more concerned with actually winning money, or just winning a session? To me, it's seems like the latter.

Btw...The more hours you play, the more you win. IF you're a winning player.

b

[LottaFagina]

Do casinos allow you to take some chips off the table/out of play?

Long time reader, first time poster.

1. No, generally casinos will not allow you to remove chips from play (although most will permit this for small things such as tipping the staff or getting some food/drink).

2. In fixed limit games, setting stop win limits doesn't really make sense because the amount you win over your lifetime depends mostly on the hours you play (you can break this up into hours you play WELL and hours you play POORLY) as opposed to the size of your stack. However, in big-bet poker, the size of your stack influences the amount you may be able to win or lose at the moment. Personally, I still play poorly with a large stack (too loose/aggressive), and seeing as how I can lose all of it in a no-limit game, I want to limit the amount of hours I am playing poorly, so winning money in a no-limit CAN actually give me a reason to leave.
In fixed limit, the amount you can lose in a single hand is determined by the game limits, not the size of your stack.

3. Sometimes a stop-loss is a good time to re-evaluate how you are playing in a game. Some writers advocate the "30 big bet" rule. This means that if you swing down 30 big bets in a game, you should consider leaving. This CAN be (although is not guaranteed to be) an indicator that either (a) you're not skilled enough to be winning in this particular game (these limits and these specific opponents), or (b) you are already on tilt or are about to go on tilt.

In a group of evenly-skilled players playing the same game for the rest of time, there is only one winner: the house.

[bernie]

I agree with most of this post.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Sometimes a stop-loss is a good time to re-evaluate how you are playing in a game. Some writers advocate the "30 big bet" rule. This means that if you swing down 30 big bets in a game, you should consider leaving. This CAN be (although is not guaranteed to be) an indicator that either (a) you're not skilled enough to be winning in this particular game (these limits and these specific opponents), or (b) you are already on tilt or are about to go on tilt.


[/ QUOTE ]

Take this from Annie Duke?

You forgot one more possibility. (c)You are playing well, but just not getting cards. In that case, you re-evaluate the game to make sure it's still good. If it is, and you're playing well, you stay.

b

[Dan Mezick]

That personal assessment assumes brutal self-honesty, something most players cannot execute on when close to tilting or simply losing morethan they think is proper or expected for the circumstances