Optimal length

[PygmyHero]

That's actually really interesting that you have a forumla. Of course, we're online so I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but I think not.

If you're serious, then I'm wondering how often you run the equation while you're playing.

Additionally, some extra info on how you're quantifying your variables would be enlightening.

To be honest, the formula strikes me as a little bit cumbersome, but I still find it of some interest.

Call me old fashioned...but how is this really any more accurate than looking at the clock, thinking of how many hands you want to play, or whatever else criteria to use?

If you don't feel in the mood to play and you know that you'll play poorly, don't play. If you like to play for a certain length of time before breaks and don't have that much time, don't play.

This is too much thought into something pretty simple. Just because you can solve polynomials, doesn't mean you should. Of course, you could be joking. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I do think there is something to the OP's idea, but it's probably pretty individualistic. When I play, I tend have sessions of 2 or so hours. However, an hour is the shortest I'll go.

If you know that you're only going to play for an hour, you might want to push too hard to get the money. This is a tourament mode of play as you see that you only have a few oppontunities to get chips. Obviously, this is no good.

[Goodnews]

It is not necessarily more or less accurate than looking at a clock or thinknig of how many hands you want to play. Simply because it is something entirely different. When you consider time, or the number of hands you want to play, you leave out many variables.

From what I took from the OP, he wanted a way to optimize his play to find the correct amount of time to play before having his winrate taper off. By plugging in the numbers you get an idea of how long you should play.

Many will disagree with what I have proposed and even more will find it ridiculous. But gonig with your gut feeling is something that many of us had to fight (according to Psychology of Poker by Alan Schoonmaker). I concluded that if I've lied to myself, then whats stopping me from lying to myself in this aspect? Since I don't have Dr. Schoonamker's services to help me analyze this, I decided to quantify it. Because math cannot lie.

Of course, if I knew I was only going to play for only an hour, I would chcek if that would be maximizing my winrate, if not then I would have to reconsider because of the old adage 'money not won, is money lost' is something I firmly believe in.

[Goodnews]

I can run the equation as many times as I want to. It is very easy to compile something on MATLAB or C to run it over and over again. Of course sudden changes in values (like the variable y) will spring up right away and you will be able to detect tilt right away because you are addressing it immediately.

In an ideal world, I would be running it every hand.

The variables, I have stated are all relative to each other, with calm, normal etc as zero. Adding value to 'b' and 'x' are a little more difficult since I am doing it with trial by error. I like to think the more time I spend reading and playing the b and x values increase/decrease accordingly. If I have been been playing for 3 weeks fulltime, my b value may value might taper downwards, and after a break, spike up to a new height. Of course during the sessions I would take careful notes on any milestones that would occur (ie how long it took em to adjust to the maniac in seat 5).

[BluEsiNsOuL]

I would say it should be something like b*log(t) instead of b*t, it shouldn't be a linear function. The longer you play, the fewer read you obtain in a time unit.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
grunching

7-9 inches

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my initial response as well, although it did make me feel sub-optimal (and not in a good way)