How do you avoid determining your sessions by amount won/lost?

[bernie]

Even good players get worn down after a long session or week of sessions. Anything you can do to disassociate your results from the game while playing is good. It's also one of the hardest things to learn to do in the game.

Online, I like Deacsofts idea. He likely knows the timeframe for how many hands he will be playing. Live, I'd use a set time frame. Pretty much the same deal. I'd expand that to using those 'timeframes' as checkpoints to assess the game and your own play. Then decide whether or not to continue based on their conclusions.

Going into a game trying to play your best for 'x' amount of time/hands helps take the results out of it. It's great training for it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can think with a clear mind, you will be able to seperate stack sizes from quality of play. You will be able to correctly judge how "good" a game is and how "well" you are playing. This is all after a very short (one or two hour) session, where luck plays a huge roll on the size of your stack.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a skill anyone just has with a clear mind. If they don't know how to do it, or recognize the good from bad, a clear mind isn't going to help. It is developed. It includes getting over the hurdle of being honest with yourself about your own game. That's a big hurdle. How many times have we seen good players who are playing bad but are in a great game? They only see the great game and not how they are playing. They let their ego dictate if they will continue on or not.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is measured by one thing... money won versus money lost. It's really easy to keep score and it's the only tangible thing that matters. The rest is theory. Interesting theory but still theory.

I measure my success purely on winning sessions > than losing sessions. I want my winning sessions to outnumber the losing sessions 2:1 and not allow any losing session to be more than 2x a normal buy-in while riding a winning session until I get tired sometimes pushing 4-5x normal buy-in's.


If you're not at least thinking at least a little results-oriented you're being naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know you are playing well, the results are meaningless. Especially in shortterm. You do know you can have fewer winning sessions than losing sessions and still be a winning player, right? You can also have more winning sessions than losing and still be a losing player. So that's not really a good accurate way of keeping track.

Poker isn't about winning pots, it's about playing as well as you can until the pot is pushed. That's not theory, that's fact. Casinos are built on that fact every day.

If you are in a session and start letting results dictate your play, you leave. If you're getting bogged down mentally because you haven't won in 7 sessions, you don't play until your head is right and not taking those past 7 sessions into consideration.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of guys in poker rooms who have great poker knowledge but for whatever reason are consistent losers

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably aren't that great of players. They may 'know' it, but can't 'apply' it. Actually, I'd even question their knowledge if they are consistent losers.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather be a donkey with a huge bankroll and 3-digit ROI than a non-results oriented player without a win

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a non-results oriented player with a huge bankroll and 3 digit ROI? You're saying this can't be done?

b

[Xhad]

As for the problem of "hit-and-running", I just think about how much more money I could be winning if the game is good and I continue to get the cards I need.

As for the problem of staying because your stuck ... if the game is good and if you are playing well, I don't think it's a problem, but those are steep ifs for a lot of people.

Put another way; there is nothing wrong with saying, "I lost money today, therefore I will keep myself in a +EV situation instead of reading at Starbucks like I was originally going to." I do this all the time, though if I feel tilt coming on (or, in a B&M if the game turns tough) I quit immediately, even if I'm even more stuck than I was when I first made the determination to play extra.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Live, I'd use a set time frame. Pretty much the same deal. I'd expand that to using those 'timeframes' as checkpoints to assess the game and your own play. Then decide whether or not to continue based on their conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree; I've used this system myself in B&M's by setting my cellphone alarm to go off at set intervals. If you're in a small B&M with a regular clientele, the cell phone method also gives you a diplomatic reason to leave (as in, people won't accuse you of hit-and-run) because you can pretend you're getting texts/calls.

[Python49]

anyone know a way to check out what % of my sessions are wins and losses without going there and counting them individually?

[ QUOTE ]
anyone know a way to check out what % of my sessions are wins and losses without going there and counting them individually?

[/ QUOTE ]

My advice would be to not do it. Sessional wins are fictional wins, therefore that percentage you are looking for is a fictional number. It is the exact same as counting the number of pots you win vs. the number you lose.

[ QUOTE ]
I just think about how much more money I could be winning if the game is good

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I believe it was Caro that said, "If you do a stop-win, that's exactly what will happen; you will stop winning."

[Dan Mezick]

set up an Excel spreadsheet and keep records fopr each session of:

starting bank
date
start time
total session length
money +/-
stakes & # of tables played
observations/comments

then look at the results mapping session length and bank to an Excel graph.

what you will see graphically is the result of sessions by session length. what you will also see is YOUR SPECIFIC AND PERSONAL optimal session length after about 50 sessions.

once you get that number, simply use that session length no matter what. schedule X sessions per week and just execute.


after a while you will see this is very hard to do if you are playing for non-monetary reasons.

if that is the case, it's time for some serious self-inquiry.

few that know they need to do this actually do it.

Dan, I don't think I've ever heard a better idea in my entire life.

Except maybe breathing, but your concept is still pretty damn good.