I think I'm still 12 years old...

[Dave H.]

Assuming you're multitabling, you may want to try what has really worked well for me. I always buy in with the same amount at every table I play. Whenever I lose 50% of my buyin at any table, REGARDLESS OF HOW GOOD THE GAME IS, I leave that table the next time I have to post a blind.

There are many who have told me that it's not right to leave a "good" game. However, I have decided that it's NOT a good game if I have lost 50% of my buyin. It doesn't make much difference to me WHY I've lost, only that I HAVE lost. There could be many reasons that I've lost 50% on that table. I could ERRONEOUSLY believe it was a good table, the variance at that table is killing me, etc. Rather than fret about it, I just leave and open a new table and usually that does it for me.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a program floating around the software forum called "tiltblocker". It blacks out your chip count at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could see this being good in all cases except the one where you have less than 12BB and are unaware of the fact that you could be all-in by the end of the hand, thereby changing the correct strategy.

EDIT: I was playing the other day and wasn't paying any attention to my stacks on any table. I flopped tripped queens and was very disappointed when my opponent raised me on the turn and I suddenly realized I could only call half a BB.

[Buck_65]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you're multitabling, you may want to try what has really worked well for me. I always buy in with the same amount at every table I play. Whenever I lose 50% of my buyin at any table, REGARDLESS OF HOW GOOD THE GAME IS, I leave that table the next time I have to post a blind.

There are many who have told me that it's not right to leave a "good" game. However, I have decided that it's NOT a good game if I have lost 50% of my buyin. It doesn't make much difference to me WHY I've lost, only that I HAVE lost. There could be many reasons that I've lost 50% on that table. I could ERRONEOUSLY believe it was a good table, the variance at that table is killing me, etc. Rather than fret about it, I just leave and open a new table and usually that does it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really bad advice. Losing half your initial buy in means nothing in and of itself. Don't leave a good game.

[Girchuck]

That depends on how big the original buy-in was.
If you buy-in for 200BB, losing 50% is a big deal

[Girchuck]

If your problem is staying too long in unprofitable games, I have a fun stop-gap measure that might help.
Randomly changing tables when you lose. Now suppose you are on a table and you are stuck 30BB. On the next orbit change the table if you see a 2 in your hand. If you are stuck 40 BB, change table if you get 2 or 3 in your hand the next orbit.
If you are stuck 50BB, change tables if you get 2 3 or 4 in your hand the next orbit.
You can adjust the loss amount and the cards that trigger table change as you please. It could relieve your frustration if you turn your loss into another game.

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
This is really bad advice. Losing half your initial buy in means nothing in and of itself. Don't leave a good game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not good advice, but it's not terrible.

Your facts:
1. You have some reason to believe the game is good
2. You are down 12BB+

Possible reasons:
1. The game isn't as good as you thought it was
2. Normal variance

With the stat overlay, sometimes you will still know that the game is good (and that your seat is good(!)), then there's no excuse to leave, however, if you are second guessing that the game is actually good, might as well join another one you think is good.

Another thing to consider is that when you're losing, the game may become worse for you. People start to play differently against you, and when your opponents deviate from their original play, you know less about them, and the game becomes less profitable.

Just because you thought a game was good when you sat down, doesn't mean you should always think it's good. Leave if you decide your judgement was off. Don't leave if it's only because you're losing. Some of my biggest wins were on good tables I knew were good that I started down 20BB.

[MTBlue]

uhh... no

[Tommy Angelo]

"Twelve years old. Still."

Wrong.

If you were 12, you wouldn't have any of the problems you are having now. You wouldn't get into funks over and over while questioning your own worth. That's because you wouldn't question your own worth. You wouldn't deny your weaknesses and frailties. That's because you wouldn't even know that you are weak and frail. To be 12 is to be free. Grow young. Return to the joy of ignorance and exploration. Be who you are, as you are. You're a wreck, sometimes. And that's okay.

Tommy

[Dave H.]

I'll give this some thought and some trial too. However, your point about "people starting to play differently against you" is major, and certainly can cause more problems at that table.

The stop loss "method" I use works for me, and that's why I use it, although I certainly understand the arguments against it and why it may not be right for many. I've learned that there is nothing wrong with running away from a situation which I thought was good but is proving NOT to be so (assuming, of course, that I believe my play decisions to be correct).

After playing over 100k hands, I began to track results at tables where I had lost 50% of my buyin. From that point on, i.e. from the point where I had lost 50%, my results were absolutely terrible EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVED THE TABLE TO BE A GOOD ONE and even though I wasn't on tilt and even though I believed I was making good poker decisions.

I tracked these results over 50,000 hands and decided, at that point, that I would use a stop loss method even though I was fully aware of the arguments against such a method. The bottom line is that this worked for me in that my results over the next 50,000 hands are very, very different by simply leaving the table and opening another and tracking results at the newly opened table.

My take on this is that either:
1. My table selection was, in fact, poor even though I didn't believe that to be the case.

OR

2. My table image (after losing) was such that players began to take shots at me (similar to what you said).

In any case, the results were markedly different. I felt that 50,000 hands was an adequate sample size for my experiment and I believe that this method works fine for me.

Self-control/discipline is just as important as raw skill in being a successful poker player. Look at Stuey Ungar. He was God's greatest gift to poker but he was always going broke (both at the table and away)because he couldn't control his urges.
Here are some articles that I think are relevant to your problem. The first article is Lederer talking about how meditation helps him at the tables, while the second is an essay about cognitive dissonance.

http://www.howardlederer.com/howard-...-article9.html
http://www.yetiarts.com/aaron/science/cogdiss.shtml