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

[JRegs]

This is a concept that I have been struggling with for a long time.

When I play cards (online), I will usually play until I have won a significant amount. If at any point I am down, I will play until I am even. The worst part is....I know this is wrong. I know that I am getting paid by the hour, regardless of swings.

However, I don't like the feeling of walking away from the computer with a loss, and I certainly don't like the possibility of giving back some (or all) of my winnings.

This has led to "hit-and-run" situations on occasion, where I will leave the table a few minutes after sitting down if I win a huge pot. Similiarly, I will sometimes stay on the computer for hours, trying to regain my losses if I am down for the night.

Obviously, nobody likes the feeling of ending the night a loser. How do you deal with this problem?

Thanks for your advice.

[deacsoft]

I try to just play "x" amount of hands per day with the goal of 10,000 hands per week. Simple and effective.

[poker-penguin]

I don't like leaving down or giving back all my winnings either.

What I do is set a loss limit (usually 30BB) and also a fall back loss limit (usually down 10-15BB after going up more than 20) if I hit either, I quit the table(s) and either take a break or call it for the day.

But I only play two or three tables at once.

[xniNja]

The real solution is believing and acting on what you know is right to do, but something that might help you keep focused on the longer run is Poker Tracker. If you see that you are making x BB/hr it may be easier to leave when down or up a little.

Playing any predetermined amount is a bad idea, although playing x number of hands will get you away from associating your play with winning and losing sessions.

Consider the fact that quitting when you are ahead will not stop you from losing if you are a bad player, and may stop you from winning if you are a good player. I think you are looking for some verification that your thinking is dangerous. Well... this is dangerous thinking.

Learn to be satisfied with a loss if you were playing well the entire time. If you are ever playing specifically to get back to even, then you are 100% not playing well. Try re-evaluating the game after you are down 30BB. The moment you hit this point, write down why you should keep playing. Take a 2 minute break, then come back and read what you wrote. It will usually sound like a stretch. If you are up 30BB in a single session, write down why you want to leave, take a 2 minute break and read it over. If you are looking for feedback, then post your answers on here (or if you're a little embarrased, feel free to PM me, and I'll proof-read them).

WARNING: The remainder of this post is very long and highly theoretical. I started writing it and it just kept coming. I plan on posting this in the Poker Theory forum for further response. I will still leave it here because this is where I created it.
Learning when and when not to leave a game is a really hard question over which tons of posters debate regularly. Here's my take on why it's so touchy:

Over a short period of time (I'm talking about one or two hours or so - the point at which you may start wondering how long your session will be), luck plays a big roll in how your stack grows/shrinks. This will affect you psychologically, especially if you are one of those many players that cannot keep their feelings in check. Although a period this brief is governed more by luck than by skill, you will feel you are playing better if winning, feel you are playing worse if losing, or feel nothing at all if you aren't experiencing much variation. If you are one of the few that can keep themselves under control, you will generally be entering every hand with the mentality that you are break even as the cards come out. The greater you deviate from your psychological norm, the harder it is to come back to a clear-thinking mindset. This is where the debate starts.

The truth and one's impression of the truth differ greatly from each other. The truth is only based on how you are playing NOW and how your opponents are playing NOW. This truth is based on how you have been playing since you started, how your opponents have been playing since THEY started, and how your opponents have been playing since YOU started. The problem is that this is all very difficult to assess, and furthermore, it is based on the cards that everyone has been receiving, which is a concrete and uncontrollable factor. The truth is simple... in theory.

Because it is so difficult to assess the actual truth, most people tend to measure it as a function of size of their stack relative to the initial size of their stack: growth = success, shrinkage = failure. This also applies to one's impression of one's opponents: growth = shark, shrinkage = fish (a little extreme). The less psychologically stable you are (in terms of poker, and I would advise you seek help if this is true in other parts of your life), the more emphasis you will put on your and your opponents' current fluctuations, and the farther you are from being able to see the truth. 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.

The reason that there is so much debate is that there is such a huge gap between the truth and one's perception of the truth. After every hand comes to an end, you will be playing differently, and your opponents will be playing differently, all for a very complicated set of reasons. The "quality" of the game is measured not in stack sizes or runs of cards (which are the only concrete pieces of evidence available), but in how you and your opponents are playing and reacting to concrete events.

The only reason you should ever leave is game is because of the quality, not because of the concretes.

[xniNja]

Nice post. I think that makes near perfect sense in theory.

ninja: thanks for the feedback.

JRegs: I hope this helps, if you continue to have problems in this area, PM me. Oh, and sorry if I killed the thread with my long-winded response.

[cadillac1234]

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.

Playing part-time, hitting some jackpots and a few nice MTT wins I'm very much ahead of the game over the last 15 years without having to worry about an hourly rate.

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

[steamboatin]

This is a most excellent reply. I am one of those players that used to agaonize and always second guess my decision to leave a game. This post explains the criteria for making that decision perfectly.

Just because you are up for the session does not mean you are playing well and just because you are down, does not mean you are playing poorly.

It is difficult for most people (myself included) to be honest about the quality of their play in any given session and the quality of their opponents play. If your opponents are playing poorly and you are playing well, you should stay regardless of results. But if your opponents are playing well and you are playing poorly, you should leave because eventually the better players get the chips.

[xniNja]

Agreed 100% that poker is measured by one thing: Money.

The non-conflicting analysis provided above outlines the best way to achieve this sole criterion and ultimate end.

Edit: One thing that shouldn't be forgotten though, in response to steamboatin, is that if you take a few beats regardless of the fact that your quality of play is good and your opponents is low, table image should be accounted in a decision to leave the game. (i.e. stupid players see you lose, think you're unlucky & are more willing to try to gamble with you-etc)