11 things to help pull out of a downswing...

[krishanleong]

Things you can do.

1. Play less tables.
2. Turn off distractions. (TV, music,)
3. Move down in limits.
4. Conciously take more physical time with decisions.
5. Tighten up preflop. (21/15-16)
6. Tighten up postflop. (Look for a little extra in your odds)
7. Table select really really hard.
8. Use tiltblocker.
9. Get some coaching from someone solid at your limit.
10. Review your hands after a session in PT.
11. Post questionable hands to 2+2.

If you make a whiney LC downswing post without having tried a least 5 items on this list, I reserve the right to call you a ninny. We've all been through it.

Krishan

[xCEO]

thanks

[sthief09]

I vote for this to be a sticky

[ALL1N]

My gal is gonna kill me if she knows I leaked that video. Please remove it from your avatar ASAP.

[Wynton]

I have a question about table selection.

If you're on a downslide, do you have any different criteria for selecting a table? When running well, I eagerly look for tables with big average pots. But my inclination is to be more cautious when on a downswing. Perhpas that merely compounds the problems.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question about table selection.

If you're on a downslide, do you have any different criteria for selecting a table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine that the better your table selection is, the higher your expected BB/100 is. If you normally select tables with 2 bad players, select tables with 3 for a while. If you normally don't use relative position in your table selection, add that in for a while. Doing this lowers variance, and increases your expected BB/100 at the expence of your hourly earn since table selection take time out of your playing.

Krishan

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing this lowers variance, and increases your expected BB/100 at the expence of your hourly earn since table selection take time out of your playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, doesn't, doesn't, doesn't lower variance.

It just seems like that because your EV is much higher. Variance is measured as the deviation from your EV. However, most people's intuitive understanding of variance is deviation from 0.

So you will have less losing sessions, but you will still have the same variation from your EV.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doing this lowers variance, and increases your expected BB/100 at the expence of your hourly earn since table selection take time out of your playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, doesn't, doesn't, doesn't lower variance.

It just seems like that because your EV is much higher. Variance is measured as the deviation from your EV. However, most people's intuitive understanding of variance is deviation from 0.

So you will have less losing sessions, but you will still have the same variation from your EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean don't mean you will have a lower standard deviation. I mean you are more likely to have a winning session. Even if my terminology is incorrect, the concept is clearly correct.

Krishan

I've had good results picking tables with 1BB/player in the average pot (i.e. $12 pot at 1/2 6-max), although I'm sure that would decrease at the higher limits. I find more loose passive players and therefore more people limping into the pot with crap. If I go for the table with the highest pot, it's usually got too many maniacs for my liking. That's the sort that I want to avoid on a downswing/tilt. YMMV.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've had good results picking tables with 1BB/player in the average pot (i.e. $12 pot at 1/2 6-max), although I'm sure that would decrease at the higher limits. I find more loose passive players and therefore more people limping into the pot with crap. If I go for the table with the highest pot, it's usually got too many maniacs for my liking. That's the sort that I want to avoid on a downswing/tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is excatly what Mason Malmuth writes in one of his essays about table selection and its good advice. Looking for biggest pot is bad in many ways.