I'm not saying it's impossible for a superstitious player to win, but none of the top players I've ever talked with would say something like this for a second.

A stop loss is a good idea if you tend to play bad after losing $X. It's a bad idea if you don't, typically.

I know what you're saying. Actually, I'm not superstitious and that's why I try to break my own SL rule when I feel like I should continue to play, but the results usually turn out crappy and I usually bust out in the most annoying ways, i.e. opponent sucks out. I dunno...

I would have probably done a lot better in poker if I had a hard "stop loss" rule and stuck with it. I don't want to count the number of times I blew 30% or more of my roll online in a day. Considering how I played, a stop loss would have definitely been helpful, because if I was stuck big, I was rarely playing my "A-game".

bastard

edit: stoploss rules are for tilt monkeys and amateurs

I'd say it's a neutral idea if your game doesn't deteriorate after losing $x. Like you already said, it doesn't matter if you play today or tomorrow if you're playing equally well... That being said, almost everyone has some form of tilt after losing x buy-ins I think. If you're losing in a game you might also not be in an as +EV spot as you think, I mean you might be up against good players if you're losing..

So all in all a stop loss should only serve to protect yourself from tilt or from keeping playing better opponents. If neither is the case there's no reason to stop playing.

I try to set one to take atleast a 30 minute break unless the games are juicy, but I rarely follow it if i'm playing all day anyways.

I remember hearing Phil Ivey will quit after losing two buy ins and also in an interview he stated not a single person plays better when losing than when winning. The 2 buy-in SL was heard from commentators while he played.

And when I break it I use tilt relief so I won't spew.

I report my cc stolen.

I think phil ivey use a stop loss

In terms of dollars/hand, maybe. In terms of dollars/week or dollars/month, clearly not.

I don't have a stop-loss rule since I believe I have almost completely eliminated tilt from my game. I usually bring only 3 buy-ins with me but if I lose all 3 I will likely just use the ATM, unless I feel like I am not playing my A game I will just go home.

If I do lose 3 buy-ins, I usually end up winning at least 2 of them back by the end of the night or get close to break even.

I never understood why ppl need to go to atms in the casinos. Obviously they lost more money than intended, unfortunately. Still, the service charges must be horrendous so why do it?

Generally, where else would they go?

Depending on the machine and what method you use you can often get the fee waived if the transaction meets a minimum.

They shouldn't go, period. Bring enough $ to the casino, going to the atm is a sign of desperation.

difference is the "table" is not the same tomorrow in the first place.
also it makes a big difference if you get tilted, and nobody is resistent against tilt completely.

you told you are soon to be psychiatrist in OOT and i openly doubt that now.
if you would actually study anything, you wouldnt write shortsighted stuff like what i quoted.
you avoided to answer my most important questions in the OOT thread and now i get to read this, lol.