Originally Posted by Timex007
Someone needs to read Mathematics of Poker by Chen and and J. Ankenman
Or Inside the Poker Mind by John Feeney (p56: The Hit and Run Follies)
Originally Posted by Fred
So if you lose 3 buyings you dont play for the res of the day? this is at 6max?
This sounds crazy to me. I think if I stopped everytime i lost 3 buyins id probably be a losing player. I mean 6 max its normal to swing through multiple buy ins in a session?
Regardless of your approach to playing poker (I have my own but respect them all), your statement "if I stopped everytime i lost 3 buyins id probably be a losing player" makes no sense whatsoever.
As far as I can tell, there are 3 "schools of thought" or approaches to playing poker:
- "Playing a very long time when you are winning and quit early when you are losing". Those belonging to this school think they can't play well when they are losing. Even if some players claim they don't tilt, losing still may affect them so subtly that they will play in a sub-par manner without even realising it. On the other hands, you should play as long as you can when you are winning, not because you are result oriented but because your winnings indicate that you are probably playing at your best level. When you follow this approach, stop loss becomes a fundamental concept. Online, if you don't want to spend your time checking your losses in HEM/PT, you can use some software like Tilt Breaker or ValueCheck (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...-tool-1017188/
). The main drawback online is the significant loss in rakeback since you will hit your stop loss often enough to make the profit loss noticeable. This is the approach recommended by Barry Greinstein in his book Ace on the river or Phil Ivey here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yg-r2kuT8
(between 1:39 and 1:45) and he is well known to quit early when he's losing. Online, I know Cardrunners XXNikaXXchuXX is doing the same (remove the Xs). There are also some online grinders (XXviniXXviciXX, XXeunhoXXbaeXX) who are/were doing exactly the opposite: playing long hours when they are losing to try to break even or leave early to book a win. There is an old poker expression for this: " A player who eats like a bird and ***** like an elephant."
- The Leatherass-esque approach to playing poker: since every hand is an independant event, your short term results are irrelevant assuming you are a winning player. Players should ignore random fluctuations of any variety and focus on each decision. The more hands you play, the faster you will converge towards some sort of positive winrate. This is why, in this school, putting the hours and a strong work ethic is highly regarded. However, those belonging to this school are very aware of the negative impact that playing long hours can have on your win rate so they give plenty of advice to avoid tilt of any sort and therefore maximise the time you can spend at the tables: not checking the cashier ("Play with a large BR to be able to handle any swings"), looking away/stacking the tables in order not to know the result of an all-in, not playing tired and many others. Poker is a job and the longer you play, the bigger the reward. Online, mass tabling for long hours is often rewarded by massive rakeback amounts. Their bible: "Treat your poker like a business" by Dusty Schmidt
- The "2p2 approach" (failing to find a better word) - you can find some Sklansky essays about it or read "Inside your poker mind". Here players evaluate the game they are playing in and decide when to leave. Emotions should play no parts in this: they are a machine who ignore losses and who will keep playing as long as the bad players are in the game. However, they should leave if they are in a tough game and assess they are one of the weaker players. Whether you are winning or losing in this game doesn't matter - just leave.
Obviously, many players pick several ideas of each school to develop their own ideas but I'd be impressed if you could fit your "if I stopped everytime i lost 3 buyins id probably be a losing player" in any of these approaches.