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?

This is a common scenario I struggle with. I play mainly 6 max and it's common to lose 3-4 buy-ins over coin flips 15 minutes into a session. I'll usually attempt to quit for the day after losing 4-6 buy-ins, though when it occurs right off the bat, I'm often tilted and not nearly ready to call it quits for the day. Even If I stop and come back later, it's extremely frustrating to come back and play just to attempt to break even for the day. It can become devastating to return to the tables later just to quickly loose another 3-4 BI's that day. This happens frequently. Note that I am a slightly winning player before rakeback. Looking back on sessions at the end of the week I find I would have profited much more had I just quit for that one day I had a 6-8BI downswing. So is that my answer, If I end up losing those 3-4 BI's instantly, just quit for the day? I'm sure a lot of it is psychological, and leads me to playing subpar, so maybe that makes the most sense until that leak is fixed.

How much variance do most of you 6max players experience per session, assuming you're winning players? Also, How much analysis are you guys giving to your net expected won line on your graph as well as your hourly rate? I try my best not to pay much attention to these two things though always find myself looking back on them after a session which usually leads to tilt.

I am mostly a NLH cash game player and when I hit my stop loss, I stop almost instantly, sometimes not even waiting for the BB. It doesn't matter whether it happens after 10 minutes or 6 hours. There are many things I do related to poker for the rest of the day: review/improve my game (leakbusting), learn a new game type or poker variant and play it where it doesn't hurt my bankroll: plo, sng, limit games... all played at very low micro stakes. The possibilities are endless.

The key is to leave when you are up just a buy in or so. or a little less if you have played a few hours. As long as you leave at a point when you are up you can never lose at poker.

Brilliant!

So, what happens when you are down? You never leave?

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)

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.

Im not sure why I need to fit my way of thinking into any of those statements?

I guess I fit into all three. If im playing badly i stop for the session, however I always play a full 8 hours each day, broken down into maximum of two hour sessions. Sometimes I am at a table that looks to be very profitable for me and im playing well Ill keep playing at that table whether im winning or losing, if I have exceeded the 2 hours which I think I can multi table optimally ill close all other tables and focus soley on the 1 that I think will yield the most profit.

Losing 3/5 or 5 buyins isnt a big deal to me as a huge amount of my best sessions have started or down alot of I have been down alot at some stag during it. I see each hand/session as a small part of the whole so losing 3 buyins at the begginng, middle or end of the session is the same thing. I Assume that over the course of a session Ill lose some buy ins sometimes so what does it matter if they happen at the beginning. If I kept quiting when I started badly I doubt id of made a profit, or at least not have such a significant wr over the millions of hands I have got under my belt.

I also leave games where I dont think my edge is that great, or I think the table space would be utilsed better with a more profitable table.

The one thing I most definitely do know is I have little interest in ensuring that what I do fits in with popular schools of thought.

So I guess what im saying is that I dont really understand your point?

Actually, your approach looks a lot like the third one above: in 1, the stop loss is the criteria to use to stop, in 2 you play a fixed number of hands/hours and in 3, you use your own mental evaluation to decide when to stop. But whatever...

My point is that the statement "if I stopped everytime i lost 3 buyins id probably be a losing player" makes no sense. Stopping after losing 3 buy-ins can lower your hourly rate but in no case, it can decrease your win rate. If you are a 4bb/100 winner for example, each hand you play win you an average of 0.04bb. After a large enough sample, no amount of variance will make you a losing player as you converge towards your win rate. I am simplifying a little of course but that's the idea.

Ok i understand what your saying now. But I do believe that for me personally, having a stop loss would be detrimental for my wr as I feel my game gets better as the day progress's (to a peak then deteriorates) and I often start a dayt pretty poorly so I would deny myself the chance to make money in a large percentage of days If I had quit early. However I play pretty well when Im losing, if I didnt then my approach wouldn't work.

you're looking at it completely wrong.

There's a feel thing to it too. You know your session is not going well when you play. Just quit when you feel it.

Thanks for your contribution. You have a lot of quality posts.

I usually leave when am down 3BIs for the day (but this is for live cash), or if am playing my B game..

If I made decent profit I quite after 8 hrs or so..