What I quoted clearly says you have to be running extremely hot to never go on a -4BI session tho.

If you're fairly honest with yourself about tilt problems, then I think 2 BI stoploss is too small. Also, doesn't this mean that after losing a single BI (quite simple to do) that you'll then be playing without being stacked up to a full BI (i.e. a definite no-no, imo). I actually originally increased my BIs I bring to the casino from 3 to 4 simply because I didn't like not being able to top up to my maximum buy-in when I was on my 3rd BI; I encountered that recently again with my 4 BI limit, so now I'm considering bringing 5 BI (but I'm honestly not too sure if I'm in a good frame of mind at that point, so I'm still thinking about this).

Interesting....LOL $2k? I'll assume you're playing $1/2

I never stated the "amount" of my 4bi loss, just that losing 4 buy-ins was a big loss for me....and it was much more than $2k. lol

Playing on the tight side and listening to certain players label for this style as nitty...as if something is "wrong" with playing nitty is just hard for me to understand.
I've seen a large volume of low stakes players come and go in the past year & half, and of the few that make the transition nicely to live play and the fewer that grow into higher stakes, *NONE* of them are willing to take coin-flip chances often or push the edge on a regular basis -such as tournament style play. In fact most of the mid-stakes cash game players that I see on a regular basis are a little nitty
Its imposible to make a living from low stakes live poker, sure some people get by for awhile..until they get burned out and tired of scraping by. Its a different mindset when you're playing deep capped games & non-capped games...you'll learn to be a little nitty, or go broke. Any dummy can go broke, I'd rather be a nit.

You should take bigger risks in cash than tourneys.

Also nitty is bad by definition because it means "too tight". If it's not bad, then it's not nitty, it's just tight or good.

Like folding to pair on the flop to a single bet; it "feels nitty" but could be the correct play, so even if we jokingly call it nitty, it might not actually be.

I let myself add on below 80bb. And if for instance I topped up earlier, get stacked, and have just $100 in wallet, I leave. So yes, after thinking this through I think I'm short changing myself by not bringing 3bi, but no more than that bc I want my head on right when I go to sleep

^...good wording

While I still think you're playing with too few BIs, your last statement is a valid point.

That said, once you've had a 4 BI session loss (you'll lose a few nights sleep for sure), it makes it really easy to go to sleep after a 2.5 BI loss.

I remember when first starting out in 2/4 limit and eventually running into my worst ever session (blowing all $300 in my pocket, I think I won 2 hands in 5 hours). $300! Now that's just a single BI in 1/3 NL (which I don't even blink an eye to if I lose).

Thanks for support gg. Perhaps bringing more bi will help improve the rate too. I feel half guilty sitting at at table with 80 to 85bb anyways. With 3 bi I'll be less reluctant to tip to the top at 100 at all times

I feel like a well oiled machine just thinking about it. This is putting me in a really good mindset

down 4.25 buyins over my last three nights in the room. was running like god before that, but it still sucks to not be able to book a win.

Set over set in a 4 buyin pot, though. FML.

Ha, just don't blame me if you book your record loss! (which you eventually will with this many BIs at your disposal)

I still think it's a very big mistake to not always be topped up to ~max buy-in if we feel we are at a good table and are comfortable playing at the max buy-in.

GgoodluckG

S**t happens. The 2nd biggest session loss I booked recently I ran KK into AA twice (a fairly impressive stat when you do the math). Although did you actually lose 4 BIs in the single pot (or "just" 2)? If I'm sitting with 400 BBs, I don't think I'm stacking off with an underset; flame away.

What if it's uncapped? Do you just always buyin to cover everyone? Some do it, some very good players, but I don't like it.

It's not too bad idea to basically have all the people to your right + the fish covered only, and only cover regs that are to your right.

I actually don't feel comfortable in deepstack games at all (I'm well aware of my weaknesses), so I'd probably limit myself to ~100 BB stacks or something (depending on fish stacks, good player stacks, etc.). 100 BB max buy-in in my game, so thankfully not a decision I have to make.

GscaredyfishG

50-60bbs is probably better imo. I hate 100bbs. I think 120-150 is perfect, iyam.

No I'm playing 2/5

A -4BI session is a -4BI downswing amirite?

Also I play 2/5 with min 200/standard max of 500 up to 75% of big stack policy (whichever is greater) and I tend to buy in for 500 although I've bought a couple grand. It all depends on who is in the game.

Fwiw I am a huge nit, but to not ever take a 400xbb downswing sounds like BS to me.

There's nothing wrong with being nitty.

Its just kind of weird that you're:

A -- that nitty and
B -- you think its science fiction that others have significantly higher winrates than you do.

A nit doesn't want to put $$ in without a near lock. A nit doesn't iso 78ss in lp vs a fish. You aren't a nit, you have large swings bc you tackle +ev high variance plays, which is good

High variance is relative...

11t doesn't seem like a huge nit by any means fwiw, from his posts. Nittiness is also relative though I guess.

you are not talking to the right people then my man. top dudes are in the 50's at 2/5 here in vegas and I know several.

btw my biggest ds this year is 11bi

Gentlemen, allow me to introduce myself. I am Clarence. I am undoubtedly the best poker player on this forum. I have tracked the last 437.25 hours of my play at 1 2 no limit and the results are favorable. I shall continue to play 1 2 for awhile and then crush my way up to 5/10 and beyond. I'm new here and I will be posting in many of the hand history threads. My advice will be very valuable and I give it away humbly. I will remember loyal supporters when I'm at the top. I look forward to being part of the community, its very therapeutic for me to read discussions on poker related topics. Goodbye for now.

+1

In reality, we should simply measure the total time we devote to the session, from beginning to end.

So if we take a bus that leaves at 4 PM, and get back home at 2 AM, we've played for 10 hours. The fact that we only spent 6 hours actually sitting at a poker table is irrelevant-- we want to know the profitability of our total poker experience.

Think about it this way:
You're a real estate salesman working at a large commercial real estate company. The company wants to determine your overall profitability. Are they going to measure the number of hours you spend actually working?

They wouldn't say, "Oh, Bill spent 2 hours each day in the bathroom, so we shouldn't include that in his hourly rate."

Rather, they would say, "Bill spent 2 hours each day in the bathroom. He isn't making any money on the toilet-- his time could be spent more effectively."

"Time is money."

You can't subtract the time you spend traveling, eating and pissing. That's all part of the poker session.

No it's not. You don't get paid for 40 hours at the office plus the hour each way on the train. You also don't get paid for your lunch hour.

Hi CIarence

Do you like the pokerz too?