Sorry to hear it Johnny. Gl for rest of August. I'm sure you will be back up to 2/5 soon enough.

Don't lose courage. If you have the br and can withstand the variance, keep playing 2-5.

The first time I really got crushed at 2-5, I made the move back to 1-2 and proceeded to struggle there for a few months. I wondered what the 2-5 regs would think (lol like they noticed or cared) and the 1-2 game just seemed hard (lol) . For me, time was the only thing that fixed my head.

I've read a ridiculous number of books on poker psych. It only helps so much. I think some people are better wired to keep their confidence and play at a high level in the face of variance and the likely poor play that comes with it.

So I'd say play 1-2, take a break, do whatever you need to be confident. I think the game is really hard to beat when you're not sure you can do it.

Buy Jared Tendler's book on tilt - you'll quickly realize dropping down is not always the answer.

Thanks for the support! I just need to crush some muppets for a few weeks to get the ol' confidence up.

I started becoming cognizant of the fact that the variance was affecting my decision making. Depending on night of the week, there is also a significant skill gap between 1/2 and 2/5 at my poker room.

Bought the book 3-4 months ago. Just haven't found the time to read it yet.

At the end of the day, it's all about the $$$ for me so if I'm not winning more at 2/5 there's no reason to play it. I fully intend to be back soon enough but I'm not gonna play it again until I build my BR another $1000 above it's previous all-time high. I had a trailing stop-loss in play and I hit it. Gotta stick to the plan.

How many hours do you have at $2/5? Is it a statistically significant sample? Are you running bad or playing bad?

Variance affecting decision making is playing bad.

A statistically insignificant 80.

I'm sure there is some bad play sprinkled on top of a healthy serving of run bad. The last straw was Saturday night when I was already in for $1000, topped up from $500 to $1000 because the table was deep with bad players and proceeded to lose another $700 in 20 minutes after running into 4 sets.

While in a vacuum the BR can take the hit, I have some potential investment opportunities in the very near future which means capital preservation + consistent income (playing 1/2) takes precedence.

Agreed. I hope for his sake Johnny can differentiate between the two.

(FTR, I think he can, just playing amateur poker psychologist )

Analyzing and separating run bad from play bad can be very challenging.

Shouldn't top off if value of losing is greater than value of winning, and it usually is.

Do you see the ludicrousy in topping off up to 200bbs at 2/5 one day and then dropping down to 1/2 the next week? Sure in theory you want to cover all the fish, but in reality it can be a lot more complicated than that and choosing to top off was a TERRIBLE decision.



And yes, I realize that ludicrousy is not technically a real word but ludicrousness sounds dumb and lunacy doesn't quite capture what I am trying to say.

It's a great decision if you flop the nuts.

I know you are trolling but it would still be a bad decision.

Can you expand? I thought we want to cover all of the marks at the table?

I was/am using a stop-loss, so whether I hit it that night or the next night seems irrelevant, no?

Future potential. If losing too much could prevent you from playing 2/5 and costing you potential of larger winning (assuming you're a winning player), then it is negative EV.

Simplistically, sure. However, there are still other considerations that should be made. In your case, risk of ruin. If you are that close to having to drop to 1/2 then you shouldn't be taking that additional risk exposure since the value of staying at 2/5 is greater than the additional value you get by topping off.

Topping off is inherently more risky simply because you could lose all those chips in just one hand rather than two.

Other arguments against it could include:

a) You are still new to 2/5 with no proven track record at that level. Even if you are a better player than your opponents you may not understand all the nuances of the 2/5 game...this issue is compounded when playing deep

b) $1k is a lot of money for you which could have a negative impact on your game in spots (ie a bit scared money considering if you lose you go down to 1/2)

c) You were already stuck in the game and your mental state was a question mark. If not, your ability to win at that particular table certainly should have been. A losing image can make it significantly more difficult to win at this game. Sometimes it really is best to just cut your losses short for the night and come back the next day refreshed with a new outlook and a fresh table image. (albeit, this is less of a concern seeing as it didn't seem like u were down that much really)

Especially since your run bad may cause others to play temporarily better.

a. I suppose. It would depend on whether the 'marks' are willing to get stacked or not. They might call a jam from a shorter stack more loosely because 'he can't hurt me.'

b. It's quite relevant. See my reply to 44s ^.

+1 to buy in less, stay at 2/5.

Just because buying in deep is the cool thing to do in forum land doesn't mean most are best off doing it.

FWIW, I always buy in for 100 BB's only. I just thought table dynamics (and perhaps frustration tilt and expecting mean reversion) dictated topping off to the table max.

At this point, I wanna see if I can turn a -$3000 month as of 8/25 into a positive month from just 1/2.

Tilt still going strong

Setting a short-term goal is not synonymous with chasing losses

If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't

And what a realistic short term goal it is, one that is not at all influenced by your recent poor results.

I appreciate your concern, but don't you have a bridge to get back to hiding under?

While the posts were a little trolly, the idea of having a 1500 bb monetary goal with a 6-day limit is probably not realistic.

Also, "ludicrosity" is a word.