Just put in more hours.

I apologize to you on behalf of all the peasants here who didn't have the common sense to bow down to your greatness.

I didn't know that bragging was still such a big thing in 2015...especially such grandiose bragging. Please accept our heartfelt apologies for daring to challenge a poker pro like yourself. We may be peasants who are not fit to eat crumbs from your table, but we should be appreciative peasants when we are in the presence of such greatness such as yours.

That's 100 percent fact.

I've been stopped out of many good games before. I also have stop wins because I don't want more than x% of my roll at risk in one session. I also play plo only so my risk is much higher.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

Sure, a stop loss affects your EV in a game if you're a robot, but if you have mental problems chasing losses, it would be -EV to convince yourself to "keep playing because they are so bad"

I went from a marginal winner to a decent winner in the games I play just by blurting "CASH ME OUT" once my tilt-o-meter hit red

Verbal is binding

More butchering of what "variance" is ITT...

#1 stop losses have nothing to do with variance control.

#2 stopping at 1 buy in is in no way a factor in variance.

#3 Variance does not mean "down"... in fact, the whale that felts 100% of his sessions is perhaps the lowest variance player in the room. Consider that when thinking about "variance control strat"

**
A stop loss is there to prevent hero from playing when tilted. Having a hard stop loss is like handing over your keys before you start drinking... you make the decision before your decision making is impaired.

Stop losses are extremely valuable for the people that need them, yet pointless for people who don't need them. If you have a necessary stop loss - it does a great deal of work guarding your win rate. However, a 1 buy in stop loss is not productive in any regards for a good player. If you can't handle losing a buy in well, then your views on the game & strat are out of whack.

Apologies to whoever it was that volunteered that their stop loss is 1 buy-in. I am not picking on you.., I am correcting some of the posts that followed

Preach

U mad?

Doesn't sound like it, he is making a lot of good points though.

Personally I don't have a stop-loss really. If I'm getting it in good but losing, I just brush it off. If I punt off a buy-in or two, then I will stop playing. I've gone on some pretty big swings in a single session (10-12BI). I find it helps me when I concentrate on the EV line instead of the green line. I've talked with a bunch of large-volume players, most of them have put in their most epic sessions when they have started off in the red.
Longest session I've ever played(100NL):

If you play perfect and don't tilt, but have no stop loss and consistently have majority or all of your roll in play, you will go broke multiple times.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

you either had some sick bonuses running or you're paying like 5x your winnings in rake

If you're under-rolled nothing can help you. But you can be medium-rolled. Then a stop loss will prevent you from overcoming an early bad streak but it will also prevent you from experiencing a very long bad streak. Ideally I'd love to be way over-rolled, but if I had that much money, I probably wouldn't be playing LLSNL to help earn a living.

I ~only won $700 last night, losing $250 in the last orbit with AAxx and KK44ds, and this felt like I lost a stack. Idk what my true winrate is in this game and I'll never get enough volume to know, but I genuinely think ~$60 an hour is sustainable, especially considering over the past year and ~150 hours I'm nearly double this.

True, but if you are dealt less hands per session (which is likely to happen if you have a 1 buy-in stop loss) then your variance is spread across a longer period of time and thus will have a great affect on the player (whether positive or negative). Yesterday I lost AIPF AK vs 55. 20 minutes later I felted 2 players including the player in the previous hand AIPF with QQ vs JJ vs XX. If I had a one buy-in stop loss it would have taken 2 sessions to accomplish what I did in 20 minutes. Without a stoploss I could lose 4 buyins in a session and subsequently win all those buy-ins back in the same session. With a 1 buy-in stop loss this would take a minimum of 5 sessions.

I'm not arguing for or against stop losses. Simply pointing out how stop losses are relevant when considering variance.

yes to everything

^ Not sure if serious?

Mr Bip is correct. What I should have said was using a stop loss might keep your variance from evening out for the night. Basically, you're narrowing the goal posts on a field goal attempt. It increases win rate for a mentally weak player and decreases it for a mentally strong player.


Note: it really decreases it for a mentally dilussional player.

Not sure if I'm serious because I'm pointing out the obvious? Feel free to respond.

We're talking about two kinds of variance here.

There's the actual, +-$/hand fluctuations that we expect from the nature of the game, then there's the standard deviation in winrate that we calculate from our records.

The hand results are the true variance in our play, and will vary from player to player depending on what kind of spots we tend to get into and how thin of an edge we push. OK. This is what I think bip! is talking about.

But if we're just looking at $ won / hours played to calculate a win rate and standard deviation, that's where a stop loss might influence what we calculate for "variance". A short session will be dominated by a few hand results, where a longer session should "even out" and get closer and closer to our true winrate (after several hundred hours of course). This *looks* like variance to a lot of people.

There's another stat to go look at for the hell of it later, standard deviation of session results vs number of hours played.

You may have use improper terminology but your point is a very valid one which should not simply be thrown aside as irrelevant. In fact, I can't think of any times at all when variance is a concern to me other than when I am putting in very few hours (which is a potential risk of using a 1 buy-in stop loss)

I prefer to make valid points with correct terminology so please correct me at every opportunity. I like sounding smrt.

Can you explain why?

I think he did?