Help understanding my problem

[pablofactor]

Well I did it again. Bought in for 50 at UB, and set a two hour limit to my session. At the end I was up fourty-three dollars, and quit. Then I bought in two a $1 + .5 ten player sit and go. I won. Then I felt like I was the best player in the world. I lost my eighty dollars bank roll in an hour and a half. Ugh. This is exactly my problem. Total session ten oclock to 3:30 instead of the two hours.

[Piemaster]

I think you misunderstood Holyfield's response. He's not saying that you need to learn to play long sessions, he's saying that basically it doesn't matter how long you play for from a poker point of view. If you are $100 up after half an hour and leave then you haven't really achieved anything by leaving, because sooner or later you are going to start playing again and risk losing that $100 anyway. It doesn't matter if that next hand is 30 seconds later or next week.

That's what he means by 'one long session'. Imagine every hand of poker you have ever played, and ever will play, as one enormous long session. You can take breaks every now and then, but the end result will be the same no matter how many breaks you take or how long there is between them.

[johnc]

You are asking the often sought after answer in gambling "Should I quit while I'm ahead?". Well, the answer to this is, for myself, yes and no. The common approach to poker is to treat your time you play as one long continous session and not try to look at each session individually. The results you record will tend to reflect a more long term view of your play, good or bad. I like this because it helps me keep a handle on the painful side of poker - variance.
As far as when to get up from a session, I've found a rule that seems to work well for me as a means for which to gauge when to quit an individual session. It centers around the profitablity of the table and my ability to take advantage of this profitablity. Whenever I'm at a point in a session and I'm up quite a bit (or stuck [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]) I'll ask myself "is this table have a potential to be profitable?", "do I possess the skills necessary to take advantage of this profitabilty?", "is my mental/physical condition sharp enough to maximize my skills or am I too tired/preoccupied?". I try to be realistic with myself and my abilities, and my desires - I realize that if a couple of loose live ones just busted out that the table is left with a bunch of old rocks and the profitablitiy of the table has plummented and I'm not in the mood to assume the role of table thief today, I usually get up. Or maybe the table is has become VERY profitable but the players here are maybe equal to me or a little better skilled players (this is tough one for alot of players to accept - that maybe they aren't the best at least at this table!) so maybe my best choice is to find a different table or quit for the time being. I need to also evaluate my mental/physical state as well. I could be at the most profitable, stupid, donkfilled table of my lifetime but if I'm tired and at the end of a session then I'm proned to make BAD,stupid, mistakes ie. missread boards, make stupid plays, or try to bluff the table calling station, all because I'm too tired, bringing my level of play down to that of those I'm trying to beat and negating the profitablity of the table for me. If the answer to these questions is a resounding yes, then I'll stay regardless of how much I have in front of me. Hope this helps.

[Piemaster]

Excellent post John. If it was in paragraphs it would have been close to perfect [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[JayKon]

This is the answer right here:

[ QUOTE ]
As far as when to get up from a session, I've found a rule that seems to work well for me as a means for which to gauge when to quit an individual session. It centers around the profitablity of the table and my ability to take advantage of this profitablity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Period, begining and end of story. Everything else is fluff.

[Goodnews]

[ QUOTE ]
Your play doesnt degrade after time unless you are tilting so i think you are just hitting variance or having situations that expose mistakes you make later in the session or you are failing to adjust your play.....or maybe players are learning how to play against your style(maybe they have to wait for a hand to beat you)

just my thoughts, gl.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are people who are great players when they initially sit, pump their stack up to 2 or 3 times the max buyin, but then they begin to what i dub 'neo-tilt' where they begin to make unnecessary moves and crazy plays simply because they have the huge stack to back them up.

this much sounds like op, and my suggestion to him is to rathole that money. its not good table etiquette but screw table etiquette you don't study and play to have good manners, you are there to win money.

[greywolf82]

I've run into this myself. Part of the reason your results change after a certain amount of time is because you change. Your initial success (or run of bad luck in some cases) affects your mindset, decisions, and reactions. Ever take a bad beat after winning several hands in a row? You can bounce back much faster from that than if you've been card dead for an hour, gotten your first good hand and then taken a bad beat.

There is a part of successful/profitable poker that relies upon being self aware. The fact that you do well for the first couple of hours tells you that you have the basics covered (proper hand selection, etc). So start reviewing what changes after 2 or 3 hours of play. If it is ADD/ADHD kicking in, then have the discipline to leave - and not just that table, stop playing altogether. Take a break, do something else. Know your limits.

There is an article on another poker website I read that speaks to this. The author gives a great example of being self aware and candidly honest about himself. Specifically, this passage found in the third-to-last paragraph:

"My poker skills are influenced by my mental state. I am susceptible to fear, cowardice, carelessness, inattention, arrogance, and the like. I have found that when I am up a great deal – especially if it happens quickly – I become distracted, at least momentarily, by the awful thought that I might lose the money back and end up down, in spite of my quick success. This is surely a flaw in my game. I must cure it if I am to become my best. But until I do, I have to acknowledge that I don't play my best when I win quickly. Shame on me – but it's true. I must recognize the truth of my limitations and not pretend that I can play optimally. So I must do the next best thing. I must take myself away from the table when I think that my play may be influenced for the worse by my circumstances."

Here's the full article:
http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/st...er-hit-run.htm

[sweeng8]

I have played for about a year, almost every day, and find that though I consider myself a competent players, focus over a long period of time is my biggest limitation as a player.
For some reason, I can handle long tournaments, where I know where the end is and where I am, but in cash games my focus seems to dwindle until I decide to stop. Now I usually multitable NLH cash games for a couple of hours then stop, and play some shorthanded tournies, heads up games, or some omaha split. Playing small games, you can still generate income if that is your aim, but you can take small breaks of attention. Similarly, changing games lets my mind think about a different way of playing and refreshes me a little bit from grinding NLH cash tables.

Besides attention, you might want to think about stack size. If you are doing well after a couple of hours so may be playing with 2 or 3 times what the max buy in is, you may be getting lazy as the min bet starts to look very small. This might not effect you, but i find this is another issue of mine when i play for long sessions

good luck

[pablofactor]

thanks for the help guys. Posters who think that their skills don't deteriorate after a certain period of time are crazy. I understand the concept of the "one long session". However, many points have been made clear through this thread and the book "Your Worst Poker Enemy", (thanks doc), I also think I have been playing games that are too difficult for me and/or, my bankroll can't support the normal variance at such high stakes.

Which leads me too believe that it must be profitable for online sites to allow people with too little money to buy in to their higher stake games. Otherwise people wouldn't be buying in so often.

I plan on sticking to smaller games online, such as the .25 and .50 games. Only one other question, where would I find bankroll requirements for specific games, didnt dave and mason write an article on this topic?

[holyfield5]

for cash games 20 BIs per level is pretty standard. if you have confidence in ability you can take shots with less than that as long as you set a certain number of lost buy ins before you drop down.

the higher the stakes people gernally go with more but up to 200NL i think 200 is plenty.