Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Strategy => Topic started by: SirPercival on January 22, 2009, 22:09:07 PM
-
I"m not an expert on buying and selling shares but I do know that when I buy some I have a "target" figure and a "stop loss" figure.
So to keep the Math simple (for me - not you!) if I bought at £1.00 I may have a target of £1.30 and a stop loss at 90p. If the price goes down to 90p I sell if it goes up to £1.10 then I reset my stop loss at £1.00.
OK, so can the same principle be applied to poker?
When I play cash and say I take $50 to a 25c/50c table what should I be looking to leave the table with. (please don"t say as much as possible or > $50).
What I mean is that if I increase the $50 to $55 and do that more than I lose and walk away with $45 then I turn a profit. My problem at the moment is I have too much gamble and am walking away with $70+ or nothing! If I drop to $40 should I stand up? or try and win back the $10?
-
my head hurts -- all in
-
my head hurts -- all in
that was the 2008 approach to my poker, I am yet to work out my 2009 approach ???
-
Artificial stop-wins or losses do not make sense.
If you"re winning, why stop? If you"re losing due to some bad luck, but playing well, why stop? If you"re losing and not playing your A-game - then yes stop by all means. If you"re winning, but you"ve been lucky, or you are getting too confident, or the players at the table have changed and it"s suddenly a lot tougher - then yes, stop.
If you"re tired and it"s affecting your play - stop. Same goes for if you"ve had a few.
Arbitrary stop-limits will just reduce your potential profit.
There is an argument for stopping after you"ve scored a decent win, if it"s off the back of a bad run. Or if the amount you"ve won at the table means a lot to you (and is large in proportion to your bankroll). Then it might make sense to stop.
Is this what you wanted to hear?
-
When I play cash and say I take $50 to a 25c/50c table what should I be looking to leave the table with. (please don"t say as much as possible or > $50).
What I mean is that if I increase the $50 to $55 and do that more than I lose and walk away with $45 then I turn a profit. My problem at the moment is I have too much gamble and am walking away with $70+ or nothing! If I drop to $40 should I stand up? or try and win back the $10?
If you"re playing correctly and playing "winning poker" - the amount you"re up or down in a session (assuming it"s within your bankroll) is irrelevant. Short-term variance will come into play. If you"ve got your money in ahead as a big favourite but been "binked", why should this determine if you stop or continue?
If you let it affect your play then yes, it"s a factor. If not, then why stop?
-
I think my wins/losses are starting to effect the way I play. That"s why I"m taking some time to think more about my game.
-
Artificial stop-wins or losses do not make sense.
If you"re winning, why stop? If you"re losing due to some bad luck, but playing well, why stop? If you"re losing and not playing your A-game - then yes stop by all means. If you"re winning, but you"ve been lucky, or you are getting too confident, or the players at the table have changed and it"s suddenly a lot tougher - then yes, stop.
If you"re tired and it"s affecting your play - stop. Same goes for if you"ve had a few.
Arbitrary stop-limits will just reduce your potential profit.
There is an argument for stopping after you"ve scored a decent win, if it"s off the back of a bad run. Or if the amount you"ve won at the table means a lot to you (and is large in proportion to your bankroll). Then it might make sense to stop.
Is this what you wanted to hear?
I"m just a sad lonely poker player who wanted someone to talk to - so you could say yes. :D
-
Artificial stop-wins or losses do not make sense.
If you"re winning, why stop? If you"re losing due to some bad luck, but playing well, why stop? If you"re losing and not playing your A-game - then yes stop by all means. If you"re winning, but you"ve been lucky, or you are getting too confident, or the players at the table have changed and it"s suddenly a lot tougher - then yes, stop.
If you"re tired and it"s affecting your play - stop. Same goes for if you"ve had a few.
Arbitrary stop-limits will just reduce your potential profit.
There is an argument for stopping after you"ve scored a decent win, if it"s off the back of a bad run. Or if the amount you"ve won at the table means a lot to you (and is large in proportion to your bankroll). Then it might make sense to stop.
Is this what you wanted to hear?
I just need to find a way of not donking off my money after I get a win. Stopping after a win seems like a good option.
-
Basically what Kin said
If the game is juicy and you are winning - do not stop.
I think my wins/losses are starting to effect the way I play. That"s why I"m taking some time to think more about my game.
Nothing wrong with this but sometimes you can think too hard to the point where its not possible to play your best game..
-
Same goes for if you"ve had a few.
bugger
-
Currently sitting at a 25c/50c table with $70. Started with $30. 146 hands played.
bb/100 = 27.11
Current thinking:
1. quit now whilst I"m ahead
2. keep going as I"m doing ok
??? ???
-
A stop loss can make some sense - if you"re losing it could be variance, but it could also be that you"re being outplayed and/or tilting. Not losing more than a certain amount could stop this damage before it gets worse.
A win limit makes far less sense - if you are going to throw away money you"ve won, then you should stop the moment you feel you"re not playing your best. However, if you"re beating the other players, then every minute you"re at the table you"re earning money, whatever the variance is doing.
Why not set a time limit for the amount you play, rather than a win target? Then, win or lose, you have to stop at a certain point. It will stop you chasing targets you might not be able to achieve, and give you the discipline to accept short-term losses as part of the (very) long term plan.
Ultimately, I guess monetary targets don"t help in poker the way they do in shares. You could play the same session the same way - one day your three flush draws come in, the next they don"t. In the short term this is beyond your control - in the long term, as long as you"re playing the odds correctly, it is in your control.
Hilger"s Inside The Poker Mind has a long discussion about this. Also other poker psychology books, no doubt.
-
Why are you buying in short in 25/50, can understand taking a shot at higher levels but you are leaving money on the table if you don"t buy in for the max ( and top up if you go below). My opinion only, I am not a cash player, but is buying in short not a sign of lacking confidence in case you lose etc?
As for the question don"t think the comparison can be used as too many factors apply. If you feel you are being owned move away or stop playing if you think you can beat the table stay. Imo this comes back to confidence again because i believe some days you will be able to beat a certain group of players and some days you won"t which is down to factors affecting your focus like work, family, mood etc. Does that make sense to you? it does to me I think... ???
-
Thanks to all the above for the advice - keep it coming.
It"s good to know others can relate to what I"m saying/thinking.
I think Pokertracker (which I am now running on the 60 day trial) has already helped and will continue to, when it comes to taking a closer look at my game and the reasons for any losing sessions.
I think I"ve thrown the stop loss idea out but will continue to look for ways to maximise the wins and minimise the losses.
Eck - this was the first time I have ever bought in short and I"m not sure why I did that. Maybe it was the sting from buying into the $2/$4 for maximum then losing it all on a 1 outer!
(and worryingly it does make sense to me too!)
-
will continue to look for ways to maximise the wins and minimise the losses.
Keep making good decisions and the cards will more or less even themselves out over time. Ignore the short term results as long as you know your decisions are correct.
-
Hi Stuart
I"m playing 25c/50c on Betfair. Sometimes leave table with $150 sometimes with a big fat Z. Think the important thing is to ensure over a period of time that you"re in profit and maybe set a weekly target if you play regularly. I originally started with £50 and played on 5c/10c table to ensure i had more than 5 buy-ins. After getting to $150 I went to 10c/20c table and now moved up to 25c/50c a while ago.
I"ve now got $400 in my bankroll and previously withdrew £200 back into my bank. I"m now looking at hitting over $500 to enable me to have a shot at the 50c/$1 table.
There will be times that you just run into big hands/don"t get many good starting hands/play poorly/have an aggressive table (great when you get cards, sucks when you don"t) and you just have to admit defeat and leave the table. If though you"re playing well and feel you"ve got the measure of the table then why leave after making a small profit? By all means leave after at least doubling your buy-in but only when you"re satisfied the timing"s right (length of time at table/tiredness/other issues)
Would also be a good idea to look at some of Monkeyman"s "Am I A Fish" blog as he"s analysed his own cash table play quite a bit.
-
Hilger"s Inside The Poker Mind has a long discussion about this. Also other poker psychology books, no doubt.
I think you may have 2 nooks mixed up here namely:
The Poker Mindset by Ian Taylor, Matthew Hilger
Inside the Poker Mind by John Feeney
I haven"t read either so would welcome your (and others) view on which one to buy first.
-
Everything Eck said about buying for the max + topping up is spot on,for stop loss think buyins rather than blinds ie your playing .25/.50 with a full 50$ your effectively playing micro stacked if you plan on quitting at 40$. A more reasonable approach would be to stop at 2 full buyins down wich isnt unusual regardless of how well your playing in the actual session these swings will occur.
btw i love the fact you took a shot at 2/4 with 1 buyin your the new me, double or nothing drunken cash games are great fun.(i do hope you were drunk)
-
I think you may have 2 books mixed up here
Er, yes, you"re quite right! The Poker Mindset is the one I meant. I haven"t yet read Inside The Poker Mind, but the Hilger was pretty good, I found. It pushes home their key points to remember about poker, and I find it quite reassuring to dip into when I"m having a bad time of it, thinking I can"t play and so on...
...which is most of the time!
-
My opinion only, I am not a cash player, but is buying in short not a sign of lacking confidence in case you lose etc?
Personally I don"t buy into cash-games short but I don"t agree that this necessarily signifies a lack of confidence. Your stack-size plays a big part in what strategies are available to you (generally shorter stack means you have to play tighter). I don"t think buying in short has to be due to a lack of confidence, it could simply be a recognition that this style of poker is how you are most profitable.
If you plan on playing lots of hands (suited connectors etc.) you"ll probably want the full buy-in but if you"re only playing premium then a shorter stack cuts down your opponents implied odds and makes it incorrect for them to play hands such as suited connectors against you (this doesn"t mean that they won"t though).
-
will continue to look for ways to maximise the wins and minimise the losses.
Keep making good decisions and the cards will more or less even themselves out over time. Ignore the short term results as long as you know your decisions are correct.
This.
Although it"s impossible to do this if you"re playing scared (i.e. if you"ve doubled-up for example and you"re worried that if you lost the whole stack in front of you it"s hurt your roll, etc.).
I find that some of the losing runs I"ve been on have been due to trying to change the way I play too radically. I"ve taken on board good advice from several quarters - but then tried to bring it all into play at once - and failed.
Sometimes it can be an idea to go back to what was working, and then make small, incremental changes. Evolution over revolution.