When to cut your losses (1 Viewer)

[Mojo1312]

The poker boom is over , consequently, so are the days of playing at a table predominantly occupied by weak players. A player last night in a 7 handed Omaha/HE cash game found himself upside down for $900. With his $900, there was $2650 on the table. He cashed out at the end of the game $800 light.

Are there any other influencing factors that should be considered when determining whether to continue after being felted besides how big a game plays, the skill set of the players, or the amount of money on the table?

Has anyone found themselves in a similar spot or witnessed the same situation? At what point should someone realize it is not their night?

 

[pokerplayingpisces]

We you realize that you are not playing well, and making bad decisions. Can be from a variety of factors; fatigue, run bad, environment, etc. If you reach the point where you are making more bad decisions than usual, time to pack up for the night.

 

[FestiveKnight]

I think about it a little differently. The vast majority of the time I am playing at home games/online with buddies where I know I don’t want to be done early and I don’t want to be hanging around and not playing.

So I try to ask myself a different question than “when to stop playing” and instead “when to start lowering VPIP, focusing more on chatting, take over dealing (if I’m not already), etc”. Things to keep me active and engaged but to stop being as much a part of the action until my mood shifts, the game shifts, etc.

 

[DrStrange]

It is time to quit when you stop having fun. -=- DrStrange

 

[CraigT78]

I haven't learned to quit yet, but I'm still having fun!

I consider my losses as a charity. 12 years of deductions and no audit yet!

 

[ashetoother]

It is time to quit when you stop having fun. -=- DrStrange

I like this advice. You have to be honest with yourself. I was in a casino cash game for about five hours and was done, but my buddy wanted to stay another 30 minutes so I kept playing. Sure enough, after being up the whole session, I walked away down. It still annoys me. I should’ve just said, I’m tired and not having fun anymore. I’ll meet you at the bar.

 

[Old State]

When I play primarily to win money in a non social context …ie- the casino vs a home game I never drink (maybe 1-2 beers max…but usually just coffee) and I never play when I’m getting tired.

I have to slightly disagree with the quality of players now. I actually think the $1/3 games in AC …especially during the week ….are very very soft. AC is 90mins from me so Borgata and Harrahs are my frame of reference. That said I’ve experienced the same in Vegas and Boston when I play during business trips there.

My last session at Borgata was one of the worst streaks of being card dead I’ve ever experienced. I didn’t connect with board or even make a decent draw in 5 hours of play. I somehow managed to stay disciplined and capped my losses at $450.

I quit because I was getting tired and extremely frustrated. There was a few hands that I normally would have played more aggressively and I was getting skittish. I decided to cash out. You have to stay disciplined

The other thing is tables selection. One thing I’ve been guilty of at the casino is not asking for a table change when there are too many solid players sitting. This is something I’ve noticed several of the regular low level “pros” do all the time. As soon as they feel their skill advantage is diminished they leave immediately

The weekends attract better and younger players but the weekday are still filled with weak passive ones. Even with the $450 loss last time I’m still sitting at a 80% win rate over the last 10 $1/3 sessions at Borgata since is started playing there again and tracking it. There is still money to be made. I have some huge wins at Encore in Boston as well…all from some good cards pair against poor players

 

[Anthony Martino]

Anytime there is a Cuban in Seats 1 and 6 and one of them has a UFC logo tattoo on the back of his bald head, it's time to leave the game.

 

[Anthony Martino]

my wife said another good time is right before the TABC raids the social card club you're playing in

 

[Mojo1312]

Everyone is entitled to their own definition of fun, whether it is playing a game of roshambo or setting money on fire. Who am I to judge?

 

[ImaHalfwit]

The poker boom is over , consequently, so are the days of playing at a table predominantly occupied by weak players. A player last night in a 7 handed Omaha/HE cash game found himself upside down for $900. With his $900, there was $2650 on the table. He cashed out at the end of the game $800 light.

Are there any other influencing factors that should be considered when determining whether to continue after being felted besides how big a game plays, the skill set of the players, or the amount of money on the table?

Has anyone found themselves in a similar spot or witnessed the same situation? At what point should someone realize it is not their night?

When you dread seeing the flop every hand you're involved in. It's a bad mindset to be in.

 

[Mojo1312]

A player bought back in for $500 after losing $1200 at Tuesday's $1/$2 NLHE game.He spun it up to $1100 by the end of the evening.

Usually, we will have $7500 on the table by the time the game breaks. Last Tuesday we had $6560. At some point, you would think it would be a losing proposition to go any deeper. I figure that number is around 30%.

Seems like other considerations or factors would diminish as a player's share of money on the table grows.

 

[Highli99]

In my private app game that is .25/.50 ROE ($100 max), we have had a couple of players lose over $1,000. Last week a player lost about $750 in one session. At one point he reached monkey tilt mode and declared he was going “for the record”. He won back a little and announced it felt better knowing he was close to “the record” instead of just having a big but not special loss.

IMO it’s all just one big session. Dont worry about how much $ is on the table. Worry about whether you are a winner in the game based on relative skill you can bring in that moment compared to the other players.

Relatively skill has a baseline but fluctuates based on tilt and other things that enable or prevent you from locking in.

 

[Thomacetti]

 

[Coyote]

Online, when you check your flopped straight and bet on the turn your flush, to be beaten by a higher flush.

 

[JMGill12]

When a losing player is running it up, I continue to rebuy... until I sense that they're coasting into a win and start playing tight. Once somebody has fundamentally ranged their ranges (particularily with three-betting and four-betting ranges), the night is all but over anyways.

Sure, I can start playing super agressive and trying to push them around, but...

1. That makes it less fun for them to win, and grates at the emotional enjoyment of the game

2. Tries to win tiny pots, but at the risk of them playing super conservative/actively trapping nutted type hands and consolidates their river range in one that's super nutted.

Generally speaking, the whales need to win sometimes. They often times can be disproportionately invested in the perceived "fairness" of the game. The last thing any game needs is a whale feeling like they're constantly rebuying, yet when they're "running hot" or "playing well," suddently their losses that they're chasing are locked up in bank accounts of people who aren't going to return the rebuying favor.

 

[BNM]

When a losing player is running it up, I continue to rebuy... until I sense that they're coasting into a win and start playing tight. Once somebody has fundamentally ranged their ranges (particularily with three-betting and four-betting ranges), the night is all but over anyways.

Sure, I can start playing super agressive and trying to push them around, but...

1. That makes it less fun for them to win, and grates at the emotional enjoyment of the game

2. Tries to win tiny pots, but at the risk of them playing super conservative/actively trapping nutted type hands and consolidates their river range in one that's super nutted.

Generally speaking, the whales need to win sometimes. They often times can be disproportionately invested in the perceived "fairness" of the game. The last thing any game needs is a whale feeling like they're constantly rebuying, yet when they're "running hot" or "playing well," suddently their losses that they're chasing are locked up in bank accounts of people who aren't going to return the rebuying favor.

The fact that I understood only 10% of this post is a good indicator that I should continue to play low stakes, casual poker.

 

[BNM]

A player bought back in for $500 after losing $1200 at Tuesday's $1/$2 NLHE game.He spun it up to $1100 by the end of the evening.

Usually, we will have $7500 on the table by the time the game breaks. Last Tuesday we had $6560. At some point, you would think it would be a losing proposition to go any deeper. I figure that number is around 30%.

Seems like other considerations or factors would diminish as a player's share of money on the table grows.

I would never play for these stakes with this amount of money on the board, so I feel like my experience, and that of many people on here, is probably not terribly relevant for you but beyond the typical sage advice of @DrStrange you only play with what you’re okay to lose. When that is gone, you’re done. Maybe that’s $20, maybe that’s $100, maybe it’s $1000. Regardless of how good you are at a game, the possibility of losing, sometimes big and loudly, exists, so a pre-established limit is a prudent contingency to incorporate.

 

[Mojo1312]

I agree that people should play with what they can afford to lose. We all have our own ideas and ways of thinking. Maybe I am the only one who turns this question over in their mind from time to time. The question of how deep should a player go chasing losses is a universal one, regardless of the stakes.

I have a set of self-imposed rules I try to adhere to when playing. Here are three:

Whenever I find myself heads up in a tournament against the host, I offer a split.
Nothing good happens after midnight. (I find that my game often goes south when I stay and play past 12-12:30.)
I try to limit a losing session to half of what I can expect to win during a big night.

 

[BleedingChips]

The fact that I understood only 10% of this post is a good indicator that I should continue to play low stakes, casual poker.

you and me both, brother.

 

[Cheekynugget]

I think the stakes/game and purpose is definitely the main factor in realizing if I can get unstuck. If im playing for leisure, certainly getting unstuck is not a priority. Additionally i know my chance of getting unstuck 3 buyins in 5/5/10 PLO is much higher than getting unstuck 3 buyins in a 2/5 NLHE in the casino. So yeah, def alot of factors.

 

[BogeyBluffer]

I agree that people should play with what they can afford to lose. We all have our own ideas and ways of thinking. Maybe I am the only one who turns this question over in their mind from time to time. The question of how deep should a player go chasing losses is a universal one, regardless of the stakes.

I have a set of self-imposed rules I try to adhere to when playing. Here are three:

Whenever I find myself heads up in a tournament against the host, I offer a split.
Nothing good happens after midnight. (I find that my game often goes south when I stay and play past 12-12:30.)
I try to limit a losing session to half of what I can expect to win during a big night.

The rule at my house is: if you come home after midnight you better have won money! I think that's a great rule (of thumb)! It has saved me from trying to "get back what I lost" mentality.