Originally Posted by FlushhDraw
I hear a lot of people say you should leave when your not playing your A game or something of the such, but it seems to me that you should stop when you reach a certain set win amount. Let me explain why.
The numbers I am going to throw out may or may not be correct it does not matter. Let's say a NL cash player can expect a win rate of 3bb/100 hands over the long term. Then would it not be true that variance being what it is if you play a few hours and find yourself up a few buyins that no matter what you do or how great you play variance itself is going to diminish those winnings to a lower amount simply because that is the nature of the game.
However if we were to take the winnings at a set time then we are not allowing variance to do its thing because for that session we have removed the variance factor by pocketing those winnings and walking away. Thoughts?
This is flawed thinking because you are applying an averaged win rate to all situations. Just because a person has run 3bb/100 over time does not mean every session or table has that as an EV.
For example, let's say you happen to sit at a table with more weak players than average, or an average number but more spewy. In this situation, your EV might be 5, 10, 15 or more per 100. It's silly to walk away to protect what you've won.
Also, regression toward the mean occurs over large samples. Getting up a few buying and then often losing some back could just be short-term variance, but it's not the only possible cause. For example, it's not hard to find players who get protective or looser when they get up, and who then shift away from playing the way that got them up.