When to end my session

I'm a tourney guy. Would be a cash guy except I have been unable to overcome this little thing.

Every session I play, I get up, sometimes 3x bi, and then I just sort of flatline, till the big hand comes that kills me. By this time I am too bored to buy in again, so I leave, with the loss.

So when should I leave?

i try to play shorter durations like 45mins and 15 min break. so ur not sittin for so long and gettin bored. but thats me. beats are gona happen tho either way

You should leave when you feel that you don't play your A-game anymore. If you're bored than you are not focused and you should quit. Or when you are on tilt because of a big loss and/or a bad beat or some annoying player who raises you all the time and you don't know how to handle its for example.

myself i play 60 to 90 min sessions with 20 min breaks or if im up by 5-20BIS

Typically my sessions have been over 2 hours, long time for only 2 or 3 bi's.

I'm trying first of all my poker sessions, physical exercise, it seems that sharpens my mind and i play with more desire and concentration, logical and avoid alcoholic beverages during the tournament only water, it makes me play longer term ..

You should leave a table the moment you realize you're not +EV, which can be for all sorts and combinations of reasons, both internal (e.g. your mood changes) and external (e.g. the table gets tougher because the weak opponents leave).

Arjonius said:

You should leave a table the moment you realize you're not +EV, which can be for all sorts and combinations of reasons, both internal (e.g. your mood changes) and external (e.g. the table gets tougher because the weak opponents leave).

Click to expand...

This ones a big one for me, I've found myself losing more when the ppl I have tagged as bad are no longer in the game. I don't remember who said it but a quote thats always stood out to me is "If you look around a table and can't find the fish then it's probably you" or something along those lines. So I usually try to play until the easy money's not there anymore then move to a different table. There's usually 6 decent players all trying to get money from 2 or 3bad ones atleast in the lower limits anyways.

I think every game session must be adapted to each person, somomuy pasiientes in what we do and some do not.

cosidero that away from alcoholic drinks during the breaks and do a little exercise the best

I leave when I start feeling mentally exhausted, and just waiting for monster hand so I won't have to think too much. One time I was so tired I c-bet/semi-bluffed the villain without realising that there was someone else in the pot. That is definitely not A-game.

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?

I use to think, I should leave in a few rounds, then invariably catch a big hand, get sucked out on and end up losing my winnings and more. (For the rigtards, it's because I unchecked auto-post and now the site wants the morons to have my money.)

Now I'm trying to leave as soon as I have the feeling I should. Maybe it's because subconsciously I'm tired or bored or the table has changed.

You just have to play your game until it's time to stop playing. If you're the player you think you are, you will win more than you lose.

Perhaps you could try leaving a table after getting ahead and going to a different table and starting over.

Another thing to remember atleast for me is when I start getting pretty far ahead I start making looser calls which ends up costing me sometimes. Same if I buy in for the minimum I find my plays too tight and not aggressive enough. But I still say if you can spot a weak player or two and the action is good then you should stay and try to strictly play pots with those players and avoid the other one's unless you flop a big hand. If you can't spot the weak players switch tables until you can and stay until they leave, rinse repeat.

I agree with the poster who suggested 50-55min sessions, followed by 10-15 min breaks.. Also, creating a very strict framework regarding BI's and total chipstack might be your best option if you find yourself continuously doubling / tripling your BI before busting out 10-15 hands later.

I suggest for you personally, and everyone is different so this probably wont work for everyone, play your game don't make too many major adjustments other then the usual dynamic player moves. If at any point you reach the magic number of 3x your bi, remove yourself from the table, take a 10 min break, bank twice the original buy in, and sit down at a different table starting all over again with the original buy in.. erase your mind, start over as if this was the beginning of a tournament.. feel the new table out before playing your own game again, then once you hit 3x your BI, stand up, take a break, and do it all over again..

If I'm winning I think I should stay because I am on a roll and can win more.
If I am losing I think I have had the bad times and the good times should be about to start so I don't want to miss them and think I can recover something.

Of course the reality is:
The good times come to an end.
The bad times don't end.

I think chasing results is a formula for losing.

Playing timed sessions would alleviate that distraction.

FlushhDraw said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.