ITH Poker Forum

[nsidestrate]

First of all, I'm a huge fan of your writing. Some of your essays are very nearly perfect.

I wonder what your opinion is on the topic of stop losses or "booking" a win at a certain set point. I've never been a believer in either one, preferring to leave if the table conditions are no longer good or if I think I'm no longer playing my "A" game. But a lot of people I respect do believe that you should sit out once you have lost a certain amount and I wonder what your thoughts are on that topic.

[Tommy Angelo]

First of all, I'm a huge fan of your writing. Some of your essays are very nearly perfect.

I wonder what your opinion is on the topic of stop losses or "booking" a win at a certain set point. I've never been a believer in either one, preferring to leave if the table conditions are no longer good or if I think I'm no longer playing my "A" game. But a lot of people I respect do believe that you should sit out once you have lost a certain amount and I wonder what your thoughts are on that topic.

The stop-loss concept is one of choosing the lesser evil. Let's say that Joe knows from studying himself and his results that his A-game makes money, and that his C-game loses money, even in a good game. He also knows that if he gets stuck $1,000, he almost always plays his C-game. Walking away from a good game is an evil. Playing his C-game is an evil. The best choice for Joe's bankroll is the lesser evil, which is, walking away from a good game when he is stuck $1,000.

But that's Joe. Just because his bankroll is best served by having a stop-loss doesn't mean that yours is. And the other way around. If a stop-loss scheme would cost you money, that doesn't mean that stop-losses are bad for everyone. The only way any stop-loss plan can be evaluated is within the exact circumstances of the person who puts it in play.

Tommy

[the_hawk]

The stop-loss concept is one of choosing the lesser evil. Let's say that Joe knows from studying himself and his results that his A-game makes money, and that his C-game loses money, even in a good game. He also knows that if he gets stuck $1,000, he almost always plays his C-game. Walking away from a good game is an evil. Playing his C-game is an evil. The best choice for Joe's bankroll is the lesser evil, which is, walking away from a good game when he is stuck $1,000.

This is all fine in theory.

It begs the question: really how many Joe-like players are there in poker? How many people can be so self-aware (in many ways) as Joe evidently is, yet end up playing C-game poker just because they're down in the short term?

Possibly controversial position statement: I think it very unlikely that Joe exists, anywhere. Few if any players who can walk away from a good game for the reasons Joe gives will play very poorly just because they're losing short-term. For that reason, IMO stop losses are useless (at least to the "good" player - to the raging tilter they obviously can help).

[Tommy Angelo]

For that reason, IMO stop losses are useless (at least to the "good" player - to the raging tilter they obviously can help).

Then we are in perfect agreement. There are some players who benefit from stop losses, and some who don't.

[Tommy Angelo]

Is it a mistake to put happiness before profit?

John has been winning consistently at low stakes online for three months. This week he is up $300. It's Friday night. Tomorrow he is going on a two-day vacation with his family. In the past, whenever he has taken a relatively large loss before a family weekend, the loss has gnawed at him, resulting in his not having as good a time as he would like to have with his wife and children.

He sits down to play poker. He has never set a stop loss before in his life. He decides, all of a sudden, that if he finds himself stuck $150, he will quit for the night, and lock up a nice win for the week. He knows that if he loses $150 or less, he'll feel fine over the weekend. Any more than that, and he will risk having the poker loss eat into his enjoyment of the weekend. At the moment he decides to set a stop loss at $150, he feels a joyful wave of security.

Did he make a mistake?

[nsidestrate]

I have a leak related to the pursuit of happiness. I really would enjoy playing a hand where I managed to check-raise all three streets. Obviously, this isn't easy to pull off. It requires a very particular sort of opponent, which one can not always find. I've had three or four situations where I thought the situation was right and I checked the river. I knew that I should bet the river because the other player would usually check behind, but the perverse joy I would get from the successful triple check-raise caused me to give up some EV in pursuit of my larger happiness objective. Maybe it will cost me $500 in lost river bets before I pull it off. But I'd happily pay $500 for it now.

So yeah, I think pursuing happiness goals is worth a little lost EV.

[the_hawk]

Did he make a mistake?

It is obvious that "life EV" and "poker EV" don't always see 100% eye-to-eye, but they're obviously pretty strongly correlated. (Except when one's better half is nagging one to cook dinner when there is a great game going on )

John's "mistake" is not in setting the stop loss, but in his emotional response to a loss (or diminished profit) - i.e., the need to set the stop loss in the first place. Similarly, Joe's "mistake" is not in setting the stop loss, but in being a big baby and playing like an arse when he's stuck a few bucks short-term.

If we take the emotional responses as givens, then of course stop losses are not a bad idea. The interesting bit of the problem, of course, is to dig away at those emotional responses themselves.

As a low-stakes recreational grinder myself, I have much more sympathy with John than with Joe. That might also be because I share the former's name But I think we can surmise that John probably doesn't know any better. Joe sounds like he ought to know better.

[Tommy Angelo]

I knew that I should bet the river because the other player would usually check behind, but the perverse joy I would get from the successful triple check-raise caused me to give up some EV in pursuit of my larger happiness objective.

Makes sense to me!

I got very lucky in the triple-check-raise department. I got to do one in the early 90's in Atlantic City, and ever since then, I've been able to just go ahead and bet the river after checkraising the flop and turn. Think of the money I've saved!

I still remember the hand. On the turn, he had top two pair and a front door flush draw, and I had bottom two pair and a back door flush draw. On the river, I made my flush. I checked, and how could he not fire again with top two? That poor, poor, pitiful man.

lol

Tommy

[Willem]

I knew that I should bet the river because the other player would usually check behind, but the perverse joy I would get from the successful triple check-raise caused me to give up some EV in pursuit of my larger happiness objective.

Makes sense to me!

I got very lucky in the triple-check-raise department. I got to do one in the early 90's in Atlantic City, and ever since then, I've been able to just go ahead and bet the river after checkraising the flop and turn. Think of the money I've saved!

I still remember the hand. On the turn, he had top two pair and a front door flush draw, and I had bottom two pair and a back door flush draw. On the river, I made my flush. I checked, and how could he not fire again with top two? That poor, poor, pitiful man.

lol

Tommy

LOL, never thought reading something from Tommy Angelo would be EV-, but this probably is. Now I need to get my own triple check-raise.

[poker_Elmo]

If you are a completely untiltable machine, it seems like setting a stop-loss is not important.

The longer I have played, the more I see a benefit to having some sort of stop-loss. The biggest reason is the downside of a stop-loss is extremely minor for most non-professionals. You simply wait to play again for some period of time.

I took a 2 buyin hit in early morning play. I thought I was playing OK, but decided to just stop. Two hours later I sat back down for a quick session and did well. Did the stop loss necessarily pay off? I don't know (nor will I ever know), but I have had a couple awful sessions, where when reviewing hands later, it is clear I played poorly (without realizing it) after I lost a few buyins.

(Note, I mostly play NL, hence talk of buyins.)

[AlamedaMike]

The stop-loss concept is one of choosing the lesser evil. Let's say that Joe knows from studying himself and his results that his A-game makes money, and that his C-game loses money, even in a good game. He also knows that if he gets stuck $1,000, he almost always plays his C-game. Walking away from a good game is an evil. Playing his C-game is an evil. The best choice for Joe's bankroll is the lesser evil, which is, walking away from a good game when he is stuck $1,000.

This is all fine in theory.

It begs the question: really how many Joe-like players are there in poker? How many people can be so self-aware (in many ways) as Joe evidently is, yet end up playing C-game poker just because they're down in the short term?

Possibly controversial position statement: I think it very unlikely that Joe exists, anywhere. Few if any players who can walk away from a good game for the reasons Joe gives will play very poorly just because they're losing short-term. For that reason, IMO stop losses are useless (at least to the "good" player - to the raging tilter they obviously can help).

If I am not Joe and am as close as you can get to the Joe that Tommy is talking about. I get stuck I play a worse game - B or C game. This is how I am - I know that about myself - I get bored and lose concentration - push thin edges and that is not good. I will leave a good game if I am stuck to a point that I am not playing well.

Which is a good reason to leave any game.

Until I can master myself and play well when stuck then I need to do a stop loss. It could be that the game is not as good as I though anyway.

Edit - emotions are something we need to deal with. Emotions are my biggest problem. Psychological issues most likely cost me more profit than any other aspect of the game. I can not play like a robot. I can not always play my A-Game. I tilt less than before and might not even tilt at all anymore. Depends on your definition and how subtle the tilt is - any incorrect action is either lack of knowledge, misread or tilt.

My AA got cracked - no reaction and silently thank the guy for giving you action = tiltless.

e.g. I should have raise the river but did not - question? Tilt, misread, lack of knowledge, passive, results oriented, etc.

Meta-game aspects as in Tommy's book are very important to winning at poker imo - it is more complex than most people think.

[rwrangler]

A totally agree that the effectiveness of any stop-loss strategy is 100% player dependent. I also think that the other side, that nside mentioned in the OP (i.e. booking a win), is also player dependent.

I have never been a large user of stop losses, but I have on occasion "booked a win" early. My play is much better when I am very confident, and for some reason, if I have had 5 or so losing sessions in a row, my confidence is down, while just a couple winning sessions can get my confidence back on track. So, if I have been running extraordinarily bad, and then find myself up a few buy ins in a NL game, I will usually quit, even in an EV+ game (which the local live games almost certainly always are).

If I was playing professionally, this would severely limit my earn rate, since it would probably cut back on my hours and on my deep stacked situations. However, as a player that still plays mostly recreationally, this strategy keeps my insanity. Also, like the poker mindset mentions, good play tends to build on itself just as bad play does. So the sooner I can get myself back to my A-game, the better off I will be. I believe Ed Miller has a post on his website covering something similar to this as well.

[AlamedaMike]

I asked this question of Dr. Al when he was the "Ask the Expert" - I will look for it and edit this to add the link if I can find it.

[Tommy Angelo]

Also, like the poker mindset mentions, good play tends to build on itself just as bad play does.

I strongly agree with that, and if it's true, it means that any kind of stop-loss type decision, if done in order to gain the benefit of compounding good play, is not merely a session-by-session decision, but rather, it is a meta-game strategy decision that is made because it is expected to yield better results than the alternative.

Tommy