Originally Posted by biondino

Because I'm anal, I update a graph every time I play poker with my daily winnings/losses and my total profit/loss. It has recently started looking like a seismograph shortly after a massive earthquake. I am hoping this is because my developing aggression is significantly upping the variance. But to answer the question, my biggest day's loss (at £25NL) was exactly one hundred pounds sterling. Horrible.

Originally Posted by ngericl

My sessions are about equal parts black and red. Thankfully, for the most part, the black numbers are bigger than the red ones. It's nice to know I'm not the only FTRer who has losing sessions. I was beginning to think I was the only one.

Originally Posted by Element187

even the best of players have losing sessions.. i read on daniel n' s blog about him complaining about losing 1 mil one night against phil ivey and howard lederer

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

You can see how often I have losing sessions or losing streaks from my avatar. There is 102k hands in that graph and it plots BB's on the vertical axis against hands played. In the long run my win-rate looks quite stable and those HUGE downswings I had don't look so bad anymore.

Originally Posted by dalecooper

My sessions are basically 1 per day, lasting anywhere from 3 to 6 hours. I've had 3 or 4 losing days in the last 20. One of those was the worst single-session loss I've ever had though. It was just a few days after I had moved up to NL 100, and it's documented in brief in the Bad Beats forum... I ended up losing 6 buy-ins that day. I'm actually still massaging my bankroll back into shape after that catastrophe. (The day after that, I started the morning by dumping another 2 buy-ins, and then ended up ahead 2 for the day after a good afternoon.)

Originally Posted by storm75m

Loosing sessions... lets see, I'm making my SECOND trip around the damn newbie circle of death...

But you have to wonder, what is really a session? A couple of hours at a table? A day? A week? A month? If you look at how much money you had a a particular time vs what you have now, it's all relative. If I say that I was up to $800 two weeks ago, and now I'm at $500, that is a loosing session. But a week ago I was at $300, and now I'm at $500, so I am winning for the week even though I'm losing for the month. As long as my BR never goes negative and I have to start from scratch, I'll just say I'm in a permanent winning session and be happy with that!!

Originally Posted by AcesInTheHole

Isn't this the wrong place to post? It's not so much a strategy rather than a complaint or maybe a discussion...

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Your variance is going to be different depending on your style. I almost never have a losing session anymore.

That's because often I don't allow people to gamble against me. That is to say I don't like to go all in with the best hand or chance to win on a dangerous board.

I fold the hand and curb my variance most times. I don't make every +EV play if it's for a big chunk of my chips. Unless I already have a bunch invested into a pot, I'd rather grind em down later. As a result I get to the same bankroll as you at the same time, but without the heart attack.

TylerK and myself had a big debate a couple months back over going all in with +EV every time you have the opportunity. It's correct to do so most definately, but you have to understand the beast. You have to expect variance playing that way. Some people like to say it's the correct way, but I like to say it's ONE of the correct ways.

If you don't like variance, then you're going to be folding the best hand a lot and winning a lot of small pots with an occasional big boy. If that doesn't sound pleasant than just deal with the swings and accept the fact that it will all come around eventually if you play correctly.

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

With that style you will be making less long term profits against bad players and you wont be winning at all against good players...

Originally Posted by BIGandRICH

In a similar way to Rondavu.. say if I have Ax suited (x= lower than 10) in late posistion and limp in. for this example lets say i have A8.. flop is 824.. flush draw on the board. someone bets the pot. I probably have the best hand with TPTK, no one can have a straight yet or flush, the idiot who played rags and caught 2 pair, 88 44 22 and over pairs have me beat. I can't call, because as rondavu said that would improve drawing odds. so i can fold/raise/push.

raise gives me info which is good, but that allows a call and betting round on the turn, and the odds of a scare card showing are much too high, any card higher than 8, any of the flush suit, A/3/5/6/7 can finish a straight, and 2/4 give the calling idiots a set, leaving me with only another 8 allowing me to play back at agression on the turn. I have 1 or 2 outs to truely improve.. yay!

if its only one other guy in the hand then i'll take him on, but generally i'd rather wait it out for a bigger hand so a fold is good for me here. Mayb i'm too conservative, but i 'dont like putting myself in positions where i can be bullied out of chips. Maybe thats a bit of a leak and I should be prepared to push and make drawing truely expensive and hopefully decrease the field here.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

It's not always the best decision to invest a lot when your currently ahead, especially on the flop.

Originally Posted by ChezJ

reverse implied odds

Originally Posted by greggy

Why dont you start using PokerOffice instead of PT??! Its far superior during play and you can start using it the very first day of installation, in contrast to PT which takes forever just to get running...

Originally Posted by DaHorror

Rondavu, Big and Rich - how do you classify this style of play? I've been wondering that as it sounds like I play very similarly.
Most would probably say weak tight I would guess.
And that may be right, but it seems more like there's a sliding scale on the weak side - meaning that you are weak when you have little to draw on and improper odds (even with +EV), but you are aggressive with decent hands with good odds to improve.
There are some 'weak' betters that will only bet 10c all the way to the river with strong holdings - they are at the other end of the spectrum.

Tight weak is vulnerable to loose aggressive in the short term. But it's almost a good thing for me. Take a few small hits against a loose aggressive, realize that they are in this category - and then eventually you will bust them out.
Tight weak seems like it's even more vulnerable to tight aggressive - but on an even less frequent basis - and hek in most of these situations I'm not losing too much - less than a dollar.

The thing about this style - it is playing fine for me at the .05/.10 Pacific tables - but I'm not sure how well it's going to carry up (though it will be months before I move up anyway). If moving up to that particular level means I hit a lot more TAG players, I will probably not do well as I will be running into them more than my hands can hold up at the flop.

Originally Posted by DaHorror

it seems more like there's a sliding scale on the weak side - meaning that you are weak when you have little to draw on and improper odds (even with +EV).