Q: Do you, personally, use any kind of loss limit for a given session? Do you have a cap on the max you will lose before going home? I know this is not consistent with thinking of each hand independently, so I’m guessing the answer is no, but still curious.
A: Your guess is correct. That doesn’t mean that I don’t see a use for such a thing, but it’s a personal decision. Ideally you would be unaffected by short-term losses, but if you believe you will play less well after losing $X, then I can see why you might want to bring no more than $X with you.
There are some opposite considerations as well. I think that people who bring only one or two buy-ins with them are creating unrealistic expectations for themselves and causing themselves to be extra risk-averse (and tilty, after losses), because they know that even a small loss will require quitting.
I try to keep enough in my box at the casino so that even if I’m having a bad night I’m still not close to running out of money. but that does require trusting oneself not to tilt it all off. You can find more on this concept in Tommy Angelo’s article Enough is Not Enough.
I’m currently using a stop-loss strategy. I have found that losing a couple of buy-ins can often be a symptom of not playing my A- or B-game, and that having a set maximum amount to lose can prevent me from continuing to play in sessions where I’m not playing optimally. I have also found that losing a couple of buy-ins can put me into a less than optimal mindset, trying to force things to go my way so I can win back my losses, making poorly timed bluffs, etc., and that simply leaving when I’ve hit my stop-loss amount has prevented me from losing an amount I would later regret. It has also helped me as I continually practice the art of quitting.
In the past, tilt and an inadequate bankroll would be the two major reasons for me using a stop-loss strategy. But I guess with an adequate bankroll I’m a lot less likely to tilt, so the two are interrelated. It ties into what you’re saying about being too risk adverse when you only have one or two buy-ins. When you only have a limited amount, you’re constantly making decisions to protect that money and as a result you play too nitty and end up putting it at a higher risk.
So for me I a stop-loss is a bad strategy because it ends up being risky regardless. But getting rid of the stop-loss means I have to work on my awareness and honesty with myself about how well I’m playing.
Speaking of Tommy Angelo (I haven’t had a chance to read the article yet but thanks for the link), I recently read his book Elements of Poker and his thoughts on quitting when you are no longer playing at your best made a lot of sense to me. His broader definition of tilt has helped me decide when I’m no longer on my game and need to call it a day.