How much is winrate affected by how long a session you can play?

Boobie Lover · #1 03-05-07, 09:24 PM

It is something I've been thinking about. Recently, I've been playing longer sessions, and some situations have arisen in which I have the potential to play 200BBs pots against players that I think are inferior to me. So, do you think that your potential winrate can be affected how long you can play a session effectively? Like say if a person were a 4 ptbb/100 winner if he usually plays 2 hour sessions, that if he could play 4+ hour sessions at the same or slightly lower level that he could become a 6 ptbb/100?

Of course, if you haven't figured out yet, I'm talking about max buy-in big bet games.

Talking Poker · #2 03-05-07, 09:58 PM

Well, looking just at the math:

If I were to immediately allow you to but in for 200 BBs at the same tables that everyone else is only allowed to buy in for 100 BBs, how would that affect your win rate? Assuming you are a winning player, I think it obviously would move it up.

And that's basically what you are doing by extending your session length. The longer you play, the more money you will have sitting on the table in front of you (even if you are down for the session, as long as you keep reloading), so the higher your win rate should be.

The problem with this logic is that there are other factors that need to be considered. To name a few:

1. Getting tired.
2. Playing worse (for whatever reason) when you have 2x, 3x, 4x the max buy in sitting in front of you.
3. Table/Seat Selection - The table you are at now is certainly not the same as the one you chose 4 hours ago.

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more factors too.

So, does the increase in win rate because of the larger stack make up for the negative factors that arise from playing long sessions? Speaking generally for the average playuer, I'll guess no. But I really think this is an individual thing. #3 is out of our control, but some people will be more affected by #1 and #2 than others.

Talking Poker · #3 03-06-07, 12:21 PM

I had hopes for this turning into a good thread.

I guess my perfect response summed it all up and there is nothing left to say, eh?

2Tone · #4 03-06-07, 12:49 PM

I think the stamina factor has to be considered here. Poker is a game of constant decision-making and patience, both of which inevitably deteriorate as the hours wear on. And in NL of course, hours of patience and decision-making can be wiped out by a single error/lapse in judgment. This is part of why I have such respect for the WSOP players – I don’t know how the hell your play optimally for 14 hours at a stretch, especially with that kind of money at stake.

For me personally, I find that after three hours or so, I’m best off taking a break and stretching my legs for a while. Of course, I’m a limit player, so I have a lot less to lose in any given hand.

On the flip side, I find the opposite is even worse for me – playing too short a session. On a night when the wife is going grocery shopping, I’ll cut out of work a little early, and realize I can squeeze in an hour at the local card room before I have to be home. I’ll fold garbage for a bunch of orbits in a row, look at the time, and realize I’ve got to go soon. Then I get a Q/7 suited, and think to myself, well, this is what I have to work with …. End of leaving 15 minutes later down 10 BB. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

melioris · #5 03-06-07, 01:14 PM

This is only somewhat related to the OP, but I think it ties in. I play generally at two times, early afternoon (Midwest 11:30-2:30ish) and early evening (midwest 8:30-11:30ish) and I have found that my winrate is much larger (and +) in the early afternoon and much less (break even or -) in the evening. Granted, it is also when Europeans vs Americans are playing, as well as other factors, but the single most significant factor I think is that I am relatively sharp in the afternoon but ass tired by evening. I am not getting much sleep and what I get is interrupted 2-5 times a night (my young’ems sleep like shit, if you think you can do a better job I will ship them out to you).

So longer sessions probably do mean higher winrate, but only if you can maintain the sharpness of mind and quality of thought that you (should) have earlier in sessions.

I don’t know much about him and I am not a fanboy, but from what I have heard that is one of the reasons that sbrugby rose so fast. He could play these marathon sessions without any (noticeable) drop in focus.

MAYHEM45 · #6 03-06-07, 01:26 PM

In one episode of HSP, if you listen close you can hear him mumble "my play really starts to drop off after 12 HOURS"

I get bored after 2, lol.

melioris · #7 03-06-07, 01:46 PM

Yeah, I caught that. It is what caused me to mess around with google and learn some of the lore of this guy.

lightfungus · #8 03-06-07, 02:00 PM

I always couldn't understand how people played so many hours straight....then I started playing at a casino, and would easily see 6-8 hours pass by without a drop of the hat. The only reason I didn't play longer sessions was because I had a job and I couldn't put all my time into poker. But playing live for 12 hours was easy, and I did it on the weekend once or twice. Online poker just doesn't have the entertainment and social interaction that live does; time goes by much faster when you are having fun.

MAYHEM45 · #9 03-06-07, 02:45 PM

8 hours of live poker = less than half the hands you can get in online multitabling.

melioris · #10 03-06-07, 03:12 PM

and the 12 hr comment was about online playing, not live.

Talking Poker · #11 03-06-07, 05:18 PM

FYP. I think that's a very, very important distinction. It may not by 100% accurate (it depends on how many tables you play online), but I think it's pretty close. If you play upwards of 8 tables, than yes, it's true. If you only play 4, I think it's probably a little bit off, but still......

Boobie Lover · #12 03-06-07, 05:31 PM

8 hours of live is 40*8 (probably too generous, more like 30)= 320

1 hour of 4-tabling 6max online is 4*90 = 360

Talking Poker · #13 03-06-07, 05:33 PM

Exactly. But Mayhem said "...= less than half..." meaning you need to get in 640 hands.

MAYHEM45 · #14 03-06-07, 05:35 PM

Wow, brain fart. I meant to type that in the OP.

Robbr25 · #15 03-06-07, 05:41 PM

I find I do better in short sessions than long sessions.
Usually depends on the pace/tone of the table.
Some I am very comfortable at (I do better)
Others I am more off balance (I do worse, and take longer to adapt)
Also, depends on if the table has players coming in and out all the time, or if the same players are there for awhile.

ashmc2 · #16 03-06-07, 08:19 PM

I think that my win rate goes up the longer I play. I play more aggressive early on and am willing to go a little further on drawy boards. This is just me. I'm a little hi-strung and it takes me a bit to mellow out. Win I play for a few hrs I get in a zone and make smarter calls and plays. even multi-tabling. You can do that in short sessions; at least I can't.