often i hear people praised for playing extremely long sessions when losing because they refuse to lose and that this is a good thing. i happen to think it is very wrong and the exact oposite of what i do. if i am losing i am much more likely to quit even if i am playing my A game. i dont automatically quit and i certainly dont play very short sessions but i am very likely to play an average or even slightly short session. your imnage is not good and although i think i can mantain emotional control many cant.
i was just curious what adam thinks of this as i often seem to hear him praising thes come from behind marathons (although he may have been making another point and this was unintentionally included.) personally if im still sitting after 15 hours you can expect to see i big stack sitting in front of me because i put in my long sessions when im winning, playing my best, and my opponents are scared of me.
matty

thank you. i was hoping/thinking that would be your line of thinking. it makes sence that this charecteristic shows one positive thing even though it, in itself, is a negative. have you ever written anything on session length. a while back you were asking for topics and i think many people play their longest sessions when losing and call it a night early, to lock up chips, when they are winning. pointing out to people that its one long poker game, and the next hand you play is the next hand you play may benefit some of your readers. when your winning and have good control of your table, a strong image, and hopefully a couple guys on the ropes is the time to settle in for a marathon.
matty