>You never count your money when you’re sitting at the table
This means "avoid the sunk cost fallacy". When you're in a hand, you should play that hand to the best of your ability without worrying or gloating over how much money you have because it doesn't matter for that specific hand.
>If you don’t know how much money you have left, how are you supposed to know when to walk away?
You don't walk away when your low or high on money, you walk away when the expected value of playing more is negative. Say that you sit down for a game and you get a few lucky hands and win big, but you realize that the other people at the table are real sharks that would have eaten you alive if you hadn't gotten lucky: then you walk away. Say that you sit down for a game and you get the worst hands and lose almost everything, but you realize that the other people at the table are stooges just waiting to give you money: then you stay and play more (unless they are sharks acting like stooges, you need the skill to differentiate). There's likely a military analog: you don't stop aggression when you're at some specific high or low resource limit, you stop aggression when you're no longer expecting to win.
Reminds me of a pair of proverbs meant to point this out indirectly:
- Proverbs 26:4 Don’t answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
- Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
The proverbs do not then say, "And here's how to know when to do each of these." Because the implication is that context is everything.
Great article!
>You never count your money when you’re sitting at the table
This means "avoid the sunk cost fallacy". When you're in a hand, you should play that hand to the best of your ability without worrying or gloating over how much money you have because it doesn't matter for that specific hand.
>If you don’t know how much money you have left, how are you supposed to know when to walk away?
You don't walk away when your low or high on money, you walk away when the expected value of playing more is negative. Say that you sit down for a game and you get a few lucky hands and win big, but you realize that the other people at the table are real sharks that would have eaten you alive if you hadn't gotten lucky: then you walk away. Say that you sit down for a game and you get the worst hands and lose almost everything, but you realize that the other people at the table are stooges just waiting to give you money: then you stay and play more (unless they are sharks acting like stooges, you need the skill to differentiate). There's likely a military analog: you don't stop aggression when you're at some specific high or low resource limit, you stop aggression when you're no longer expecting to win.
Great advice.