Philosophical question - time limit vs. stopping point

I know that Mr. Wong and countless other AP players advise the best way to play sessions is to base them on time, not money/units. Those sessions tend to be recommended as a half hour or an hour.

Rather than adhering strictly to this policy, does it make any sense to set a session stopping point for number of units lost, rather than strictly time? I do not meaning that entire amount quickly, but rather losing some in an hour and continuing to play. For example, this is the +/- and time from a series of sessions:

4 hours, -$45
0.5 hours, +$110
0.75 hours, +$200
1 hour, +$50
1.5 hours, -$150

In the two instances of exceeding an hour of play, I was down $300-$370 for that session, but continued to play to recover my losses to where they ended up above. I had set $400 as the amount of losing at which I would end that session.

Does anyone have insight to the viability of this sort of thinking/strategy? I realize most people on this board are far more experienced than me, so I was wondering what your thoughts would be about doing this versus stopping after one hour no matter what.

Thanks

A limit based on time is recommended due to the risk of over exposure to your ability to count cards. Stop losses (or wins) are products of voodoo merchants. They have nothing to do with a winning strategy.

If you can accept that all of your playing sessions are just small parts of one lifelong playing session, you can begin to see the logic behind not employing stop losses. If the game is good, you should want to play as long as possible, limited only by your trip BR and/or
fear of possible actions taken by the casino personnel. Subject to these limitations, the fact that you have lost (or won) X amount does not dictate when to stop. You may have a psychological desire to stop after a large loss, but this does not change the math. A good game is a good game. Variance can be a bitch, but long term winners learn to tolerate it.