better results playing 1 table or multiple at same time?

[PokerPaul]

I personnally try to stick to only 1 table at a time, but i have read about people getting better returns playing 3 or even 4 simultaneously at a lower limit.

I do win regularly playing my regular 6 handed table, so the general logic makes sense, why not play 2 or 3 to double or triple up profits.

However, when i did try, i found that i could not properly concentrate on any one table, much less take in all the info on each opponent from every screen, and check all the HH's along the way for info.

Furthermore, you are also paying double or triple the rake where if you would otherwise limit yourself to one table at a higher limit.

I think that i am comfortable playing the one table at a time, and my results are strong, but am i missing out on much added profit potential?

whats the consensus out there?

[dogmeat]

You have your own results, and your own opinion, as shown by your post. Why do you need an answer from everybody else?

Rake is irrelevant if you do not have a rebate deal with an affiliate. The only thng that matters is how much you make per game playing just one, and how much you make per hour per game if you multi. Figure it out for yourself.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Thythe]

I think it's dependent on the type of game you play. The way you are talking is that you gather info about all the players and act accordingly. This seems to be a good strategy for playing 1 table and being very focused on it, extracting every bit of profit from it.

The way I play, and others who multitable I would assume, is very ABC style. I never really know if someone is a strong player, a fish, medium, etc. The screen just pops up and I make a decision, always playing the strongest hands. This probably lowers your per table profit but can raise overall profits significantly (in some instances).

[PoorLawyer]

The one good thing I noticed from playing multiple tables is that I tend to play stronger hands because I don't get bored waiting around for good cards

[MicroBob]

one thing i have noticed about some of the players who say they are 'overwhelmed' tryin to play 2 tables at once is that they may not be aware that they can put both tables on the screen at the same time by adjusting the screen-resolution.
just a thought.


assuming you have two tables on your screen at the same time...try playing one table of your normal limit (say it's 3/6) and another table of a lower limit like .5/1 or something.
direct most of your focus on the 3/6 table and then play pretty tight on the .5/1 table so you'll be folding a little more often.

this is possibly a more gradual way to adjust to playing multiple-tables.

playing 1 table is so slow for me. there are so many hands that i'm not playing...i'm usually surfing 2+2 (like now), watching TV...reading e-mail, etc etc.
i can fairly easily play 3-4 tables and still do this stuff.
it's usually fold fold fold if you're playing tight. of course, there are the times when i get AK and/or AQ on all 4 of my tables at the same time so i am reaching for the mute on the TV-remote to concentrate a bit more.


it takes a little practice...when i first started playing 2-tables at once i was juggling back and forth so much i had no idea what was going on.


as far as whether it's profitable...only you can be the judge.

most people lose a little per table when multi-tabling...but not enough to say they would be better off playing 1 table.

for example...
even if my rate drops pretty dramatically, i'm still better off multi-tabling....
for example:
1-table of 1.5BB/hr = 1.5 BB/hr
2-tables of 1.2BB/hr = 2.4 BB/hr
3-tables of 1.0BB/hr = 3.0 BB/hr
4-tables of 0.8BB/hr = 3.2 BB/hr

personally, i think i lose less than this with each table...maybe 0.1BB/hr per table....so playing up to 4 tables is clearly worth it for me.

[Losing all]

Good points by thythe, I'll add one thing. It takes practice! When I first started to experiment, 3 tables of .50/1. seemed like a mind blowing chore. Now I can 4 table NL tourneys w/o too many problems (Though I'll admit this can get hairy at times).

Going off the information you give about your playing style you wont triple your earn going from 1 table to 3, but you might double it. That's goot enough.

[Jeffro]

Wow, god forbid somebody uses this message board to ask a question.

[ QUOTE ]
Rake is irrelevant if you do not have a rebate deal with an affiliate. The only thng that matters is how much you make per game playing just one, and how much you make per hour per game if you multi. Figure it out for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to re-read the question

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, you are also paying double or triple the rake where if you would otherwise limit yourself to one table at a higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why don't you figure why this is so.

[BradleyT]

The progression upwards isn't linear. If you win 2BB/100 at one table you're not going to win 8BB/100 by playing 4 tables. However you'll probably be able to achieve more than 3BB/100.

Which is better? I prefer multi tables because it gets you closer to "the long run" that much faster and I don't consider it 4x the amount of work.

[BIGRED]

[ QUOTE ]
You have your own results, and your own opinion, as shown by your post. Why do you need an answer from everybody else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he doses have is own opinions and his own results, but he's asking what we think to see if he can do better... I don't see anything wrong with his question.

[ QUOTE ]
Figure it out for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what he is trying to do. What's with the attitude.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
The progression upwards isn't linear. If you win 2BB/100 at one table you're not going to win 8BB/100 by playing 4 tables. However you'll probably be able to achieve more than 3BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB per hundred should definitely go down, not up. BB per real hour for 4 tables vs 1 should be much more than just 50% higher, I'd guess somewhere around 3-3.5 times the single table BB/hr.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is better? I prefer multi tables because it gets you closer to "the long run" that much faster and I don't consider it 4x the amount of work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, your BB per real hour will be only slightly less than your single table BB/hr times the number of tables, and your standard deviation per real hour will be only slightly more than your single table SD/hr times the square root of the number of tables.

So for 4 tabling, you get nearly 4 times the earn and only a little more than twice the variance.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]

Which is better? I prefer multi tables because it gets you closer to "the long run" that much faster and I don't consider it 4x the amount of work.

[/ QUOTE ]

In regards to the original poster, there are other "fringe benefits" multi-tabling on the same line as rake rebates.

Playing 4 tables you are playing roughly 4x as many hands 4-tabling as playing 1. If you are trying to clear a bonus such as 2500 hands at Party this speeds it up.

If on UltimateBet, you will be earning 4x the amount of Ultiamte Points or FPP on Stars that you can use for other things.

If your results are even 1/4th as good lets say you make $8/hr or 2BB/hr at one table, if you make $2/hr or .5BB/hr at 4, you might as well get the 40 Ultimate Points, instead of 10 Ultimate Points for the same amount of time played. That alone is a +EV of $3/hr


Edit: Also the higher stakes you play the more I feel this will hurt you. Players are micro or small limits are very unpredictable, they are either fine tuning their own game (i.e. practicing using the Slansky starting hands), or just oblivious to what is around them check raising with nothing reinacting a scene from a WPT episode. At some level (I would imagine 5/10) it will be a LOT harder to get away with playing tight and waiting for the premium hands. You will get no action because these players will be looking at their PokerTracker inbetween hands and learning that with your 5% of seeing the flop, if you are in, they most likely will assume they are beat on your betting of the flop. You will lose a lot of value there.

4 tabling works fine for me in a NL$25 or NL$50 in regards to NL play. Up to 2/4 I think the amount of tables or player dependent reads are that important.

[BIGRED]

My vote is for multi-tabling.

Honestly though, I've always multi-tabled so I can't say that I'm doing better than I would if I were single-tabling. If you're single-tabling, then I would think that your win rate per hand would be better than if you were multi-tabling. But a more practical measure of success is the win rate per hour. For this, I think everyone would agree that multi-tabling is the way to go.

Also, as a previous poster mentioned, I find that I can be more deciplined about my starting hand conditions during a bad run of cards since I won't be bored with waiting for a good hand. If I have a borderline hand at one table, I'm more willing to dump it, even in the SB or BB, and wait for better hands at my other 3 tables. This is just another plus for multi-tabling.

Now, when I go to a real poker room, I have a hard time staying focused at a table because the game is so much slower than on-line. With on-line games available, I don't understand why someone would play in a real poker room, unless for social reasons.... But that's off topic.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly though, I've always multi-tabled so I can't say that I'm doing better than I would if I were single-tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be getting a real hour earn that would be nearly impossible on only one table.

I think the loss (edit: per table) would be very hard to measure. For example, you could single table for 8 months, then 4 table for 2 months, and compare results. But are you really the same player during the last two months as you were for the first 8? Maybe better is to alternate one day of 4 tabling with 4 days of single tabling. You'd still have to play thousands of hours to get an accurate idea of your win rate at each.

[BIGRED]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly though, I've always multi-tabled so I can't say that I'm doing better than I would if I were single-tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be getting a real hour earn that would be nearly impossible on only one table.

I think the loss would be very hard to measure. For example, you could single table for 8 months, then 4 table for 2 months, and compare results. But are you really the same player during the last two months as you were for the first 8? Maybe better is to alternate one day of 4 tabling with 4 days of single tabling. You'd still have to play thousands of hours to get an accurate idea of your win rate at each.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yea, for sure.... I just wanted to qualify my statement since it is true that I haven't single-tabled nearly as much as multi-tabling. My results are good multi-tabling and I have no plans to change. Besides, it would be just too damn boring single tabling. However, I do single table if I'm watching TV, eating dinner, and speaking on the phone at the sametime. Gotta make every minute count.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
it would be just too damn boring single tabling. However, I do single table if I'm watching TV, eating dinner, and speaking on the phone at the sametime. Gotta make every minute count.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like me. I used to get severe FPS (fancy play syndrome) if i didn't have something to distract me a little.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The progression upwards isn't linear. If you win 2BB/100 at one table you're not going to win 8BB/100 by playing 4 tables. However you'll probably be able to achieve more than 3BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB per hundred should definitely go down, not up. BB per real hour for 4 tables vs 1 should be much more than just 50% higher, I'd guess somewhere around 3-3.5 times the single table BB/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, I meant BB/HOUR not BB/100.

[MS Sunshine]

I usually play 2-3 tables 6-max NLH and my wife plays 4 tables of ring game NLH.

I play 3-4 hour blocks of time. Starting with two tables and adding another after about 20-30 minutes when I have a good handle on the players in my first games. I almost always cut back to two or one game in the last hour of play. I use PT and try to write notes on the players I don't know after playing 30-40 minutes with them. Having good notes makes playing multiple tables alot easier.

I believe game selection takes the biggest hit from playing 3-4 games. There is just so little extra time to do proper and timely searches.

MS Sunshine

[scotnt73]

also remember that if for example someone is a little better than break even he will still do pretty well if he has a rake back deal and is multi-tabling. so you can imagine what a winning player can do when hes playing several tables at once AND getting rake back on 3 tables. especially the pros who play online 40+ hours a week 3 tables at a time.

no im not an affiliate or a pro. i just play 1 table at a time 15-25 hours a week . so dont spam or flame me im just stating facts.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
also remember that if for example someone is a little better than break even he will still do pretty well if he has a rake back deal and is multi-tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone is only doing a little better than breakeven on one table he has an excellent chance of being a losing player when he multitables.

Multitabling will inevitably exact a toll of extra mistakes. If you have a big win rate, you can absorb those errors, multiply the remaining rate by 4 tables, and come out way ahead. Small win rates don't do nearly as well at multitabling.

[BIGRED]

[ QUOTE ]
You sound like me. I used to get severe FPS (fancy play syndrome) if i didn't have something to distract me a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... playing 4 tables at a time forces me to play straight up, nothing fancy. Also, no disrespect to those who take notes on players and use PokerTracker and such... I used to do that, but I think that's more trouble than it's worth. If I see someone who's really bad or really good, then I mark them as such, but that's to the extent I keep notes. I don't try to categorize someone as loose passive, loose aggressive, and what not... I don't even know what all that means anyway. I mean, if you're playing 4 tables at a time, how can you take extensive notes on your opponents?

[WC64]

I am comfortable with 2 or 3 tables at a time, but usually I tend to chat a lot either in rooms or through AIM. When I am not chatting I still tend to only do 2 or 3 just because I like to see as much of the table as possible when I am playing.

[kiemo]

One of the problems I had until recently was I only had a 17" inch monitor hence anything more then two tables was simple too much on the screen. Even 2 tables overlapped a bit. This is also part of the problem for alot of people.

I have just upgraded to 21", hence I can go 1600x1200 resolution and fit four tables neatly with no overlap.

I still only play 2 because everytime I try 3 I am just fine until I find myself in a hot hand on all three tables at once and the panic that ensues pretty much throws the whole night off.

Some claim to play 6+ tables at once. Hardware wise I have to assume they are using at least 2 monitors as the window switching would be incredible with this many games. Brain capacity wise, I have to assume these people are just those that can do it, kinda like geometry.

[Vehn]

I can't think of anything stupidier than someone playing 3+ tables of 5/10 or lower and winning 2+bb/100.

[Ponks]

Bah, I play 8 tables at 1400x1000 resolution on my laptop, its not that bad once you get used to it.

Ponks

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of anything stupidier than someone playing 3+ tables of 5/10 or lower and winning 2+bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I am one of the stupid ones, but why do you say this? /images/graemlins/confused.gif