People who play 6-8 tables.... ?

[uw_madtown]

I'm nearing 40,000 hands, having spent about 5-6 weeks 4-tabling. I've played 15,000 @ .5/1, 13,500 @ 1/2, 4,500 @ 2/4, and 2,500 @ 3/6. I'm in the green at all of them, with a BB/100 rate of 2.65...

My question is, how much more frantic is it playing 6 or 8 tables compared to 4, especially at a level like 2/4 or 3/6? I'm going to play 1500 more 1/2 hands, and then about 10,500 more 2/4 hands, before moving up to 3/6 full time. Once I've playing a larger number of hands at 3/6 to feel more confident in my winrate and improve my game, I really want to play 4+ tables.

But me scared. Reassure me that an extra 2-4 tables is no big deal.

[Alobar]

Why not just give it a shot and see what happens??

[Cosimo]

When I first started playing, I quickly got up to 5 tables. Some people can do this easily. I've got a couple friends, though, who struggle through 2 or 3 tables. If you can handle 4, then 6-8 are probably within your abilities.

As with anything, it takes a little getting used to. When UB fixed its multi-tabling bugs and dropped their limit down to 3 at a time, I went along. I've been playing 3 tables at a time for the past six months, and it's pretty damn easy. I usually spend a lot of time taking notes, reviewing HH, etc. Which is mostly useless at the 25c-50c and 50c-$1 tables. Even worse because if PT liked UB, I'd be getting similar (yet different) notes for free.

I recently moved from 3 to 5; 3xUB, 2xCrypto or Empire. I'll probably add a sixth table here soon. Just add one table at a time, play for 1000-2000 hands, then add the next. If you're taking a beating because you feel like you didn't have reads, drop down a table.

You can also use the Astroglide method: 8-table at a limit far below your usual play. It's not gonna lose you much money (if at all), and it'll be great practice. Once you get used to 8, 6 will be cake, which is good, cuz then you can spend more time watching.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just give it a shot and see what happens??

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm going to. But you know, just wanted to get an idea how difficult people who have done it found that process, of adjusting to 2 or 4 more tables.

I think that I could handle it in terms of keeping track of the games fairly well. I'm more concerned with getting exhausted by it -- I'm able to 4-table for pretty big chunks of time, because I can browse the internet / chat on IM / watch TV while doing it and still win at a pretty good clip (so far). I think that ability to do some other activity while playing keeps it from being a real, real bad grind.

Anyway, just wanted to see how it had gone for other people and how difficult it's been for others.

[curtains]

Play 8 tables of a much smaller stake to see how it goes, like 1-2 or 50 cent 1 dollar. Whenever you make a signifigant jump in # of tables played, I think its always good to test it at a lower level and see how it feels.

[crockpot]

it's not hard once you get used to it. just try it. every person has their own limit for how much multi-tabling they can tolerate. for me, the limit is as high as 15 full tables of pot-limit omaha. i could never handle that many hold 'em, stud, or shorthanded games.

[Ponks]

I'd give it a try. You get used to it. Even 8 tables gets boring for me now sometimes after doing it for 5 months now.

Ponks

[Michael Davis]

Unfortunately, it is a big deal. With 4, you can have them all on one monitor (at least for me that is the limit) and can still gauge your opponents.

With eight, your ability to record/check for extra information is severely limited. It is an insane clickfest. Basically, you have to find games where you can just play your own cards and win. Blind-stealing and defense become much tougher.

There is a huge difference between 4 and 8, and I suspect the difference between 4 and 6 is greater than between 2 and 4, even if this is mathematically wrong.

-Michael

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd give it a try. You get used to it. Even 8 tables gets boring for me now sometimes after doing it for 5 months now.

Ponks

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been 8 tabling for 3 weeks and it gets boring. And I play NL, where supposedly there is more excitement, or so i've heard.

I thought you played 12 tables at a time though? What do you think of that?

Oh and if I were people who want to 8 table I'd get 2 monitors, its sooooooooo much easier.

[uw_madtown]

I do have 2 monitors, although the second one is a crappy monitor that has low resolution. Good for browsing internet and IMing and watching downloaded TV episodes while 4-tabling, but really could only fit 2 tables on there comfortably. But by the time I am thinking of adding beyond 4 tables, I'd probably have bought the highly touted 2001FP Dell LCD.

[bisonbison]

mad, try six .5/1 tables to get used to it.

I played about 100k hands with 4 tables. for about a week, 6 seemed like a lot, but 2 weeks later, it's good. I've experimented with 8, but for the moment, my brain hasn't adjusted enough to follow the action on all the tables (i.e. it's the river on table 4, who check-raised the flop again?). But practice at a level where the money means little to you.

I also found it helpful to keep all my tables on one 1600x1200 screen. This way I never miss a turn and it's all easily within my field of vision, even though there's overlap.

[Michael Davis]

Yeah, good point. That's another thing. Sometimes you forget who raised preflop. Sometimes you forget if there was a raise preflop. These are tough to deal with, and they will happen.

-Michael

[Michael Davis]

I have two monitors also, and still find the time to refresh the forums here every five seconds. But it takes some getting used to, and like I said in my last response to bison's post, you will forget some important stuff.

That being said, I think it is +EV if you have a solid game. You are definitely giving up something at each table, though.

-Michael

[GuyOnTilt]

I just upped my tables from 4 to 6 and I seriously don't feel like my game per table has gone down any. I do have 2 monitors running at 16x12, so no overlap though. The couple times I've tried playing 8, I've felt a definite downgrade in my game per table. I very much doubt my winrate playing 6 though is even 10% lower than playing 4. This coming from a guy who played 2 tables till March and 3 tables till just a month ago. Try playing 6. If you're a little worried about it, play them at a lower limit till you get comfortable.

GoT

[MicroBob]

I'm mostly doing 4 tables because I have been stepping above my more comfortable 3/6 area lately.

I've done some experimenting with 6 tables and a little bit with 8.
I'm kind of in the same spot as you in that my 2nd monitor is less than terrific. Also, my 'main' monitor on my laptop is only 1400x1050 so even on that I have a little overlap.

8 tables is a real struggle for me but I suspect it wouldn't be nearly as bad if I had the res on both monitors (or if I got one of those 'super' monitors that can handle it all).

6 I can do okay with but that seems to be about my limit right now.
since I'm hopping around on different sites clearing bonuses I'm always getting used to what the little differences are for tables popping to front of screens when it's my turn etc. So If I have 2 tables of P-Room, 2 Party and a couple on crypto I am probably making it tougher on myself.
I suspect it should be much easier to do 6 or more once I get through this wave of bonuses and just pop a bunch of party/skins tables up there.


Another idea - if you like playing 6-max at all then try that on 3-4 tables. It obviously goes much faster....but since you have the same number of tables on your screen it might be decent training wheels. Every once in awhile I like testing out my 6-max game on a couple tables.
Then, when I head back to all full-tables (4 or more) it feels like slow-motion.

[ctv1116]

its frantic with 1 monitor, but if you have two monitors, its no real problem.

[Cerril]

I get the impression that you really need a second monitor to go past 4 tables, or at least a bigger one than my 17". So I'm interested as well in the answer from a mental strain perspective, whether the investment is worth it.

[Ponks]

Well I mainly play 8 but have done 12 on several occassions. I just moved up to 15/30 though so I'm playing 4 for the time being just trying to get used to the game and everything. Going well so far /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I still only use my laptop monitor /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ponks

[Ponks]

[ QUOTE ]
I also found it helpful to keep all my tables on one 1600x1200 screen. This way I never miss a turn and it's all easily within my field of vision, even though there's overlap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in definite agreement with this. All my tables overlap with 1400x1000 resolution (or 1000x1400 not sure) and I think I'd almost prefer it that way then using 2 monitors. Nice to have everything in front of you. I'm just so used to it now.

Ponks

[MicroBob]

2 monitors is MUCH easier.
I thought it would be weird an uncomfortable at first....but it didn't take me long to get so used to it that I didn't even notice that I was on 2 different monitors. The mouse slides easily from one to the other.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

I still only use my laptop monitor /images/graemlins/frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

You're killing me ponks!

[sluttysteve]

Anyone got the link to the post telling us how to set up two monitors for one desktop? I'm in mad's position as well.

Also, is there a need for a bigger bankroll when 8-tabling as opposed to four?

[jasonHoldEm]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone got the link to the post telling us how to set up two monitors for one desktop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try here (http://freepctech.com/pc/001/guide_dual_monitors.shtml), here (http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/faq.asp), here (http://www.g4techtv.com/callforhelp/features/14382/Dual_Monitors.html?), or here ( /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/search.php?Cat=)

/images/graemlins/smile.gif
J

[Cosimo]

I just upped to 5, mostly because I'm playing multiple sites. That part sucks. Crypto software is a pain in the ass, and unlike the others. Keeping track of three different layouts is annoying, especially with Crypto refusing to tell me if I need to do something. I'm sure I'd do better with just UB + Empire, or even better Party + Empire.

On the other hand, I can fit 6 tables with no overlap on 1 monitor at 16x12 using UB miniview. This is extremely useful.

[BIGRED]

8 is defintiely do-able, especially if you play full games. I do 5/10 6-max at 8 tables. It gets pretty busy, but if you play tight then you have like 2 to 3 tables with action at any given time and that's not to bad.

[lacky]

sometimes I can't remember if I raised preflop!!! When in doubt bet/raise.....

[Rudbaeck]

I've been experimenting with 6-8 tabling lately. It's not that bad. Actually it's probably better for my individual table win rate as I actually focus on poker instead of reading these forums, IMing with friends, composing love letters to my wife and what not.

My monitor fried recently though. So it's time to get a 21" with 2048x1536 max resolution. Probably going to get a second one of those next month. I tried multitabling on a friends monitor with those specs, and it was wonderfully easy. You can get in 9 tables with only minor overlap, and then use the second monitor to have 9 Game Time Windows open. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Only thing is that it sometimes makes me feel like a biological bot.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I also found it helpful to keep all my tables on one 1600x1200 screen. This way I never miss a turn and it's all easily within my field of vision, even though there's overlap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 6 generally and found this to be the case - I actually have a good two monitor setup, but still ike one monitor.

playing the tables is relatively easy i think and I'd play 8 if it wasnt so difficult to manage your seats...i.e, leave when it becomes a rock garden, try and sit to the left of a maniac...etc.

[player1]

hello,

which is the easiest game to multitable?

-limit holdem
-cash NL holdem
-NL STT

thanks,
jc

[AncientPC]

I multitable across 2 monitors, I could never imagine doing it on one monitor like Ponks does but then again I never bothered to get accustomed to mini-views.

I miss having PT Game Time stats on call, but if I'm heads up in a big pot against somebody I'll take the time to switch desktops and check stats. I use a virtual desktop manager in addition to 2 monitors, so it's good enough for checking PT stats every once in a while.

I personally think NL cash is the easiest, as playing tight and seeing pot size helps summarize earlier action. The same could be said about limit, but it's harder to tell who initiated the action.

I don't play STTs, for one it takes more stamina than I have (I eventually get bored and start playing LAG), and I don't think it's easy to multi-table.

IMO you need better reads on your opponents since you're playing with the same group of people for an extended period of time, and then the play is usually more aggressive due to the nature of STTs (which means paying even more attention to the action).