Two Things--a question about multi-tabling, and an update

[Bigwig]

1) As I've previously mentioned, I'm toying with the idea of eventually becoming an SNG pro, or at the very least, scaling back my client base to a very managable big accounts (I'm a financial planner) that will enable me to basically work part-time, and make the rest of my money through poker play, primarily online.

If I'm going to do that, I need to learn to four table. Currently, I two table. My question is this: What combination of websites do you use or recommend for 4 tabling at the $100 &/or $200 level? A mix? Or all at one?

Certainly I couldn't do this at stars alone, because the traffic isn't high enough to fill up these tournaments quick enough. At least, that's what I think I've noticed. Also, you don't want to be labelled as a guy to stay away from, if you're playing at one site all the time. So, what about something like Stars, Party, and Empire? Or something along those lines. What do you do, and what would you recommend?

Even though I'm a while away (at least a year) from making this plunge, I'm just too curious not to ask.

2) An update on my ROI after switching to the $30's (for those who care). I think I was being too passive, and made a small change in my game. I'm playing slightly more hands (but still not too many) and raising with many more of those hands now. I've also cut slowplaying down to a pittance, and continued to bet out many missed and hit flops.

Wow, what a difference. Now, through about 250 SNG's at the $30 level, I'm at a 36% ROI, and that was after only making 18% on my first 100. Obviously, the sick 48% ROI since then won't continue, but it's still pretty solid right now.

Thanks in advance for responses to my questions.

[Bigwig]

Anyone?

Thanks.

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you don't want to be labelled as a guy to stay away from

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I can't answer your question (I 2-table Stars) but why wouldn't you want to be labelled as a guy to avoid? The only people avoiding you will be the ones who actually pay attention, (i.e.: decent players) not the fish you're trying to isolate.

[Irieguy]

Well, you'll have to figure out what works best for you, but I will offer my opinion and experience:

I started out playing $11's, one at a time and gradually moved up to the $33's and $55's. Then I started adding tables and now play 8 tables at the 22's-55's.

Personally, I like to play at the same site because it seems easier for me. So I would recommend 4-tabling at PP. You can get a 19" monitor or bigger and set the resolution so that you can see all 4 screens at the same time. I played around with playing at both PP and Stars at the same time, but the diffences in interface and chip amounts make it more difficult than when all of your SNGs are the same. On PP, there's enough volume so that you can play up to 8 or 12 screens at every level up to $109, and even at the 109 and 215 levels you can 4-screen.

If you prefer stars, you might want to start playing at PP to get used to it, and then play 2 of each if you can't get the volume at stars. For some reason I find the platform at UB easier than stars when multi-tabling, so you might want to try UB too.

Good luck.

Irieguy

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you don't want to be labelled as a guy to stay away from

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I can't answer your question (I 2-table Stars) but why wouldn't you want to be labelled as a guy to avoid? The only people avoiding you will be the ones who actually pay attention, (i.e.: decent players) not the fish you're trying to isolate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I wasn't thinking of it that way.

Irieguy -- good response. Thanks. What do you mean about 'interface' differences between Stars and Party that make it difficult? I'm not sure what you mean.

[Irieguy]

The user interface... the software. When you are playing 4-8 tables, it just gets tricky when the fold/call/raise buttons are in different places, different sizes, etc. The graphics on PP are really superior for multitabling: it's easy to see the cards, how much everybody has, and how big the pot is. When you have 4 PS screens filling a 19" monitor, you can barely see the chips. It definitely takes a few extra seconds to figure out chip stacks and pot size... which is a problem once you get beyond 4 tables.

Irieguy

[ThorGoT]

Irieguy --

I've four-tabled, but not eight-tabled, and find my attention is a little diverted when I have several games going on at the end. How does it affect your results? Do you stagger starts?

Thanks, ThorGoT

[JasonDB]

That has always plagued me as well. My decision making turns more all-inish when facing so many rapid fire choices at once.

[Zelcious]

What resolution do you run Irie ?
I have a 19" monitor and run 1280x1024. Can only run 1600x1200 at 60Hz which makes my eyes hurt.

[Irieguy]

I start 8 at the same time and play until they are all done, and then start again. I find it surprisingly manageable. But I really think that the reason why it's manageable is because I've been playing poker seriously for 15 years, so most plays are truely automatic. Because I've check-raise bluffed, value-called, river-bluffed a busted straight, etc. a million times each, even post flop play is pretty easy to manage on 8 tables at once.

I know a lot of people on this forum are pretty new to poker, so I don't think it would be as easy without all that experience. In fact, I'm sure there are quite a few new players who play far better than I do when they can concentrate... but I probably play far better than they would in "autopilot" mode.

Irieguy

[Jman28]

I just tried a move from 4 to 8 and had a little trouble. I jumped down to 6 and I'm doing well. I think after a month or two of 6, I'll be ready for 8.

[Irieguy]

1600 x 1200 isn't bothering my eyes yet. But I'd still rather have a 21" and run bigger screens.

Irieguy

[AA suited]

i have a 17" lcd at 1280x1024 at 60hz. lcd's are designed to run at 60hz as optimal. i can have 4 windows w/a little overlap. that does cause problems when all 4 screen require your attention. a few times i thought i was ITM because the overlap covered player #4 and played more agressively than i should have, to my detriment /images/graemlins/frown.gif

i can handle 3 screens requiring my attention, but make mistakes when all 4 do. but it's usually not huge mistakes (when i don't miscount the # of players left /images/graemlins/blush.gif ). if i have to make snap decisions, i revert to weak tight. i remember once i was sb and fold 79o. then i notice other players screaming at me for making that stupid move. i realized bb only had 10 chips more...SIGH.

i still quad table because it's not that often that all 4 screens need my attention and i make more $ than just playing 3 screens w/no mistakes.

[lorinda]

This post is right on the money, I've played PL/NL Holdem tourneys for as long as I can remember and can multi-table without even knowing how I'm doing at times.

Meanwhile I've played LHE for 2-3 years and still struggle to play more than 3 tables at once and feel I have any sort of edge at all, although I can play one table and feel fine.

Lori

[Zelcious]

I can't stand 60Hz. Need atleast 72Hz. Would be nice if there was a resolution somewhere in between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. (There are but they have really screwed up aspect ratios) I guess I have to buy a new monitor someday.

[Zelcious]

I just checked my monitors manufactor's homepage and saw that my monitor should be able to run 1600x1200 at 76Hz so I removed the "show only supported modes" and tried it. No problems at all.

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I just checked my monitors manufactor's homepage and saw that my monitor should be able to run 1600x1200 at 76Hz so I removed the "show only supported modes" and tried it. No problems at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

CRT monitors and LCD monitors are different. 60hz at LCD is better on the eyes than 75hz on CRT.

anyone, congrats on reading the manual and fixing your problem... LOL