True viability of multi-tabling?

[jwombles]

I have noticed a number of players here on the forum who multi-table in the small stakes rooms. I am starting to question whether this is as profitable as just choosing the best table with the most optimum conditions and focusing all of your energy on taking it down. I know this is contrary to what a lot of people are doing out there. IMHO I just think that MT’ing really limits your true profit potential. In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table. I question whether or not you can even do it MTing 2 tables. So much is lost if you are just playing by rote mechanics of what to do w/ a certain hand in a certain position with a certain flop etc.etc.etc.

In my relatively short experience, (I've been playing Party Poker for about 15 months) I have not had the same level of return multi-tabling as I have when I carefully choose the table with which I sit down at. I use both Poker Tracker and Poker Office but have found Poker Office to be the best for determining the table I play at.

When I sign on to Party, I will go to the 3/6 room and open up 3 or 4 tables and sit down at exactly 1. I will have Poker office Live tracker monitoring each table. After about 50 hands or so, I can get a good idea of what the general play is like at the table ie: loose/tight and agro/passive. I’ll then try to sit at the table that has the most ideal conditions I am looking for.

I will after 50-100 hands immediately leave a table if there aren’t more than 2 players over 35% VPIP and ideally one or two fishys over 50%. Sometimes you get a good idea even earlier. Obviously, I don’t want to sit at a tight table so if there are a lot of players sitting there after 50 hands with a VPIP under 20, well, that’s just a waste of time, and I won’t hesitate for a second to leave and find a more optimum table. There’s just not enough money to be made at a table like that.

I am continually amazed at how many fish are playing at some of these tables even at 3/6! It is not that uncommon for me to find tables with 3 or more players at a VPIP over 50% for an extended period of time just throwing a big party! In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

The numbers I look at on PO are VPIP, PFR% mostly, with an eye on how far a player will play their hand as well.

Anyway, I was just curious what others think out there. I know there are some players who have had success multitabling, and I wish it to continue. I just haven’t seen the same success as when I just carefully choose the table I sit at with a lot of fish and enjoy a nice “Seafood Dinner”!

Much success,
Wombles

[BusterStacks]

I find:
1 table to be boring.
2 tables to be easy
3 tables to be optimal
4 tables to be work.

You give up a slight but increasing edge with each subsequent table, but on a per hour basis, multi-tabling will show a higher profit if you are a winner. It's just a fact. I guess if I had all the time in the world, I could absolutely focus on 1 table, but I need to play 1k hands/day and this would take what, 20 hours 1-tabling? Sorry. In summary, what you give up by adding more tables, especially more than 1, should not affect your play enough to make it a bad idea.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.

If you have the ability to multitable, you're losing a lot of profit by just playing on one table at the lower limits, even with the increased focus.

[Freakin]

Lets just say for example that at a single table you were able to sustain an ungodly 5BB/100 over 100k hands or so. As your add more tables, this would likely decrease. Many players here are able to consistently beat games for 2BB/100 across 2,4,6, or 8+ tables. If you're playing at least 3 tables at 2BB/100, you're easily clearing the 5BB/100 you're making at your single table (since you're playing 3x as fast), and this is a rather extreme example. Programs like PlayerView allow you to have stat-based reads on all players are all tables. Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally. To achieve the same kind of returns on a single table in a B&M, they would have a play a table that is 2,4,6, or 8+ times thier current limit, and that table would likely come with increased difficulty. So no, it's not more efficient for a skilled player to play a single table.

Freakin

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game Time + in PT will automatically do this, so you don't have to manually enter names.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also allows just average players to make more per hour playing low-limit online than many excellent mid-limit B&M professionals make (for the time being, at least).

[jwombles]

Thanks for your reply. I am not suggessting that MT-ing is a bad idea. A couple of thoughts:

1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

2. In my experience, MT-ing more than 2 tables you cannot possibly notice any trends at a certain table to take advantage of. There is just too much action going around from table to table.

3. In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game. Sure, I know that a lot of players do well MT-ing here, and that's great. I even tried it for a while.

I just found that , when you have that much going on that you have to start playing mathematically more than on the texture of the different players at your table. And even though this is internet poker, let's not forget that poker is still a people game, and you gain a lot from seeing what each player plays, raises, check raises with etc.

Just some more thoughts.

Wombles

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

While it's true that you're making mostly rote decisions while multitabling, you still have to be able to process a lot of information simultaneously and make quick decisions. For an experienced multitabler, the B&M game is almost like playing in slow motion. You can make certain decisions without thinking, because you've seen them hundreds of times before. You can then devote your energy and attention to player reads and thinking about your lines of play much more indepth.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that you can easily drop a table that sucks while multitabling, right?

[jwombles]

LOL I knew this thread would get a big response.

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5. I just can't take advantage of players when I don't know their tendancies.

As I said, I know that there are 2+2ers who MT and I guess average more than 1 BB per 100 hands. I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

I can't imagine being able to truly win 2 BB/100 on 8 tables.

PS How do you quote someone in your response?

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Mt-ing 4 tables you might get one good table with the optimum conditions and let's say 2 so-so tables and one tight table on average. It's been my experience that whatever I gain by breaking the good table I would sometimes give back to the tight table and try to make up the difference at the so-so tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that you can easily drop a table that sucks while multitabling, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

But when you are MTing, honestly, you don't have the time to truly analyze the table and realize it sucks until you are down enough to think it's time to leave.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, 2BB/100 isn't that spectacular of a win rate for online poker. It's equivalent to about 0.6BB/hr for B&M play. I can assure you that there are many people playing four to eight online tables making over 2BB/100.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.

If you have the ability to multitable, you're losing a lot of profit by just playing on one table at the lower limits, even with the increased focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely disagree with it being irrelevant to know the players at your table at lower limits. Sure, there are a lot of fish out there on the lower limits. But to assume that it is irrelevant to know the players at any table you are playing at is wreckless IMHO.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
I find:
1 table to be boring.
2 tables to be easy
3 tables to be optimal
4 tables to be work.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find:
1 table to be mind-numbingly boring
2 tables to be extremely boring
3 tables to be boring
4 tables to be okay
5 tables to be fun
6 tables to be perfect

Once you go multi, you'll never go back! Doesn't rhyme, but you get the picture.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, 2BB/100 isn't that spectacular of a win rate for online poker. It's equivalent to about 0.6BB/hr for B&M play. I can assure you that there are many people playing four to eight online tables making over 2BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense.

Getting back to the main point of the thread, my goal is not to go bug eyed mt-ing 4-8 tables at micro limits, but to move up to higher limit tables. I feel that the best way for me to do this is to focus on one table and getting to know how to read playedrs etc.

And btw, there is no way that anyone with 8 tables open on their computer is doing anything other than rote mechanics of check call raise w/o any regard to the type of players at the table. There simply isn't enough time! You would be folded out of the other 4 or 5 tables you were playing at.

Which, gets me back to the point that when you are doing more than 3 or 4 tables, you are really out of touch with what's truly going on in the game if there are a couple of experienced players at that table paying attention.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game Time + in PT will automatically do this, so you don't have to manually enter names.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you get it to automatically recognize the players at the table? When I use it I have to put their names in manually.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what you just said here. Nobody is disputing that your BB/100 will drop when multi-tabling. However, your hourly rate will increase. If your BB/100 went down from 2 to 1.5 when you played two tables, then you're still making 50% more money per hour, because you're playing twice as many hands. By your own numbers, your results have gotten better through multi-tabling, not worse.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what you just said here. Nobody is disputing that your BB/100 will drop when multi-tabling. However, your hourly rate will increase. If your BB/100 went down from 2 to 1.5 when you played two tables, then you're still making 50% more money per hour, because you're playing twice as many hands. By your own numbers, your results have gotten better through multi-tabling, not worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Got your point there. I guess I should clarify. I wasn't making the same amount of money per day that I am now focusing on one table.

The BB/100 dropping but still being positive doesn't mean I was still making money when it includes stats from when I was single tabling. Not the best stat to use to prove my point b/c it wasn't exclusive to MT-ing.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely disagree with it being irrelevant to know the players at your table at lower limits. Sure, there are a lot of fish out there on the lower limits. But to assume that it is irrelevant to know the players at any table you are playing at is wreckless IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is important to know who the good players are, and this is relatively easy through data mining. Once you have identified them, the games are fairly easy to navigate through.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
But when you are MTing, honestly, you don't have the time to truly analyze the table and realize it sucks until you are down enough to think it's time to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, just pay attention to how many players are limping. If it keeps getting folded around, it's not a good table.

And I also use PokerTracker's note exporter to remind me which players are loose, which are aggressive, which are tight, etc...

If multitabling isn't for you, no big deal. But to say it's not "viable" for others is silly.

[lastcoyote]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you get it to automatically recognize the players at the table? When I use it I have to put their names in manually.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Game Time window click the "Preferences" button in the center of the screen and then choose "Populate".

[pudley4]

original post:

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah, i'm not very good at multi-tabling so I think it's wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

responses:

[ QUOTE ]
no, good players make way more money multi-tabling

[/ QUOTE ]

OP response

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, you need player reads to win

[/ QUOTE ]

more responses:

[ QUOTE ]
No, really, it's true

[/ QUOTE ]

OP response:

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't believe it

[/ QUOTE ]

There, I just saved you all 5 minutes /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fearme]

if ur good, decisions become easier and quicker and it becomes easier to focus on many tables, i remember, when i thought 3 was a lot, then 4, then 6 etc, but of course if u focus on 1 table ur win rate per table will crush ur win rate per table on 8, however you will still make many times more money w/ more tables

[MaxPower]

It depends on you level of experience. For a new player multi-tabling will probably be very difficult.

The more you play the more automated things get and that frees up your cognitive capacity to pay attention to more things. You also get better at spotting the mistakes that your opponents make.

With enough experience you only have to watch someone play 2 or 3 hands and you already have a good read on them.

For someone with little experience who is still learing the basics multi-tabling is probably a bad idea. For those with a lot of experience it is very profitable.

[lacky]

If you want to play one table, thats fine. If you want to play more you really need to check out playerview and learn what those stats say about a persons play. The info you are getting through intense study of one table I get at a glance of their stats. If a guy raises with 20% of his hands he raises with crap. If it's 2%, when he raises he has it. Memorizing the exact cards won't tell me much more. If he wins 70% of his show downs he can be bluffed, but if he's not getting out he probably has me beat. If it's 30%, value bet, the guy calls with crap. I don't need to watch the game and remember all that, the computer does it for me and does a better job. Handling and sorting and remembering data is what computers are made for. Making creative decisions bases on that data is the human job. If you feel out of touch with the table if you don't see every move you aren't using the data right or you aren't understanding it.

Steve

(rereading this it sounds harsh, which it is not ment to be, just trying to enlighten)

[crimhead]

[quote}...If you're playing at least 3 tables at 2BB/100, you're easily clearing the 5BB/100 you're making at your single table...

[/ QUOTE ]

This misses a very important point about making money playing poker. A 2BB/100 player requires a MUCH HIGHER bankroll than a 4BB/100 or 5BB/100 player. This is because fluctuations are a function of both your standard deviation and your hourly (or per hand) rate.

So, if you can afford to play three tables at 2BB/100 you would probably be as well of playing 4+BB/100 at a limit of 150% or higher.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

'Bad' is not that precise of a player classification. Even at the low limits, Some people slow play to much, some people rarely bluff or semi-bluff, some poeple check-raise a lot, some people are steaming, and others are small time grinders MTing, who actually aren't playing half badly.

An expert takes full advantage of this knowlegde, saving and making extra bets which add up to quite a lot. However, I do not believe there are many (if any) EXPERTS playing more than one table. For one thing, nobody can develope these expert skills from playing more than one table. Additionally, anyone who has the gift for developing these skills (and has put in the practice) most likely has a true love of the game. These people are apt to be more easilly bored by having to play automatically (instead of expertly) and probably do not find it boring at all to sit and watch one game and learn.

So, If you are not at the expert level, but you can consistently make GOOD decisions, then you are better of MTing. You will not benefit enough from studying your opponents or moving to tougher limits. However, if you want to become an expert you will need practice thinking harder about many "easy" decisions, and watching more than three hands to study an opponent.

[crimhead]

[ QUOTE ]


PS How do you quote someone in your response?

[/ QUOTE ]

Use the QUOTE button top right

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed a number of players here on the forum who multi-table in the small stakes rooms. I am starting to question whether this is as profitable as just choosing the best table with the most optimum conditions and focusing all of your energy on taking it down. I know this is contrary to what a lot of people are doing out there. IMHO I just think that MT’ing really limits your true profit potential. In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table. I question whether or not you can even do it MTing 2 tables. So much is lost if you are just playing by rote mechanics of what to do w/ a certain hand in a certain position with a certain flop etc.etc.etc.

In my relatively short experience, (I've been playing Party Poker for about 15 months) I have not had the same level of return multi-tabling as I have when I carefully choose the table with which I sit down at. I use both Poker Tracker and Poker Office but have found Poker Office to be the best for determining the table I play at.

When I sign on to Party, I will go to the 3/6 room and open up 3 or 4 tables and sit down at exactly 1. I will have Poker office Live tracker monitoring each table. After about 50 hands or so, I can get a good idea of what the general play is like at the table ie: loose/tight and agro/passive. I’ll then try to sit at the table that has the most ideal conditions I am looking for.

I will after 50-100 hands immediately leave a table if there aren’t more than 2 players over 35% VPIP and ideally one or two fishys over 50%. Sometimes you get a good idea even earlier. Obviously, I don’t want to sit at a tight table so if there are a lot of players sitting there after 50 hands with a VPIP under 20, well, that’s just a waste of time, and I won’t hesitate for a second to leave and find a more optimum table. There’s just not enough money to be made at a table like that.

I am continually amazed at how many fish are playing at some of these tables even at 3/6! It is not that uncommon for me to find tables with 3 or more players at a VPIP over 50% for an extended period of time just throwing a big party! In addition, Poker Office gives you stats on how a player is playing for that table you are currently at, and next to that their historical numbers if you’ve played against them before. I know Poker Tracker does this but you have to constantly enter who is sitting in each chair and it’s a pain.

The numbers I look at on PO are VPIP, PFR% mostly, with an eye on how far a player will play their hand as well.

Anyway, I was just curious what others think out there. I know there are some players who have had success multitabling, and I wish it to continue. I just haven’t seen the same success as when I just carefully choose the table I sit at with a lot of fish and enjoy a nice “Seafood Dinner”!

Much success,
Wombles

[/ QUOTE ]

And while you're taking all your time focusing on finding a table, i'm playing.

From time to time while i have a sec in between hands of the 6 tables I'm playing, i'll do a serach on my name and get off the low pot size tables and find some other tables.

While you're bb/100 will be higher, my rate per true hour spent playing will be substantially higher. Even if I'm playing one table I can't focus on the players too much. I'll keep myself busy other ways, so really the tables aren't hurting anything.

[lacky]

I see what you are saying, which is a little condescending btw, but your math doesn't add up. I can make 2.5 BB/100 playing 8 tables of 3/6. So, I guess I'm GOOD. But if I was EXPERT I would move up to 5/10 and crush the game on one table for far more per hour? Figuring 55 hands per table per hour, that’s $66/hour at 3/6, plus $15/hour for rakeback. To make that $81 an hour on one 5/10 table would mean a win rate of 14.5 BB/100. The EXPERT play you speak of doesn't produce that sort of win rate.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

astroglide posted his 3/6 stats a while back, IIRC it was 6 tabling and more than 100k hands, and his rate was > 3BB/100. it's far from impossible.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

This misses a very important point about making money playing poker. A 2BB/100 player requires a MUCH HIGHER bankroll than a 4BB/100 or 5BB/100 player. This is because fluctuations are a function of both your standard deviation and your hourly (or per hand) rate.

So, if you can afford to play three tables at 2BB/100 you would probably be as well of playing 4+BB/100 at a limit of 150% or higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. What makes you think that a player that can win 2BB/100 at a lower limit can make 4BB/100 at a higher limit simply by focusing on one table? That is very unlikely. In fact, if he is an expert who can make 4BB/100 (if such a think is possible) at the higher limit, than he can probably make 3-4BB/100 multitabling at the lower limit. Plus he will need a smaller banroll (in $ terms) to multi-table at the lower limit.



[ QUOTE ]


'Bad' is not that precise of a player classification. Even at the low limits, Some people slow play to much, some people rarely bluff or semi-bluff, some poeple check-raise a lot, some people are steaming, and others are small time grinders MTing, who actually aren't playing half badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think an expert can't keep track of all this while multitabling? I think you underestimate the cognitive capacity of an expert. Plus he can take notes to remember this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]

An expert takes full advantage of this knowlegde, saving and making extra bets which add up to quite a lot. However, I do not believe there are many (if any) EXPERTS playing more than one table. For one thing, nobody can develope these expert skills from playing more than one table. Additionally, anyone who has the gift for developing these skills (and has put in the practice) most likely has a true love of the game. These people are apt to be more easilly bored by having to play automatically (instead of expertly) and probably do not find it boring at all to sit and watch one game and learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that it is tough to develop skills while multitabling, it is not impossible. Most people develop thier skills away from the table when they are reviewing their play or talking to other players. If you play in live games and also multitable online, there is no reason why one cannot become an expert.

[ QUOTE ]

So, If you are not at the expert level, but you can consistently make GOOD decisions, then you are better of MTing. You will not benefit enough from studying your opponents or moving to tougher limits. However, if you want to become an expert you will need practice thinking harder about many "easy" decisions, and watching more than three hands to study an opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

An expert should be able to size up their opponents very quickly and adjust their play. I never suggested that you should watch only 3 hands, but that is enough to give you a read. After that you should continue to watch the player and learn more about him.

By the way, I don't think I'm an expert.

[bonanz]

[ QUOTE ]
There, I just saved you all 5 minutes /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL
but who will save impressionable young minds from all the faulty logic argued throughout this thread?

also nobody (at least from what i read) pointed out sample size of multitabling and how winrate stats don't matter hourly varaince increase while multitabling etc etc etc

i would probably be safe in assuming that the op had a very small sample of playing multiple tables so how could he really know how it affects his bb/100 stat.

[Sarge85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.

If you have the ability to multitable, you're losing a lot of profit by just playing on one table at the lower limits, even with the increased focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give a resounding "second" to this post.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[joker122]

appreciate it, jeff.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

astroglide posted his 3/6 stats a while back, IIRC it was 6 tabling and more than 100k hands, and his rate was > 3BB/100. it's far from impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is amazing. I saw lunious (I think that was his name, it's the guy with the space suit helmet avatar) post stats on 150k hands at .5/1 with a 4BB! Not sure if he was MT-ing or not.

Anyway, I read here that expecting a win rate of more than 2 BB / hour is unrealistic over the long term. But, maybe that's just in the higher stakes. I must not be good enough to keep up a high win rate mt-ing yet. All signs would point to this.

I admire those of you who can do it and have been doing it. I had always heard that the goal of a good poker player is 1BB/ hour. That's it. More than that and you're doing great. So KUDOS!

Thanks for your responses, as it has given me a lot to think about:

1. I am not a very good poker player! At least at MT-ing right now. I should be able to MT and make more money net off of 2-3 tables than I would net off of 1. It's been my recent experience that this doesn't hold true for me if I focus on finding 1 table that's optimum to take down and really work that one over.

2. I need to consider buying another monitor if I am going to try MT-ing again.

3. I guess I could focus first on trying to find as many optimum tables at once and MT 3 or 4 of those.

I had in the past when MT-ing joined the first 3 tables available and sat down to go to work. I just wanted to offer my thoughts on how I choose the best table to work and if it can carry over into MT-ing even better.

Maybe there isn't enough emphasis on table selection as there is on just the fact you should MT so many tables and you will win this many extra BB/hour b/c you see many more hands/hour.

This forum is immeasurably helpful and I'm glad to have found a home here!

Much success,
Wombles

[Stinos Dude]

Ok, i know poker is a game and moreso a gambling game. But for those of you that find 1 table poker boring, you really need to evaluate what you're doing. Poker is not a means to financial success. Overtime, it just doesn't happen for the vast vast majority of people. Knowing this, why would you spend so much time in front of a computer with 5 games going, like crazed dogs, just waiting for that stellar hand that pulls in a quick buck... you all deserve more in your life than that, trust me... fact is, you could earn 10x the amount of money you earn in one sitting with 5 tables open if you just spent the same amount of time doing something productive, like work.

On a lighter note, multi-tabling was never possible until the internet... why ruin a game by populating the player field with money-grubbing fools who dont even put their minds into each game, but rather wait to see pocket aces come up on one of their 5 screens going at once?

I dont mean to offend anyone, just my thoughts on the poor direction the game is headed. Live games to me are still the way to go. Fun, sociable (at least you're not best friends with your computer and mouse), and you learn how to play real poker, which involves the visuals and other stuff that come with a live experience.

anyone else share a simliar viewpoint on multi-tabling?

just wondering...

-d

[SomethingClever]

Sounds like you're coming to some good conclusions. The "1 BB/hr" standard comes from B&M play, which is slower than online table for table (30 vs 55 hands per hour). Add those extra tables, and if you're a solid player, 3 BB/100 at .5/1 should be very, very doable. I'm crushing that rate, and I play 4 tables.

Build the tables up slowly. Don't go from one to four. Try two for 5-10 thousand hands and see how you like it.

It's also helpful to change your display resolution when you have multiple tables going so there's no overlap.

Good luck and keep studying.

[SomethingClever]

B&M isn't going away, if that's what you're worried about. And it sounds like you don't really know how to play.

[Stinos Dude]

how can you deduce that i dont know how to play poker from my post. please provide your reasoning. your post made me laugh.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
also nobody (at least from what i read) pointed out sample size of multitabling and how winrate stats don't matter hourly varaince increase while multitabling etc etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to sum it up for you here.

A good 30/60 B&M player will make about $60 per hour, with a standard deviation of about $600 per hour. He can expect to have occasional downswings of $10,000.

A good 3/6 internet multitabler with a rake rebate can make $60 per hour with a standard deviation of about $180 per hour. He can expect to have occasional downswings of $1,000.

[Stinos Dude]

you forgot to mention that this player will have no life and in 10 years be broke /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you deduce that i dont know how to play poker from my post. please provide your reasoning. your post made me laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here's my deduction.

[ QUOTE ]
Overtime, it just doesn't happen for the vast vast majority of people. Knowing this, why would you spend so much time in front of a computer with 5 games going, like crazed dogs, just waiting for that stellar hand that pulls in a quick buck...

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the mentality of a winning player. And that's not how online multitablers think.

[ QUOTE ]

fact is, you could earn 10x the amount of money you earn in one sitting with 5 tables open if you just spent the same amount of time doing something productive, like work.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a regular job. Most posters here do as well.

[ QUOTE ]

why ruin a game by populating the player field with money-grubbing fools...


[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you think the point of poker is? You're playing for money.

[ QUOTE ]

who dont even put their minds into each game, but rather wait to see pocket aces come up on one of their 5 screens going at once?


[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, it takes more brain power to make quick decisions at multiple tables than it does to sit on your duff in a casino and look at 25 hands per hour.

Also, anyone who plays a "waiting for aces" strategy will get slaughtered online. Especially at LIMIT poker.

In conclusion: waPOWN.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
you forgot to mention that this player will have no life and in 10 years be broke /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious. How does someone who plays for a living 25 to 30 hours per week have "no life", as opposed to the full lives that are being lead by people with 40 to 60 hour/per week "real" jobs?

[bonanz]

stinos dudes post made me laugh

[sublime]

I'm curious. How does someone who plays for a living 25 to 30 hours per week have "no life", as opposed to the full lives that are being lead by people with 40 to 60 hour/per week "real" jobs?

why do you bother responding to posts like that?

[jaybee_70]

Dammit!! About 3 hours too late. . .

[Ian J]

To the OP,

There's a reason that so many players play multiple tables. There's a reason that so many people in this thread are disagreeing with you. Think about this.

[lacky]

as far as table selection, go to playerveiws site at
http://home.comcast.net/~amirpc/

and look at the layouts, especailly Aces_McCoy's. I use a setup similar to his. I sort tables by ave pot, put my name on all the lists and take the first seats that come up. I play 20 hands at each table than glance at the VPIP and preflop raise and aggression stats. If there is lots of red at the table I leave when the blinds come. If lots of green, I'm where I want to be. Every 10 min or so I scan the tables I'm at to see if I should leave any. As you can see in the picture, you can see if its a good or bad table with a glance.

Steve

[lacky]

Illunious has said he generally plays 8 to 10 tables.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I was just curious what others think out there. I know there are some players who have had success multitabling, and I wish it to continue. I just haven’t seen the same success as when I just carefully choose the table I sit at with a lot of fish and enjoy a nice “Seafood Dinner”!

Much success,
Wombles


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Wombles,

Like many hobbies, professions that people first take on I think I just takes time to learn and takes even more time to master. There are too many players who think they spend a few dollars on books, play less than a year and think they should ultimately beat or crush the game. I spent a good 2 years taking losses, learning things the hard way before I started becoming a winner player. I don't have the gift or talent some of these 2+2'ers have to somehow "instantly" crush the online games for 2-4 BB/100.

But that doesn't mean it's not achievable, it just means that it takes more time for me. It also means that it might take more or less time for other people.

If you are a solid player and learn from your mistakes and apply it, you'll eventually get to that next level or two. It just depends how long.

Lawrence

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's true that you're making mostly rote decisions while multitabling, you still have to be able to process a lot of information simultaneously and make quick decisions. For an experienced multitabler, the B&M game is almost like playing in slow motion. You can make certain decisions without thinking, because you've seen them hundreds of times before. You can then devote your energy and attention to player reads and thinking about your lines of play much more indepth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. Playing online, especially through multi-tabling has helped with the technical play so much that when I hit the cardroom I am able to seriously focus on the more intricate aspects on individuals that can only be done on live games..ie reads and emotion levels.

Lawrence

[sin808]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

For others this isn't necessarily true. I usually only play 2 tables at a time (occasionally 3 or 4). I have just as much of a read on the players at 2 tables as I do on one. I'm sure there are some that play 4 that are the same. It is commonly accepted though that by playing 4 or more tables you do give up a little bit of winrate at each table, but it doesn't exceed the gains of playing at that extra table.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
From time to time while i have a sec in between hands of the 6 tables I'm playing, i'll do a serach on my name and get off the low pot size tables and find some other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah crap that is a really good idea, can i use that?

normally i just look at all the tables and find mine, but this is much easier

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
ah crap that is a really good idea, can i use that?

normally i just look at all the tables and find mine, but this is much easier

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, i just figured this out about a week ago, then I felt really dumb for having to always look thru the whole list before... it especially sucked at 2-4 and 3-6 where there's like 1000 games going. With that, and playerview I think you can easily add a few more games.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone else share a simliar viewpoint on multi-tabling?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hell no. And many people on this forum make a much higher hourly rate MT'ing than the majority of people make at "real" work.

[talkinghead]

[ QUOTE ]


3. In addition, I think it limits the opportunity to really and truly improve your play against a normal ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, I believe it to be so and I'll explain why.

To beat games you've got to make good betting desicions,
these desicions are based are largely based on observations. While some of these observations can be made by programs mentioned elsewhere in this thread ( a players VSIP etc) others, such what an opponents check on the flop after a pre-flop raise usually signifies, are missed when multi-tabling. How can you read hands and get those narrow value bet desicions the right way when making four at the same time?

That much is obvious, no one can argue, without deluding themselves, that better desicions can be made from concentrating on one single table, than on four simultaneously.

My point is, to improve yourself, you need practise in making the best desicions. If you make a mistake you will likely miss it and likely make it again. Quality over quantity everytime.

To someone who wants to improve their game I would urge to not give in to the tempatation of playing more tables for more action/excitement.
For those who say it increases the win rate and are only concerned with the cash, fine, good for you. But are you multi-tabling at $15/$30 (Party player) and if not why not? Perhaps the old game needs some work.

[Ian J]

[ QUOTE ]
With that, and playerview I think you can easily add a few more games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playerview?

[bonanz]

this thread is so stupid. i believe it to be so, let me tell you why.

i would guess that most of the people arguing against multitabling have

1. tried it for a short amount of time if at all

2. had poor results

[ QUOTE ]
While some of these observations can be made by programs mentioned elsewhere in this thread ( a players VSIP etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

non-multitablers seem to think that those who do multitable are mindless zombies just clicking away not paying attention to anything. that multitablers rely on helpful programs, otherwise they might lose. fyi player view and gametime are new within the past 3-4 weeks. people played a million tables before that and won...

[ QUOTE ]
others, such what an opponents check on the flop after a pre-flop raise usually signifies, are missed when multi-tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely incorrect

[ QUOTE ]
How can you read hands and get those narrow value bet desicions the right way when making four at the same time?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's pretty easy, but you are correct that some desicions become tougher, but you are also very correct in that they are narrow. which is why your win rate may go down slightly


[ QUOTE ]
My point is, to improve yourself, you need practise in making the best desicions.

[/ QUOTE ]

i find this statement highly ironic. by practice you mean...play more hands?

[ QUOTE ]
To someone who wants to improve their game I would urge to not give in to the tempatation of playing more tables for more action/excitement.

[/ QUOTE ]

multitabling is not for everyone. and there may be an argument that beginners should not multitable. but if you try it and find it is not for you, that does not make it hurtful to everyone. there is no shame in not being able to multitable well, even though reading these boards, new comers may get the impression that multitabling is "the thing to do"

howerver to argue that multitabling hurts your continued learning of the game is absurd. to argue that it is hurting already winning players who are multitabling and winning more is also absurd.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I find fewer than 4 tables boring. 6 is perfect, but I sometimes play 7. I tried 8, but that suddenly seemed like too many.

As to winrate, I can assure you it is possible to earn 3+BB/100 while multitabling 2/4 and 3/6.

[MicroBob]

This is kind of a silly thread that turned out to be a worthwhile read (well....what I read of it anyway).

1. I didn't know about the 'populate' aspect of game-time window (I just downloaded the latest patch today....so maybe this wasn't a feature before). I was always entering the players in manually and it was a REAL PAIN IN THE ASS (when I bothered to get around to it).
This alone made this thread worthwhile.

2. jwombles seems to have learned a bit from some of the posts in this discussion.
I still don't precisely understand how he says he is a losing player when multi-tabling but is also making 1.5BB/100 or something.

Obviously 1.5BB/100 on 2 tables is much better than 2BB/100 on 1 table.


3. I saw a reference to 'genius' regarding 6-8 tablers in one of the posts. It's true you have to be a better than average player of course....and you have to be fairly sharp. I know people who are just flat-out astounded to see me 2-table and can't understand how I can read the boards on both tables so fast.
But I hardly think the word 'genius' should apply to 6-8 tablers.
I don't think many of us really consider ourselves 'geniuses' just because we can play 6-8 tables (obviously astro is excepted here as he is well aware of his own true 'genius').

I prefer 4-6 tables....and will occassionally do 8. but when I do 8 I actually have to think which includes turning off the TV, not surfing 2+2, etc.

As I write this post I am playing on 4-tables on my 'other' monitor.
I don't say this to brag....I say it because for some it just isn't THAT difficult.
On one of my tables I have a couple of goof-balls with VPIP-40ish and PFR from 10-17.
There's another guy with more reasonable number but I have a note on him that he has previously re-raised (non-blind steal) with K4o so I'm kind of watching him too.
Another guy is VPIP-20, PFR-3 (so I know his raises likely represent group-1 hands....or close to that anyway) while the guy to his left is VPIP-28, PFR-20.

Anyway....with all the stats I have on these guys (and some of my own personal notes as well) I think I have reasonable reads on my opponents (if I can finally get something other than 62o).

I'm just playing 4 full-tables right now (one of them is a NL tourney so I have to keep that straight of course).

I know of at least one player (and suspect there are a few others) who not only play 8-tables....but do so on the 10/20 6-max tables (where decisions come MUCH faster).
The player I'm thinking of is
This is beyond my capabilities right now....but if I really focused on it and improved my 6-max game I suspect I COULD do it if I really wanted to. But it would still strain my capabilities and this is the level where I would DEFINITELY be making mistakes (like timing-out on some tables....not seeing that the board paired-up, etc).


Finally....to the original poster.
It sounded like you were thinking of going back to playing 3 tables to see how well you could do at it again.

You should really try just playing 2-tables for awhile first.
There's no reason to jump from 1 to 3 tables.

If/when you get to a point where 2-tables becomes kind of 'routine' and you are really comfortable with it....THEN think about adding in that 3rd table and grow from there.
Before you know it you might be 12-tabling at 6-max with the best of them.


Anyway, thanks for the tip on the game-time window everybody.
It rocks!!!

And I'm glad this turned out to be not as silly a thread as I initially thought it was going to be.

[James282]

You think astroglide is a "true genius"? Boy oh boy.
-James

[MicroBob]

Not necessarily.

Was trying to say that most 2+2'ers don't consider THEMSELVES to be geniuses....except for astro.

Something like that anyway.

Stupid joke.

[lacky]

IMHO you should skip the gametime windows and go to playerview bob. Ive been playing with it for a week and it is an incredable tool and entirely automatic.

Steve

[James282]

That makes more sense. I get it now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
-James

[MicroBob]

Yeah....I do need to get the playerview thing and keep meaning to set it up.

I would still run the game-time window though....helpful for keeping track of unseen players at your table and how they're playing.
as was the original point of this thread, when one is multi-tabling you can't always keep track.

[lacky]

hmmm, not sure what you mean by unseen player, but playerview auto updates everytime pokertracker does, so the stats are there real time

[sin808]

Playerview (http://home.comcast.net/~amirpc/)

[DaveMEL]

I play two tables at once, tracking each in real-time using PO. At 1600 x 1200 resolution, it is perfect. Works an absolute treat for me - rare that I lose on both tables in any one session.

I've tried 3 or 4 tables at once but agree that you lose part of your edge - a part I found I really missed.

Dave/MEL.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

I can't imagine being able to truly win 2 BB/100 on 8 tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

I use to play between 4 and 8 (average = 6). My avg is 2.29BB/100, but maybe I dont have enough hands (about 50,000)

David

[MicroBob]

Thanks for the link.
I douwnloaded it and the net1 what-cha-ma-thing.

And now it looks like the site (that you linked me to) is broken and I have no idea what to input in for valid-database.

I also was reading the 'probs with playerview' thread in the books-software forum and it looks like there are still quite a few bugs with this thing.
And it definitely looks WAY more complicated than I might be able to figure out since I am a total moron on computers.

I think I can get it eventually though...and hopefully it doesn't cause probs to my computer.

[evain]

Some people find that they play tighter poker when they play multiple tables. ie they don't have to wait ages for one good hand to come along. So they play less hands per table but more good hands overall. That equals profit.

[talkinghead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is, to improve yourself, you need practise in making the best desicions.

[/ QUOTE ]

i find this statement highly ironic. by practice you mean...play more hands?



[/ QUOTE ]

Quality over quantity was my point here that you seemed to miss. You agree that you can make better calls at just one table, how can people be the best they can be then, if you are not consistently making the best possible desicion for the correct reasons. Assuming they are not already the best poker player in the world with nothing to learn. I think people just need to be a bit more honest with themselves as to why they multi-table.

I multi-table sometimes, at 15-30. I know the game isn't coming on but i'm making money. My argument is that people who are at lower limits might be better served moving up than multi-tabling.

Another risk of multi-tabling, which I wouldn't like to suggest for a moment applies to you personally, although it may so I urge you to consider it is the tilt risk. Especially for players who only tilt to a small extent. In my experience this is most good players.

The mistakes you make when you tilt a little, which may only show themselves by you playing hands you shouldn't, like cold-calling with A10s or playing 55 in early position, open raising with KJo etc etc.
Say you tilt for 5 minutes, you are 4 times more likely to get a marginal hand that you will overplay, thus costing yourself money, while playing 4 tables.

[sourbeaver]

Multi-tabling's profitability is player dependant.

Some players feel more comfortable playing with reads while others do not care to go on a somewhat "auto-pilot" or "algorhythm" type of poker if you will.

Those who play 3-4 tables should know if the larger number of hands makes up for the loss of table awareness.

Keep in mind that, as with anything, you get better with time. I actually have time for the occasional read and I 4-table. Couple months ago, I never bothered for a read.

[bonanz]

[ QUOTE ]
Quality over quantity was my point here that you seemed to miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't miss that point, but my point was that quantity does not necessarily sacrifice quality.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
you playing hands you shouldn't, like cold-calling with A10s or playing 55 in early position, open raising with KJo etc etc.


[/ QUOTE ]


I've been known to do all of these things in the appropriate situation....and I don't think I was tilting.

If you're on a decent loose-passive table you SHOULD be limping with 55 from EP.

If you're going to open with KJo from MP or LP then it is very possible that raising is the better play.

[MicroBob]

grrrrr....i think i screwed the whole thing up somehow.

I'm going to have to reinstall and try again possibly.
It keeps freezing-up on me every time I try to run it....and I inputed the wrong thing in one of the fields somewhere and I don't know how the hell to get back to it.

Starting over.

[ZeeJustin]

Unless your winrate divides in half, it is more profitable to play 2 tables than 1. Etc. etc. etc.

[jwombles]

Referring to other posters comment, "Those who play 8 tables don't play that many hands therefore their profit is high"

Man that's a great point. My VPIP is 18.17% and my BB/100 is 1.49. I use SSHE starting hand guidelines for tight games unless the game is just super loose.

Getting back to lunious numbers, He was at 4BB/100 and his VPIP was super low, can't remember exactly but it was like 13 or 14%. Someone mentioned that he was 8 tabling, and this would seem to make sense to just be super tight and with 8 tables going you really won't be in more than 1 or 2 hands at any given time, and be plyaing only the hands with the highest +EV.

Much Succes
Wombles

[emonrad87]

I think that multitabling also allows you to be very tight, as you would not get bored not playing any hands, and thus play marginal hands, in the way that you do when you're playing one or two tables.

[Blarg]

Bob, there is an alternative to Playerview called Gametime(not the pokertracker gametime window). It also keeps games up to date in real time. It has a bunch of stats just like playerview does, but you have to add tables manually; really nothing to that, though. But Playerview does that automatically.

Gametime is far, far easier to use than Playerview, and not buggy at all. Playerview has a lot of bugs, including losing the stats on players constantly. It also can slow down your system a lot after you've been playing a few hours. That former you can fix by closing Playerview and starting it up again, but you have to do that constantly, I've found. Just not worth the grief until they get it less buggy. Playerview will probably wind up being a better program though, as you can really pick and choose a lot of stats to display and color code things just the way you like to signify when stats hit a certain range.

On Gametime, you can mouse over a name and besides the VPIP/PFR/BB per 100/hands played that display beneath the player name, you can also get a pop up window with a lot more stats.

They're both free; try 'em both out. Gametime is easier, and because it's less buggy, so I'm using that one for now.

[MicroBob]

Thanks for the tip.
I have seen some talking about the 'other' gametime thingee.

I've also read the threads on playerview being buggy and slowing some systems down.
Note though - others have said they have ZERO slow-down problems with playerview. So it doesn't appear to be a universal problem.

But I might look at the gametime too while playerview gets improved.

[ QUOTE ]
On Gametime, you can mouse over a name and besides the VPIP/PFR/BB per 100/hands played that display beneath the player name, you can also get a pop up window with a lot more stats.

They're both free; try 'em both out. Gametime is easier, and because it's less buggy, so I'm using that one for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds cool. and sounds like the Gametime is a good idea for a computer-illiterate like yours truly.


To be honest though, I'm reasonably happy with the p-tracker game-time window....so it's not THAT big a deal. But I'll check it out anyway.

[MicroBob]

Holy Crap!!!

This thing ROCKS!!

I struggled with the playerview and downloading the correct dot-net what-cha-ma-thing forever a couple nights ago.

Then, right now, i went to the gametime v.1.3 thread in Books/software and downloaded it and had it running within a few seconds.
This is REALLY REALLY cool.


Thanks again Blarg!! I owe you one.

[Blarg]

Heh, glad you like it, I'm diggin' it too. Super easy.

One comment on what you mentioned about Playerview:

[ QUOTE ]
Note though - others have said they have ZERO slow-down problems with playerview. So it doesn't appear to be a universal problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

To put things in perspective, I have a gig of fast RAM, a fast video card, a fast hard disk, and a Athlon 3200(very nice and fast chip). So I think it's not that the people who do not get slowdowns on Playerview are avoiding them because they have a notably better system; for poker, there really aren't notably better systems.

I think it's because they don't either play as long or as many tables, and if you play longer or play more tables, that's when the slowdown comes in.

I notice the slowdowns come after a few hours of 8-tabling. A four tabler doing his normal length sessions might not ever get to the point of having that many hands in, and an 8-tabler might not play as many consecutive hours as I do. Someone doing two or three tables might never notice the slowdown at all.

I'm mentioning it because I think you play four tables and more, right? And for extended periods? Just trying to put the Playerview "slowdown" issue in perspective for those that do.

[lacky]

Playerview is MUCH more Christmassy though! With the green tables and all the nice colored flashing stats who needs a dam tree!

[Blarg]

I am going to put a lump of coal in your ISP's stocking!

[AncientPC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a larger of the mass multitablers are in the early - mid 20s.

The reason for this is because a lot of us grew up used to multitasking, doing homework while chatting with a few people on IM while watching TV, etc.

When I play less than 5 or 6 tables I have a bad habit of getting bored and starting to tilt a bit (by playing crap hands or too aggressively taking mediocre hands too far).