March Polls

[MEbenhoe]

Alright I'll make the polls for this month:

You can choose two for the first two questions

[MEbenhoe]

One thing I wanted to say is that I thoroughly enjoyed The Dude's article this month. Fine work keep it up.

[edge]

I really didn't like the article on multitabling. The point seemed to be that one should concentrate on playing 1000 tables of a small limit and click like a maniac, and if any decision takes more time than the distance between the cursor and the buttons for that table, add more tables.

Maybe this is maximum EV or whatever, but I can't see this being a great long-term strategy. If you're playing so many tables that you aren't even thinking about hands anymore, there's no way you're going to fix leaks or improve your game. It will be the same flawed game, multiplied ten times over.

Or am I the only one who would rather play two to four higher tables instead of fifteen 2/4 tables? Maybe my win rate is 5% higher the second way, but I'm stuck at 2/4 if I do that.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
I really didn't like the article on multitabling. The point seemed to be that one should concentrate on playing 1000 tables of a small limit and click like a maniac, and if any decision takes more time than the distance between the cursor and the buttons for that table, add more tables.

Maybe this is maximum EV or whatever, but I can't see this being a great long-term strategy. If you're playing so many tables that you aren't even thinking about hands anymore, there's no way you're going to fix leaks or improve your game. It will be the same flawed game, multiplied ten times over.

Or am I the only one who would rather play two to four higher tables instead of fifteen 2/4 tables? Maybe my win rate is 5% higher the second way, but I'm stuck at 2/4 if I do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That multitabling article was horrible. It read like a parody -- "Don't think", "Don't look for leaks", and so on. I expect that there will be about four hundred threads here flaming the guy, and he deserves it.

[gila]

I voted for you Granny!! It may have been more of a pity vote though.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really didn't like the article on multitabling. The point seemed to be that one should concentrate on playing 1000 tables of a small limit and click like a maniac, and if any decision takes more time than the distance between the cursor and the buttons for that table, add more tables.

Maybe this is maximum EV or whatever, but I can't see this being a great long-term strategy. If you're playing so many tables that you aren't even thinking about hands anymore, there's no way you're going to fix leaks or improve your game. It will be the same flawed game, multiplied ten times over.

Or am I the only one who would rather play two to four higher tables instead of fifteen 2/4 tables? Maybe my win rate is 5% higher the second way, but I'm stuck at 2/4 if I do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That multitabling article was horrible. It read like a parody -- "Don't think", "Don't look for leaks", and so on. I expect that there will be about four hundred threads here flaming the guy, and he deserves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you guys that the article was bad, however lets try to keep the criticism constructive. I can see this turning into a thread bashing him and that isn't where it should go.

Instead if you have something negative to say, explain why you disagree with the points he made. The first poster made a good criticism, but those last comments from Grisga make it sound as though thats where it could be headed. Lets not take it there.

[NLSoldier]

I agree that the multitabling articly was no g00t. It may help you to make the most money for the time being, but that kind of thinking certainly is not preparing you to move up into bigger games where the close decisions really do matter.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I wanted to say is that I thoroughly enjoyed The Dude's article this month. Fine work keep it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously didn't grill you enough in OOT the other day. I'll try again next time I see you post down there. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[The Dude]

I put a vote in there for Sklansky's article, because I've been vocal for several years about how lame coaches are with going for it on 4th down.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you guys that the article was bad, however lets try to keep the criticism constructive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Too much emphasis on time effeciency, very little on making good decisions, none on hand reading, none on improving so you can move up.

I'm not sure what limit this is aimed at but at 5/10 or higher I seriously doubt you can beat the games for much with this approach. The opposition is not that clueless.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what limit this is aimed at but at 5/10 or higher I seriously doubt you can beat the games for much with this approach.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would be interested if he did a follow-up post showing his personal stats utilizing this system vs. a standand online player's system of fewer games.

Something like...

Played 100 hours on 3 5/10 tables -- net profit: X dollars

Player 100 hours on 10 5/10 tables -- net profit: Y dollars

99% of my online experience has happened in the last few weeks on my buddy's Party Poker account, so while I have found the games as juicy as I've read over the last year, I can't personally fathom soooooo many tables allowing for any semblance of control. Admittedly, my online experience is lacking so, who knows.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[The Dude]

I can very comfortably 8-table 3-6. In fact, if I had another monitor I would probably 12-table it. (I browse a little when I play 3-6.) I cannot, however, browse while I 8-table 15-30. It takes a much greater degree of concentration from me. I also don't recommend anyone start playing more than 6 tables unless they genuinely don't have much left to learn from that stake.