multi-tabling stud???

[mosta]

hold em players aspire to playing at least 8 tables online? omaha, usually more like 4, I would think. what about stud. does anyone play more than 2 tables at a time?? is 2 a stretch, at higher limits/ tougher games?

[Bartholow]

I play 2 stud and 2 holdem a lot. The holdem tables take so little attention that this is ok. I'm sure I don't keep track of cards as well as I would, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

[mosta]

I don't know what happened to my punctuation...

[BeerMoney]

It's an individual thing. I am only able to play one at a time. Others on here are able to play 3 or 4.

FWIW, although I think there are more good hold em players, I think stud players are more aware of what's going on at their tables. A lot of the time I will follow a maniac from a stud table to a hold em table. The stud players are always fully aware of what's going on, while the players at the hold 'em tables don't catch on as quickly, and I attribute that to multitabling. As a result, I am able to isolate the maniac much easier at the hold 'em than stud tables.

[perfecto]

I can play 4 hold'em at a time with absolutely no problem.

However, I don't even attempt more than 1 stud at a time.

Stud moves fast, especially at the higher limits and there's an incredible wealth of information to be obtained if you pay attention.

I'm willing to believe that there are a few talented souls who can effectively play more than one stud game at a time. But they are far outnumbered by those who believe they can but really can't.

I suspect that most of those stud players who claim to be able to multi-table effectively are either delusional or are basing their conclusions on statistically insignificant runs of dumb luck.

In fact, seeing multi-tabling stud players on the game list is almost as much of an enticement for me to join that game as is seeing a bunch of my fishy buddy-list members playing together in a game.

[nate1729]

Stud's actually easier to multitable at the low-limits, I think. The big problem is that you won't be able to easily keep track of the folded upcards, but as long as you keep track of how live your hand is on third street, you're not giving up too much, compared to how much you make by playing the extra tables. I think stud is easier to multitable because, against unskilled or mildly skilled opponents, you can play quite a bit more mechanically, relying less on player-dependent reads.

By the way, limit omaha would be much more multitablable than limit hold'em.

--Nate

[perfecto]

[ QUOTE ]
Stud's actually easier to multitable at the low-limits, I think. [ QUOTE ]



OK. That's just dumb. Please don't waste our time with such statements.

[Michael Davis]

"OK. That's just dumb. Please don't waste our time with such statements."

Well, I think it's clearly wrong, but 8-tabling low limit stud isn't impossible. You need to pay most attention to your own dead cards on 3rd street, especially with pairs.

Sure, you're going to lose something not remembering the cards that come out in the hand, and not being able to pay much attention to your opponents, and having no clue how the other cards out affect your opponents' hands (because you are definitely not committing time to this). But that doesn't mean that adding more tables against incompetent opponents isn't more profitable than playing less tables better.

The mistakes that your extra opponents will make are many, and will more than make up for the relatively small mistakes you make as a result of multitabling.

Since we're folding most hands on 3rd street, it will be rare when we are involved in three hands at once. Even if this happens, we can just ignore the hands where we are the bring-in with complete garbage.

-Michael

[Bartholow]

Ok, I also think that saying stud is easier to multitable is probably wrong, BUT: who's wasting our time here? The guy with an opinion and some stuff to say, or the guy who writes a one-liner criticizing someone else?

[Steve565]

At the low levels, I am able to play 3 tables (1/2 or 2/4, mostly on Poker Room) and think I am better off than if I was just playing a single table.

Since I'm folding a lot of the time, when I get a good starting hand, I can easliy sit out of another game (or games) and focus on the one.

Clearly I'm sloppier than if I just played one table, but I'm not great anyway, so I prefer getting 3 times the amount of decent starting hands. Especially with the low antes on those games and the spped of the games.

But I agree with the earlier poster, I think it's a very individual thing.

[Steve565]

And, of course, having a large enough monitor where you can reduce the pixels and see all the games is a must for multitabling.

[CarlosChadha]

Hi All,

I usually play 2 tables of 20/40 and 2 tables of 10/20 (or 4 10/20) on party poker, and know of 3 or 4 other winning players who do the same thing. There are a couple things that makes this possible that ALL higher limit stud multi tablers take advantage of: the most important is the fact that you can sit out after any number of hands at no penalty since you pay for each hand as you get it (via ante). This means that I am not really "playing" 4 tables at once, rather, I am "folding" four tables at once, and as soon as I get a hand that might be playable at one table I immediately sit out at the other 3 tables. Note that if you do this in holdem you lose money because you prepay your "ante" every time you are on the blinds. Party poker is set up perfectly to pursue this strategy because the ante is so low, which means that if you are playing correctly you should be folding a lot (whereas at a casino the usually ante for a 20/40 game is $3 at PP it is $2). Also, the fact that the bring in is random at the start of every hand means that there is usually a 1-3 second delay before the bring-in realizes he is the bring in and posts, which gives ample time to glance at your hand and the doorcards, determine if your hand is worth thinking about, click 3 times to sit out at the other 3 tables, and still have time to memorize at least the rank (and hopefully the suit distribution) of all the doorcards.

It is also really important that you take notes on your opponents, at least whenever a hand goes to showdown, and hopefully whenever you are in a hand with them. I would highly recommend sitting out at all 4 tables after a hand goes to a show down so that you have time to analyze the hand history and take notes. For hands that don't do to the showdown, you usually can find time to take a couple notes (as long as you use lot of abbreviations and shorthand) duting the many times when you have folded on all 4 tables and are waiting for your next hand.

The last thing to mention that this doens't work as well at games with a higher ante (below 5/10 on party and ultimate bet, below 3/6 on stars, 30/60 on stars, any paradise or full tilt game) because the higher ante menas that you need to play more hands. Also, stars and pardise don't give you instant hand hostories, so it is not advisable to play as many tables, because you SHOULD be constantly emailing yourself hand histories in order to take good notes on your opponent. Because of these problems (and a lack of games) the majority of my stud play is on party.

Hope that was helpful.

-Carlos

[Andy B]

So you're sitting out a good chunk of the time on any given table, right? What if everyone did this? You would have what appear to be full games, but they would constantly be short-handed while people played hands on other tables. I mostly play live, and I have played with people who will spend a good chunk of their time walking, and it is very bad for the game. Games will be "full" with waiting lists, but these guys will wander to parts unknown half the time. If everyone did as you suggest, the games would cease to exist.

Sitting out on three tables so that you can concentrate on one hand is obnoxious. Sitting out on all four so that you can reflect on a hand and take notes represents the height of nitdom. If you're playing four tables at once, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that anyone should, the only reasons you should be sitting out on all four are if your glass is empty, or your bladder is full.

You've added to my list of reasons why I don't play on-line.

[Roland]

But you’re a human PokerTracker /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CarlosChadha]

Hi Andy,

You make some good points. I'd say that I sit out about 15 to 40% of the time at a given 10-20 table. Indeed, if everyone does as I suggest there would be fewer full handed games, which might annoy some (or many) people. But other than playing short handed, in online play there would never be the problem of the game ceasing to exist because people can switch tables so freely, that everyone who is not sitting out can (and often do) just simply switch tables when the game gets too short handed for their liking.

This is actually a much bigger problem in real life when there are limited resources, like tables and dealers, and players are *forced* to stay on a waiting list, even if there are enough players to start a new game (the only place online that has limited tables is Party's 20/40 game). In this case there are often, as you say, not enough seats to fill demand, and so anyone taking up a seat and not playing is really "wasting" that seat. I would actually think that the fact that you can just switch tables, or start a new table, with the click of a button would be encouragment for you to play online, not a detriment.

In conclusion, the only place online where I would not advocate sitting out a lot as I have suggested are the 20/40 games on Party, where there is always a huge waiting list. In fact, I have often been that game and have had anywhere from 4 to 6 people sitting out at a time, which is indeed obnoxious, and I have complained to those sitting out. This problem would be solved if Party stopped there policy of limiting the number of high limit tables (which I believe will happen in the near future, because it is just unprofitable for them not to offer more of these high limit games like the competition). Since we can't control Party, I will (and encourage others to) only sit out of the 20/40 games when there are no more than 1 or 2 others sitting out, and to sit out at the 10/20 games instead when the game is becoming short handed. Luckily, this is what happens naturally anyway because when there are more than one or two people sitting out, the hands come faster, and thus more attention is needed (not to mention the better players and smaller bringin in 20/40 mean more hands that require thought).

Regards,
Carlos

[Andy B]

I find it incredible that someone will play four tables, routinely sitting out of three or more of them at a time, and then complain when too many people are sitting out on one table. Your complaints probably carry a lot of weight.

I have a lot of reasons for not playing on-line. I think I've mentioned most of them on this forum at one time or another. The main one is that I'm usually not looking for reasons to stare at computer screens (as evidenced by my excessive participation on this forum /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

[CarlosChadha]

Hi Andy,

I agree that it is hypocritical to routinely sit out and then complain when others do so. And as you sarcastically noted, my complaints have done squat. That is why I said that I will try NOT to sit out of a game when
there are already several people sitting out. I don't think we are at a disagreement about how rude it is to sit out at a table with a long waiting list. What is your thought on the rest of what I said concerning sitting out at other limits online where there are an unlimited number of tables?

I am new to this forum, so I haven't read much of why you don't play online. If you want to repeat yourself as to the other reasons you don't play online, I'd be curious to hear them.

Regards,
Carlos

[Cooling Heels]

Not kills a stud/8 game faster than people sitting out. Sometimes two or three people will sit out, then everyone else leaves to break up the game.

Another annoying thing, and this is a minority of the multi-tablers, are the idiots who are either too rude or too dumb to check the auto-ante box. Get two of these clowns on the same table, and the game will break up.

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]
Another annoying thing, and this is a minority of the multi-tablers, are the idiots who are either too rude or too dumb to check the auto-ante box. Get two of these clowns on the same table, and the game will break up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate that. The sites just shouldn't offer that option. I mean, whats the point?

[CarlosChadha]

Hi Heels,

Just to clarify, my comments were directed soley towards stud hi. My stud/8 game is pretty weak...I can barely beat a 5/10 game where I am giving it my full attention.

-Carlos

[Andy B]

You have said that you will sit out on any given table 15-40% of the time. I think that taking up a seat in any game and then sitting out 15% of the time is rude. Most players want to play at a full table.

Perhaps I'll spell out all of my reasons for not playing on-line some other time.

[mosta]

would stud-8 tend to be easier or harder to multi-table? I would think easier b/c you don't have to be so precise about which big cards exactly are dead--with the little cards you can have more of a rough estimate. and the low is usually the main part of the game, I think. but I'm barely a novice.

[schubes]

Aren't you worried that you are giving away too much information by sitting out at the other tables?

I tried this strategy at first playing 2 tables, but I usually notice at least one player who's playing both my tables. By sitting out you're telling all the other multitablers you have a playable hand that needs concentration.

Conversely, they can be more confident that you are going to fold if they see that you are still sitting in at the other tables. I imagine also sometimes you are the bring-in with a trash hand and you DON'T sit out at your other tables. This can be very bad for obvious reasons.

[CarlosChadha]

Hi schubes,

Great point. I am worried about this, and so in the case where another multitabler is to my right (if he is to my left he has position, so he already knows if I have a hand before he has to act) and I have a playable hand, I will not sit out at teh other table where he/she is. Yes, there are rare cases where this happens and then I get a hand that I need to think about on the other table, thus forcing me to make hurried decisions, but it happens so infrequently that it has almost no effect on my overall profitability (even if I am hurried I still have a good chance of making the right decision).

I don't sit out with trash from the Bring in, but on the rare occasions that the hand warps into something good (that requires thought) I will just sit out at the other tables.

Keep in mind that even some playable hands against predictable opposition come up so often that there is almost no thinking involved in playing them, and so there is no need to sit out from other tables in these situations.

-Carlos

[CarlosChadha]

Hi Andy,

I guess we just have different opinions of how much sitting out can be considered rude, so there is not much left to discuss since this is pretty subjective. Luckily for those players that want to be ata full table, most people do not multitable and thus it is pretty easy for them to switch to a full table at any given time.

Regards,
Carlos

[Andy B]

I guess stud/8 would probably be a little easier to multi-table. I play fewer hands at stud/8 than I do at stud. It's relatively uncommon that the cards that are out are going to make you fold a low draw.