Do you play better when playing more than 1 table?

[Silverback]

Do you find you play better when playing more than 1 table?

I think I find I do, as if Im playing only 1 table and get more drawn into playing the players, and maybe try and steal with a few extra hands than I would normally, also getting caught up playing against a LAG and 3 betting hands I wouldnt normally. If playing 2 tables I would have folded,

So in both instances playing looser than I would if I was multitabling.


Does anyone else find this to be true?

Can it hold true for more than 2 tables, and if so how many?

Or do you all find you win most at 1 table and the win rate decreases as more tables are added?

[tolbiny]

i play terribly at 1 table... well, which hardly distinguishes from multitabling. But i do feel more comfortable at 2,as i am less distracted (but not much so) by non poker things. Three tables i probably play my best, most focus per table sort of thing. 4 tables- now there is enough info that i know i am missing out on little things that might help- at 5 tables i have a tendancy to start forgetting how the action has gone on previous streeets- this is a big NO-NO. I have played six tables a couple of times- including last night. Mostly to try to shock myself into doing better at 5. 3 is likely my best winrate/table- 4 is fine, and 5 is where i am currently trying to reside.

[lostinthought]

Yes, but play definitely deteriorates at around 6 short tables and 8 full tables..

as it should.

[Turning Stone Pro]

I play my very best when I play one (1) table against a small number of opponents. This gives the maximum amount of concentration and ability to get a read on particular players on a particular night.

I believe that those who say that they play better with more than one table, since they somehow are able to focus better, are either (1) kidding themselves; or (2) not in the proper frame of mind to play poker in the first place.

Top-flight poker is so much more than pushing buttons on a mouse pad, like what that fake-bird thing was doing at Homer's job at the nuclear power plant when he was trying to get over 300 lbs so he could get disability from work and stay home all day.

I think that, especially when you are running bad, you should drop down to one table and really focus, focus, focus on what you are doing and why. You just have to block out the collateral factors that you claim are making you a better 2-3 table player than 1 table player, since this theory defies the laws of physics.

TSP

[naphand]

I agree with this assessment, but some people really do have a problem concentrating and so probably do focus more on the poker when they are too busy to do something else. It is like people who prefer to have the radio playing in the background when studying/working, it is clearly a distraction not a help. When you learn to focus/concentrate properly, i.e. 100% on the task in hand, you become oblivious to distractions or alternatively completely intolerant of them.

However, it is not a question of

[ QUOTE ]
since this theory defies the laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws of physics do not apply to an individuals ability to concentrate (barring extreme cases, of course, but in those situations the immediate threat of death is likely to help focus the mind on survival and BB/100 has probably receded in importance somewhat). The human body has gone to great lengths to provide a stable physical environment for the brain to function. It is not a question of the basic laws of nature, but has everything to do with mental discipline, something which needs practice and diligence. Mental laziness is not a "law" it is the result of over-indulged westernised appetites for sensory overload, at minimum physical exertion levels.

[Silverback]

It doesnt relate to the law of physics.

If you are multitabling you are playing the cards, and the odds.

If you are playing 1 table you start to play the players,

Everybody here comments on hands played, they are looking at the cards and the odds, they know very little of the player at the table, exactly as it would be if you were multitabling.

If your playing at 1 table surely your play is influenced by far greater reads on your opponents and you might try moves you wouldnt otherwise do.

Also your less likely, (i think) to go on tilt when multitabling, sometimes when only doing 1 table you just dont get the cards, and even when you do get the AA - QQ etc they get beat,

I know a strong player should never go on tilt because of the above, but even so, it can effect your play for the majority of us.

When multi tabling you focus more and sooner and your next hand, no time to dwell, getting pissed off etc

Its best not to get personal at a poker table, and its far easier not to when multi tabling.

The above are just my thoughts on the overal topic, in why I think I play better at more than 1 table.

What you think?

[Turning Stone Pro]

The laws of physics thing was my apparently unsuccessful attempt at humor.

TSP

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of physics thing was my apparently unsuccessful attempt at humor.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol ok

[Bluffoon]

I agree with TSP here.

If you are playing better on multi tables because of concentration issues then your lack of ability to concentrate is a leak.

You can still make more money playing multi tables, even if you are not playing as well as you could if tackled your concentration issues and just played one.

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you find you play better when playing more than 1 table?

I think I find I do, as if Im playing only 1 table and get more drawn into playing the players, and maybe try and steal with a few extra hands than I would normally, also getting caught up playing against a LAG and 3 betting hands I wouldnt normally. If playing 2 tables I would have folded,

So in both instances playing looser than I would if I was multitabling.


[/ QUOTE ]


You are viewing this as looser=bad, in this certain case, you are playing more optimally because you have reads, and are playing better poker, not worse. This is what TSP is talking about. You are playing more optimally than you would with more tables. If it doesnt work out, then you must decide if its variance, or wrong reads.

[Turning Stone Pro]

Bluffoon, I dont have the data to agree or disagree with your last statement. I think, however, that anything that prevents you from playing your best game all the time is going to equate to more variance, especially variance that results from less-than-optimum play (as opposed to the luck factor).

People have different views on this, and I respect that. For me personally, it is more important to play the very best I know how (win or lose), than it is to play several tables and potentially make more $, but also play a slightly worse game.

I dont mind losing if I get tough beats, don't get good cards, or get outplayed by better opponents. This is why I don't mind taking on tough 2+2ers in 6max 15 games - I believe this makes me a better player. What I don't want to do is lose $ because I am not playing my best game all the time. This is the worst-case scenario for me.

TSP

TSP

[rory]

TSP this is the best post I have ever read you make. Excellent, excellent advice.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluffoon, I dont have the data to agree or disagree with your last statement. I think, however, that anything that prevents you from playing your best game all the time is going to equate to more variance, especially variance that results from less-than-optimum play (as opposed to the luck factor).

People have different views on this, and I respect that. For me personally, it is more important to play the very best I know how (win or lose), than it is to play several tables and potentially make more $, but also play a slightly worse game.

I dont mind losing if I get tough beats, don't get good cards, or get outplayed by better opponents. This is why I don't mind taking on tough 2+2ers in 6max 15 games - I believe this makes me a better player. What I don't want to do is lose $ because I am not playing my best game all the time. This is the worst-case scenario for me.

TSP

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I worded that poorly as I usually do. What I was thinking is that I can play better on one table than if I spread my concentration over several, but that it is still more profitable for me to play several tables at once, even if I am not playing optimally (optimally for me anyway).

I would still rather play just one table at a time but I think that is purely a matter of personal preference and I don't think anyone is right or wrong in this issue as long as they are achieving their goals.

[djoyce003]

I guess i'm just a baby, but I do my best at 2 tables. I start having a hard time when it's 3. If i was really concentrating I could probably do it, but i'm playing for money AND fun and it ceases to be a load of fun when it's 3. I did do a little 3 table action last night and won at all three, but that could be as much cards as anything as I felt lost half the time. I can multitable 1 ring, and 2 sh...but can't do 3 sh. I can easily multitable 4 rings.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that those who say that they play better with more than one table, since they somehow are able to focus better, are either (1) kidding themselves; or (2) not in the proper frame of mind to play poker in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you have to remember is that some of our attention spans are shot to pieces.

I would find myself wandering around my house, looking for other things to do, if I played only 1 table.

3, 4 or 5 tables forces me to give poker the full attention it deserves.

Maybe once every 500-1000 hands I find myself in a tricky situation where I can't remember the action.

But if the situation is close, you're probably not making a huge mistake either way. Just act quickly and randomly, as Sklansky suggests in HEPFAP. Hahah.

[Alobar]

I play my best at 2 tables...it still gives me plenty of time to pay attention to everything and get great reads, but it prevents me from getting bored. I know thats a tilt issue, and that if it were something I learned to control and got used to only playing the 80 hands per hour, I would have to be better at 1 than at 2. But as it stands now, im better with 2 tables than one.

[naphand]

I bluff re-raised you... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Silverback]

Maybe the factor with 1 table is that it can be boring if you give the game your full attention, and you find yourself making plays, or even lower your starting hands, just to be in some action.

I dont think this would be the case at a real poker game, you can actually talk to the other players, try and read them etc, but online, it becomes boring, especially at limit.

Seperately a factor why I maybe find it boring, at one table is because my bankroll is spread across many sites, wheras if I pooled it all together I could play at higher limits, and get more of a buzz out of the currently, currently Im $1/$2 on party and $2/$4 elsewhere.