PDA

View Full Version : Multitabling - When to, when to stop, when's it time to add another


smcannon
05-21-2005, 07:11 PM
Right now I am playing low buy in SnG's at a Party. I play four tables at a time. My ITM rate is 33% and my ROI is embarrasingly -16%. Should I play fewer tables?

And if so, when is it time for me to decide to start playing moe tables. If I'm a marginal player on two tables, does that affect my play if I'm on more tables?

Thoughts on multitabling?

Bonafone
05-21-2005, 07:20 PM
Well without knowing how many tournaments you have played, you probably aren't a winner playing 4 tables at a time. I would say drop down to 1 table. Being a winning 1-tabler is far better than playing 4 and losing money.

Just focus on a higher ITM, high 30's would be good. Once you feel comfortable add a second, then a third, and so on.

Blarg
05-21-2005, 07:33 PM
Short answer -- yes. Until you're at least a long-term breakeven player, playing a bunch of tables is -EV.

It's imnpossible to say without knowing how many SNG's you've played if your numbers could possibly mean anything at all, but as a guess, you're probably lacking in heads up and bubble play. Probably too many thirds, which indicates heads up play play flaws most of all.

So what you'll want is not more ITM as much as more ROI. One first is worth more than two third places. If you can boost your ROI with better bubble and HU play, the ITM takes care of itself fairly easily. Even losing players can get ITM's in the mid to high 30's without much problem at all.

You really accomplish nothing playing more tables if you're not winning on them, and may even stunt your poker growth. And even huge winners tend to do better on fewer tables.

Personally, I play two tables almost exactly as well as one, and three not too much worse, and four definitely a bit worse than three. I think almost no matter how bad you are, you can two table and still learn. Maybe three-table, but that's more iffy. I'd suggest putting off four tables and above until you really start to feel like you are making progress in learning the game(even more so than progress in beating it).

raptor517
05-21-2005, 08:47 PM
my guess is you have played under 200 sngs. therefore, you have an inadequate sample. for now, dont concentrate at all on your numbers. really focus on your game. try to learn about what you are doing good/bad/awful, and learn to make it turn into great/great/great. tough, i know, but wiht a bit of time and some marginal effort, you can get there. i recommend dropping to 2 tables or so until you get the hang of things. try posting some hands on 2+2 to get other's thoughts. read everything you find, and read responses. try to weed out the good from the bad. that alone should make you a winner. holla

treeofwisdom7
05-21-2005, 08:56 PM
i can think of one reason a alright player should multi---
1) so you dont go on tilt as much

i play low buy ins just like you but now im doing alright.. dont play at party if you play the 5s.. if you buy in for more play at party. or just play at pokerstars..

at most try two tables and focus.. really you can win any low limit table with focus
GL

smcannon
05-22-2005, 12:08 AM
I've played about 500 now. So while I'm still a newb I'm not a noob. If that makes any sense.

Playing 4 tables I can see how I was missing a lot. But I figured it was a numbers thing. The comments here put me at a different perspective. After playing another set of 4 I went to play another set of just 2. After that I decided to only play one at a time.

So that's what I'm going to do. I found I played better poker with that individual focus.

Bluff Daddy
05-22-2005, 12:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
i can think of one reason a alright player should multi---
1) so you dont go on tilt as much

[/ QUOTE ]

busting out of 3/4 with the best hand puts me on tilt alot more than just 1 does


[ QUOTE ]

at most try two tables and focus.. really you can win any low limit table with focus
GL

[/ QUOTE ]
arent you the guy thats been at the 5+1 for a year playing 2-4 hrs a day?

KSKevin
05-22-2005, 12:33 AM
If youve played 500, you should have a very good idea of how you are playing. With a -16% ROI, you can be sure that you have some serious holes to plug, especially at the low buy ins. Not only this, but there is very little chance that you are a winning player just running poorly. Certainly you should only be playing one table at a time, but you might even stop playing for a while to do some reading and thinking. I dont want to sound rude, but you should be able to beat the 5s and 10s pretty easily after doing just a little reading.

You said you are going to just play one, which is good. And while your ROI should get better, it appears that you still have some serious flaws to correct.

DasLeben
05-22-2005, 12:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If youve played 500, you should have a very good idea of how you are playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. 500 still isn't at all statistically significant.

KSKevin
05-22-2005, 01:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Not really. 500 still isn't at all statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may be possible to have a -16%ROI over your first 500 tournaments and still be a winning player, that chance has to be quite small (less than 15%). The question is at what point you should realize that your negative ROI is not due to variance and stop playing SNGs until you have improved. 500 tournaments is more than enough to get a good idea of whether someone is a winning player. It would be foolish to continue to play with this ROI until you are 99% certain that you indeed have a negative ROI.

DasLeben
05-22-2005, 01:06 AM
Well, I wasn't defending that -16% ROI over 500 is a statistical anomoly (could be though). I was just replying to your sentence that 500 SNGs is somehow a "very good" indicator of how well you play.

microbet
05-22-2005, 01:39 AM
1. Stop playing SNGs altogether.

2. Read a book or two - I haven't read a lot of poker books that I like. I recommend Harrington on Hold'em, eventhough it is not entirely applicable to party STTs.

3. Read The Shadow's first post and all of the threads he links to.

4. Then start playing one table at a time, while continuing to read the forum and occassionally post questions.

After that you should have a good idea when you should add tables or move up levels.

valenzuela
05-22-2005, 01:54 AM
I havent read a single book..Am I doomed or what?

smcannon
05-22-2005, 01:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
1. Stop playing SNGs altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Read a book or two - I haven't read a lot of poker books that I like. I recommend Harrington on Hold'em, eventhough it is not entirely applicable to party STTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Already read it.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Read The Shadow's first post and all of the threads he links to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did that too. Have printed copies on my desk as we speak.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Then start playing one table at a time, while continuing to read the forum and occassionally post questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's some good advice and something I plan to act on immediately.

[ QUOTE ]
After that you should have a good idea when you should add tables or move up levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure I'll build my ROI and ITM percentages up to where I like them then take a stab at adding another table.

microbet
05-22-2005, 02:13 AM
Well, you seem like an intelligent person. I won't bet a case of beer on you or anything, but I won't be surprised if you pull through.

Blarg
05-22-2005, 03:40 AM
If you've just played 500, you're still very much a beginner, so your beginner stats are going to drag you down for a while and not mean much.

They're measuring your skill level right when it's at the most unstable it will ever be. You're going through a pretty notable learning curve, and adjusting your play style around to incorporate your learning.

I just started last month too, and the first thing that happened is I started trying to play in a way I wasn't really used to, using Aleomagus's guide, and promptly started losing. Then I started feeling more natural with it and not being quite as much of a chump, and my results were fantastic. I did about 500-ish games that month, and the first half make me look like an idiot and the second half like a whiz kid. The average of the two isn't all that convincing either. It's just kind of a mess.

I'm learning, and that's what matters. I made some money too, whoopee. But basically I consider my first month's figures pretty much a total write-off information wise.

It seems to me that the worst time to take your stats seriously is probably when you're just starting out and your skill level, play style, and understanding may literally be changing by the day.