4-tabling vs 2-tabling

[cartman]

(I realize this is completely subjective, but enough of us have probably have experience with both or know others who do or have simply read this forum enough in the past to have a pretty good idea. I am interested in answers for 5/10 6-max and 10/20 6-max especially.)

Not counting rakeback...

What do you estimate the impact of moving from 4-tables to 2-tables or vice-versa is on our BB/100?

For example, lets say a player is a 3BB/100 winner playing 2 tables. What would you expect him to win 4-tabling?

An example the other direction. What would you expect a player who is a 2BB/100 4-tabler to win if he dropped down to 2 tables?

Any other examples, experiences, estimations, etc. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Cartman

[marand]

[ QUOTE ]
(I realize this is completely subjective, but enough of us have probably have experience with both or know others who do or have simply read this forum enough in the past to have a pretty good idea. I am interested in answers for 5/10 6-max and 10/20 6-max especially.)

Not counting rakeback...

What do you estimate the impact of moving from 4-tables to 2-tables or vice-versa is on our BB/100?

For example, lets say a player is a 3BB/100 winner playing 2 tables. What would you expect him to win 4-tabling?

An example the other direction. What would you expect a player who is a 2BB/100 4-tabler to win if he dropped down to 2 tables?

Any other examples, experiences, estimations, etc. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very individually, some players might have problems keeping up with 4 tables and would have a terrible drop in winrate.
But if you feel like it is no problem for you then I would think that you make more $/h playing 4 tables.

I would guess that if you make 3 BB/100 playing two tables you would make a little more than 2 BB/100 playing 4 tables.
And someone making 2 BB/100 on 4 tables would probably make a little less than 3 BB/100 on 2 tables.

Just a guess, I don't have any statistics or anything to back this up with.

Perhaps you should first try 3 tables though. I find 3 tables to be "relaxing" while 4 tables takes a lot of energy playing for me.

[Rudis]

1-2 0.5BB/100
2-4 tables hardly any difference...
4-5 0.1
5-6 0.1
6-8 0.5

Would be my guesstimates...

[nervous]

Some people can multitask better and will even maintain close to the same winrates playing more tables. Others may be completely lost and 3BB/100 may turn into a losing player.

Since I only have information that is valuable for full ring, I will share. I am a great multitasker. I was originally playing 4 full tables and beating it at 2.5bb/100. Then I moved to a stage where I played anywhere from 8-12 tables. My winrate still stayed above 2 for a while and eventually climbed to over 2.5bb/100, presumably as I became a better player.

Since this will probably affect shorthanded play more, the information above is only useful to some point.

FWIW, I've only tried 6tabling shorthanded games as that's what I've been recommended to do, and it doesn't seem too hard.

It just affects everyone differently.

[helpmeout]

Your future earn is what matters.

Playing 4 tables hinders your development as a player.

Many low limit and small stakes players pick up bad habits.

Their game is not complete, they fail to continue learning and losing the bad habits they have picked up because they have repeated their bad habits so many times.

This is why playing 4 tables isnt good for most players.

Too many people think about oh well im earning 2BB/100 at 2 tables so if I play 4 and still make 1.5BB/100 plus rakeback I'll be way ahead.

Personally I'd rather earn 2bb/100 at 2 tables continue to improve, move up and make 2bb/100 at a higher limit.

Move up again while Mr 4table + rakeback guy is still grinding away in the low limits.

[Rudis]

As I move up limits I go down in number of tables.
And then work my way up.
Multitabling SH is a very different task then fulltable...
I have no problem playing 10 full tables.
It's a straighter game. At least on the levels I've played.

[cartman]

I play 4 tables now but I am sure that eventually when I start 10/20 I will play only two, at least until I'm convinced I can beat it sufficiently (and I don't plan on it for a while because I still feel like I have a ton of room to improve) I am asking because I am trying to get a feel for how far I have to go. In other words, I'm trying to estimate what my BB/100 would be if I only played two tables of 5/10 and whether that number would deem me "capable" of moving up whenever I did decide to.

That being said, my overall win rate (exclusively 4-tabling) for my first 100K hands at 5/10 is almost exactly 2BB/100. I feel like I am better than that now due a little bit to a constant preflop evolution, but due primarily to some substantial postflop improvement in the last couple of months.

I wouldn't want to make the move until I was convinced that I could beat the 5/10 game for at least 3BB/100 two tabling, but I also don't want to drop down to 2 tables for 50K hands just to establish a win rate that I wouldn't be able to trust anyway!

Does anyone have an estimate?

Cartman

[krishanleong]

go buy some balls and take a shot.

Krishan

[cartman]

I'm not lacking the balls. I played blackjack full time for about 4 years when I got out of college. That game is more brutal on an average day than poker could EVER be. The bankroll swings make poker swings look nonexistent. It's just that the $100/hour that I am making right now is very meaningful money to me. I can dramatically change my financial world if I just maintain my current rate for the rest of the year. My intention is to pile up plenty of cash and then move up, not to take a shot but to stay--no matter how long it takes to learn. I wake up in cold sweats at night afraid that somehow internet poker is going to be gone overnight. I would want to run over myself with my car if I moved up and spun my wheels adjusting for a couple of months and then suddenly the game was gone. I think this is severe paranoia, however, and I appreciate you blasting my ass.

Cartman

[StellarWind]

I'm not as adept at multitabling as many of you. Four tables of 3/6 full was a strain for me and I often just played three.

Now that I've moved up to 5/10 6-max I find that two tables are easy while three tables is a strain. I'm working on it and expect to master it eventually.

One big advantage to playing less tables is I almost always have awesome tables. I have time to search and I can afford to cherry pick the very best because I don't need many.

I also find that I have a decent feel for what is going on at each table. I make a special point of watching the 1 or 2 players per table that don't have stats and I also notice players who aren't following their "script". For example, last night I made a lot of extra money because I almost immediately noticed when the big loose/passive fish "adjusted" to me. He started donking my PFRs on the flop and taking stabs heads up on the river. I think most multitabling automatons would have lost some pots before they caught on. But I check a lot of hole cards and I saw some of his flop bets before the first river shot came.

It's really a very personal thing. I need to think more than some players but I get a lot of value out of that thought. Other players are less good but can reproduce their decent play over many tables with little loss of quality. I think of it as video game talent and if it works for them they should do it.

Winning poker players understand and respect their strengths and weaknesses. The worst thing you can do is try to be something you are not.

[aslowjoe]

I play 3 at once.I find the fourth table takes away a lot. Your 4th table you have open is not as juicy , your reads are a little more imprecise. For me just a tad more rushed. To me the difference between 2 and 3 would be very slim. Between 3 and 4 has to cost me at least 1BB/100 probably more.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not as adept at multitabling as many of you. Four tables of 3/6 full was a strain for me and I often just played three.

Now that I've moved up to 5/10 6-max I find that two tables are easy while three tables is a strain. I'm working on it and expect to master it eventually.

One big advantage to playing less tables is I almost always have awesome tables. I have time to search and I can afford to cherry pick the very best because I don't need many.

I also find that I have a decent feel for what is going on at each table. I make a special point of watching the 1 or 2 players per table that don't have stats and I also notice players who aren't following their "script". For example, last night I made a lot of extra money because I almost immediately noticed when the big loose/passive fish "adjusted" to me. He started donking my PFRs on the flop and taking stabs heads up on the river. I think most multitabling automatons would have lost some pots before they caught on. But I check a lot of hole cards and I saw some of his flop bets before the first river shot came.

It's really a very personal thing. I need to think more than some players but I get a lot of value out of that thought. Other players are less good but can reproduce their decent play over many tables with little loss of quality. I think of it as video game talent and if it works for them they should do it.

Winning poker players understand and respect their strengths and weaknesses. The worst thing you can do is try to be something you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I'm the same in almost all respects, and I had been feeling a little inadequate for it. Have you thought about trying to practice at lower limits to get used to the pace? I was thinking about trying to 4-table 1/2 or 3/6 just to get used to the (perceived) frantic pace.

[Rudis]

Also, I want to point out that:
1. 10/20 is looser. (2.5-3 vpip on avg)
2. It's more aggressive, with more tactical raising and more semibluffreraising, c/r.
3. The rake is almost 0.75BB/100 less.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not lacking the balls. I played blackjack full time for about 4 years when I got out of college. That game is more brutal on an average day than poker could EVER be. The bankroll swings make poker swings look nonexistent. It's just that the $100/hour that I am making right now is very meaningful money to me. I can dramatically change my financial world if I just maintain my current rate for the rest of the year. My intention is to pile up plenty of cash and then move up, not to take a shot but to stay--no matter how long it takes to learn. I wake up in cold sweats at night afraid that somehow internet poker is going to be gone overnight. I would want to run over myself with my car if I moved up and spun my wheels adjusting for a couple of months and then suddenly the game was gone. I think this is severe paranoia, however, and I appreciate you blasting my ass.

Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. Moving up and trying to stay there is not the best way to approach moving up limits. I think it's much much better to take a shot, play 1K hands. There are several things that can happen.

1. You run well and get to stay.
2. You get to know the differences between the limits so you know what to work on at 5/10.

What happens if you move up and try and stay there?

1. You run well.
2. You run badly, lose confidence, start doubting yourself and potentially damage your game.

I basically wait until I run well to move up. I keep taking shots and dropping down until I have a good streak.

Krishan

[pyroponic]

It surprises me how much trouble people seem to have playing four tables. I just assumed everyone here has played at least four at lower limits ($0.5/1 - $3/6) before moving up. 8-tabling full ring makes 4-tabling 6-max look like a cakewalk in my opinion, mainly because finding tables and rotating them is much much easier.

[me454555]

If your playing 10 tables, you can't possibly be improving. You're reacting and exploiting the easy situations in the game. The tougher situations require thinking and analysis that playing 10 tables doesn't allow.

[pyroponic]

What about 4 tables?

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
If your playing 10 tables, you can't possibly be improving. You're reacting and exploiting the easy situations in the game. The tougher situations require thinking and analysis that playing 10 tables doesn't allow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Krishan

[OrianasDaad]

It depends entirely on what portion of that players' winrate is derived from the extra attention two tables gets over four.

[lefty rosen]

I'm too lazy to not get severe overlap at 4 tables. Basically I can play 3 with severe overlap and have decent reads on every player. I don't use poker tracker and wont bother with 4 unless I get it or bother to adjust my monitor. The only players I can play with confidence at 4 are the rocks that I have notes on the rest are stabs in the dark.......

[helpmeout]

Exactly

[Transference]

I evolved playing 3 due to technological constraints. Now that I've moved to 5/10 im comfortable playing 3, but feel rushed with 4. It may be a reflection of the significant jump in stakes and that I've just never become terribly accostomed to 4 tabling, but is probably a bit of both.

For me anyway 3 is not much more difficult than 2, but 4 is significantly more difficult than 3.

[me454555]

4 tables is a bit much, but still doable and gives you a chance to think about most of the hands

[redbeard]

I can't comment on the win rates, but I can give my experience at the 3/6 full games and the newly formed 3/6 6 max games. I had zero problem 4 tabling at the full games. It simply is a different animal than the short handed games. In the short handed game I started with 2 tables and found it to be a breeze. I moved to 3 tables and found it to be fairly easy as well. But when I moved to 4 tables I found it to be a bit of a strain. I am very demanding on my table selection and I felt as if I was spending a lot of time looking for another good table and missed some of the player dependant reads on the other three tables. Again this is a short sample size (less than a week, but it is all I have to draw from).

[redbeard]

just to simplify your blackjack v poker comparison let me say that I too played blackjack as my sole form of income and now play poker as my exclusive form of income and here is an analogy to describe the two: poker is like throwing a bullet and blackjack is like shooting it out of a gun. if you haven't played blackjack for a living pretend someone took a hammer and smashed your balls on a daily basis. The swings in one shoe of blackjack are greater than the swings in one week of poker at similar betting levels.

[Carmine]

UH, just out of curiosity. For the players that said they were playing blackjack fulltime. I assume you acquired the ability to count cards....yes?? Sorry for taking this off-topic.

[cartman]

Counting or variations of it (shuffle tracking, Ace location, etc.) are the only ways to beat blackjack in the long run (and the long run is eternal). There are tons of books out there that make claims to the contrary all of which are dead wrong (or at minimum misleading). I am not saying that a player can't be lucky and win without counting in some form. I am just saying that it is the only way to achieve a mathematical edge. Occasionally a casino will offer a game which is actually slightly in the player's favor just by playing basic strategy.

Cartman