Low winrate? Painful downswings? Then dont .........................

[Silverback]

After reading the thread about thinking of giving up limit holdem,
I guess the players with problems were playing more than 2 tables and maybe at limits multitabling without a sufficient bankroll.

This is how I was going to reply, then I thought put it in its own thread.

======================================

Try playing 2 tables 100% of the time. (not 3 tables 66% 2 tablings 34%)

Shorthanded poker is about playing the players as much as the cards.

Not just playing the players by looking at there GameTime stats, but actually spotting and noting what hands they play and how they certain play hands.

This is not possible more than 2 tabling. IMO

Im sure its possible to win 4 tabling, but the winrate is obviously lower and the swings and especially bad day swings are going to be alot higher.

Also the more tables you play the tighter you should play, less than 24 vpip at a 6 handed table, Im 23 2 tabling 6 handed, if I played 3 tables I would cut out some plays and most likely be around 20-21 vpip.
Im sure most players dont do this, they carry on playing 25-26 vpip which includes alot of marginal hands.

I would guess the best forum players who do play 4 tables and never whine about downswings, low winrates, do play real tight. The few that play looser, well they are the minority, and who knows, maybe they have been fortunate so far.

Sure theres a few experts who no doubt win at a decent rate 4 tabling, but theres a few people/players at most games who are better than the vast majority. They can do that little bit extra and still benefit whereas others who push themselves that little bit further end up being worse of.

Good players with a good understanding of 6 max poker play 2 tables and win well and most likely enjoy the game more.

I personally only ever play 2 tables and my aim is to get as good as possible 2 tabling then move up limits. Not increasing tables.

The game is far more enjoyable 2 tabling, 6 max poker is a strategy game not a formula game (4 tabling), and you have to work out how to beat the other players.

Also if more than 2 tabling you need more than a 600BB bankroll due to the higher swings.

I have a 1000 - 1500BB bankroll, therefore swings dont really bother me.

Im not rushing up limits, I want to enjoy my poker, not get pissed off losing 200BB at a limit I maybe shouldnt be at, thats why it hurts to lose, when you see a big chunk on your bankroll gone.

So basically I think its dont get greedy, dont try playing too many tables, dont rush up limits.

Long time lurker of this forum, etc. etc. and I was moved to finally contribute something by saying how strongly I agree with this post. I play 3/6 6 max. and do okay, but after todays session 4 tabling for a couple of hours I had an almost idenctical thought: although I perhaps make more money per hour like this, in no way do I ever come away feeling like I have played anything close to my best poker. The OP is right. So much more than full ring, where at small stakes it is pretty much just odds odds odds, playing short is all about getting a fix on the other guy. And with four tables running, aside from basic categorisations (fish, TAG, LAG), I find this very difficult to do. Sure, there are some who can, but for the majority I imagine that the amount of information coming in is just too great to compute anything like optimally. Personally, I feel that if I want to play my best, not just grind it out, 3 tables is the absolute limit for my mental agility - 2 even better. And in terms of moving up limits, this should surely be acheived by actually playing good poker, not just multitabling for enough hours until there is sufficient BBs in the roll to have a shot.

[sammy_g]

A few thoughts:

A significant winner at a limit will make much more 4 tabling than 2 tabling, and it isn't close.

You can get specific player reads 4 tabling, but it takes longer. For me, I have to play a few pots with someone to get a read. I can't observe them playing hands with other players since my attention is at another table.

Playing too many tables does slow poker growth, and it encourages more automatic, ABC-type play. It is tough to really think through situations when you are playing three hands at once.

I disagree you have to play tighter when playing more tables. I've been an effective 30/20 player at 5/10 playing 6 tables.

I disagree most good players play 2 tables. The best players probably play 6-8 tables since it means so much more $$$ and they are good enough to beat the games for a lot even without great reads.

Playing more tables is more stressful, and your hourly swings (in terms of $ won/lost) will be much higher.

So, yeah, I agree and disagree. I think it boils down to what your motives are. If you're playing mostly for money, playing lots of tables makes sense. If you're playing for enjoyment or to improve, playing fewer tables makes sense.

[DCWGaming]

...uh...what?

First of all...
[ QUOTE ]
Im sure most players dont do this, they carry on playing 25-26 vpip which includes alot of marginal hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. More tables = naturally less vpip. You tend to play alot less marginal hands from the blinds because other stuff is going on, you steal with less marginal hands, your vpip goes down. Dont know where you heard this, but its wrong.

Second, what is your SD/100? Mine is 14. I bet yours is higher. So if each of us are going to have a down swing over the next 10k hands, you're going to be feeling that swing until the 10k hands are over. 2-tabling that could take weeks. Me? I do 10k hands in 3 and a half days. I'd already be working my way back from my swing before you've even finished with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Also if more than 2 tabling you need more than a 600BB bankroll due to the higher swings

[/ QUOTE ]
You should know why this is wrong...


[ QUOTE ]
Not just playing the players by looking at there GameTime stats, but actually spotting and noting what hands they play and how they certain play hands.

This is not possible more than 2 tabling. IMO

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because you cant get reads when playing more than 2 tables doesnt mean the rest of the world cant.

I am by no means an expert, and I have been running hot for my last 30k hands, but if you look around the forums, you can find a very healthy # of people who are pulling strong win rates from 4+ tables at a time over a long period.

2 tables might work better for you, but the tone of your post was way too universal and does not apply to a large group of people on these forums.

Though I agree with your 'not rushing up in limits too fast' arguement... so does 90% of the forums.


Sorry if i sounded standoffish, I get defensive when people make broad sweeping claims that indirectly tell me that im wrong.

[Catt]

I almost always play 2 tables; sometimes I play 3 but not often. But that's a personal preference as well as a personal limit since I don't think I play 3 tables as well and absolutely blow trying to play 4 tables.

I am very, very skeptical of most all of your assertions that certain things are not possible at 3+ tables, that "good players" do this, or that playing no more than 2 tables is better for all or most players than playing 3 or 4 tables or more. If I were more confrontational I would just say "bullshit;" if I were more confrontational and regularly played 4 tables I would say "bullshit - you have no idea what you're talking about when you try to project your own comfort zone / personal preferences on to the other forum members."

[TwoNiner]

[ QUOTE ]
Also if more than 2 tabling you need more than a 600BB bankroll due to the higher swings


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You should know why this is wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

His reasoning might not be totally correct, but theoretically you do need a higer bankroll to 4 table due to the decreased winrate..

[baronzeus]

Catt:

As important as I think reads are, and as much as they can improve your winrate, (and they most certainly can, and you have stressed this to me more than anyone else) I am strongly in favor of 4 tabling if I feel that I can handle the swings.

The reads you make 4 tabling are not nearly as good as the reads you make 2 tabling, of course. But I think the basis of a solid winning player in lower limit 6max games (5/10 and below) is his or her play in general situations against typical opponents.

4 tabling helps hone this skill and presents the player with a greater variety of decisions that need to be made in a given period of time. While you may disagree with me on this point, I think multitabling is the quickest way to find and fix leaks.

[Stoli7]

Peter_rus wrote in SH threads that he played 2 tables SH. I think most consider him to be a great SH player. 4 tabling you will have to play tighter and can't play as much read specific especially on marginal hands.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter_rus wrote in SH threads that he played 2 tables SH. I think most consider him to be a great SH player.

[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely agree.

[ QUOTE ]
4 tabling you will have to play tighter and can't play as much read specific especially on marginal hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this the case? I know from personal experience this just isn't true, and I'm not exactly God's gift to poker.

sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100. It can be done. Maybe not by everyone, though.

[Poldi]

The swings are worse when multitabling because your winrate is lower.
They are over faster as you play more hands/hour but that doesnt change the fact you lose more and therefore need a bigger bankroll.

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

This man is my god and I now have a new goal. I was going to be content with 4-tabling the $10/20 for 3 BB/100. Apparently, there is more to strive for in that game.

Anyways, 2-tabling is stupidity. If you are comfortable and a winner in the game, and you enjoy money, play 4-tables. Apaprently, I should be playing more though.

[Catt]

Hmmmm. I wasn't clear in my post or you didn't read it carefully. I stated that I usually play only 2 or sometimes 3 tables out of personal preference or personal limitations, but that I essentially vehemently disagreed with the OP's assertions about the "best" way to play short-handed. Basically, in contrast to the OP's point, I think there are lots of folks who can play 4+ tables and still develop outstanding reads, concentrate on each table, and play very well. I am not one of them, but they are out there and I was reacting to the "this is universally the best way to improve one's game or play better" tone of the OP. If I could play 4 tables well, I'd be playing four tables. And when I can play 4 tables well, I will be playing four tables.

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100. It can be done. Maybe not by everyone, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I would very much doubt. He appears in the thread about "ever feel like giving up" with his quote
[ QUOTE ]
me too. it's frustrating. we always want to be better than we are and win more than we do. keeping our success in perspective is difficult, as there's always someone to make our accomplishments look small.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not the talk of someone 8 tabling and winning 3bb/100

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
And when I can play 4 tables well, I will be playing four tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you up your game to 4 tables or would you instead up your limits and still play 2 tables?

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sthief plays like 8 tables of 10/20 with a VP$IP of 30 or somesuch and is winning more than 3BB/100. It can be done. Maybe not by everyone, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I would very much doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. He plays only 6 tables:

link 1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2976133&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

Here is his graph:

link 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3016383&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

I'm really jealous.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you up your game to 4 tables or would you instead up your limits and still play 2 tables?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is much easier beating 5/10 for 3BB/100 playing four tables than 10/20 for 3BB/100 playing two tables.

[Silverback]

Yeah good stats, but I knew there was a huge difference between 6 and 8 tables, also he states in a post in the same thread 50% of his play was 4 tabling.

Also this guy datamines 24/7 and no doubt uses that info to choose very wisely his tables. He is the extreme. He is one of the very few who can perform this well over 80k hands.

[wonkadaddy]

[ QUOTE ]


His reasoning might not be totally correct, but theoretically you do need a higer bankroll to 4 table due to the decreased winrate..

[/ QUOTE ]

bankroll needs are more affected by std dev. than win rate which might actually be lower with a tighter multitabling strategy.

[Silverback]

Your post is very specifically aimed at myself.

Im happy playing 2 tables. Im happy with my winrate. Im also striving to be a better player and feel I personally can do this playing 2 tables as I have more time to think over marginal decisions, decisions which some of the best players have already seen hundreds of time and can make in an instant.

My post was primarily aimed at those players who have a low winrate, actually complain they have a low winrate and also whine about downswings. It wasnt aimed at those killing the game.

[Bob T.]

I agree with a lot of the things that silverback said.

For most of last year, I was beating the 5/10 full and short games handily, and early this year, I decided that I wanted to move from playing 2 tables most of the time to playing 4 tables most of the time.

As I was doing this, I found that I wasn't winning as much money, and I experienced a long period of fairly flat results. I didn't actually have losing months, but at the same time, I wasn't winning as much as I had in the past. Maybe I was just running bad, or maybe there was more to it.

I felt like some of the time, I was getting outplayed, and some of the time, I was making mistakes just based on time pressure, or unfamiliarity with my opponents.

In an effort to get my confidence back, I moved back down to 3-6, and I found that playing 3-6 with 2 or 3 tables, I had a lot of time on my hands, because the decisions that I was faced with were a lot simpler than the ones at 5/10 or 10/20. Go figure /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Anyway, I started playing four tables of 3/6, and I found that I was quite comfortable, and was able to maintain my winrate 4 tabling that game.

Eventually, I started mixing in a table of 5/10, and or a table of shorthanded, and I still feel like I am playing a reasonable game, and making reads and plays based on my opponents.

I anticipate over the next few months, that I will be comfortable playing more tables at 5/10, and more shorthanded tables while still 4 tabling.

I think that like anything else, the switch to 4 tables takes some acclimation, and you might ease the process by moving down a level while you are doing it, so that you aren't faced with as tough as decisions while you are doing the acclimation.

I also think that my game selection has become a little better, because I am picking games from 3/6 full and shorthanded, and 5/10 full and shorthanded, so I have a better selection of games to cherry pick from.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And when I can play 4 tables well, I will be playing four tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you up your game to 4 tables or would you instead up your limits and still play 2 tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would likely play four tables at 0.50/1.00 until I felt comfortable four tabling. Then I'd return to 5/10 and add a 3rd and 4th table assuming I still felt comfortable. When I move up to 10/20, I'll almost certainly begin with 2 tables but would hope to be able to play 4 in time.

I never really tried 4 tabling until I was at 3/6 full -- when I started at 1/2 I was focused on learning to play / improving my play and wanted to move up as quickly as I could. Now I feel I learn more and improve my game more by working offline (studying, reading here, reviewing my play) so the benefits I felt I enjoyed as a newish player from concentrating on each play are less obvious now, and I feel I can capture those benefits primarily away from the tables. The benefits of playing 4 tables well rather than 2 tables well are obvious.

The only reason I even posted in this thread is that I thought your OP was over the top -- the opinions you expressed in the OP may be great and perfectly accurate for you and your game but that doesn't mean they are accurate for others. As I said, if I could play 4 tables well now I would be and I don't think my game would suffer for it (my WR might a bit, but not my game).

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I even posted in this thread is that I thought your OP was over the top -- the opinions you expressed in the OP may be great and perfectly accurate for you and your game but that doesn't mean they are accurate for others

[/ QUOTE ]

Title of thread suggests it was aimed at players with low winrate and whiners about downswings.

[Catt]

Doesn't matter.

I was objecting to your statements about what is and what is not possible for multi-tablers. While I can't currently 4-table well, I know players who can. Whether one's winrate is lower than one would like is immaterial to your series of declarative statements regarding what is possible and what good players do, as well as assuming that anyone 4-tabling is playing a "formula game." Just because you or I can't do it doesn't mean that others can't, and certainly doesn't mean that one must be an expert to do so. Nor does one's opinion that 2-tabling is far more enjoyable than adding more tables ring true for every player.

While I may be sympathetic to a lot of the opinions you raised, they are in fact opinions and not the shining light of truth that your post came across as.

[ggbman]

As is the problem with many posts of this nature, the OP's post is sometimes very good and logical, and in other areas, its horrible flawed.

There are many people who feel like they need to try to play more and more tables because others are doing it scuessfully, and they inceorrectly assume that this automatically means that they can. Some people can play more tables without a significant decrease in the quality of their play, and for others this simply won't be true.

Another thing that was just silly about the OP was the comment about VPIP. While that VPIP might be best for you in your game, i can hands down guarentee you there is nothing magical about your numbers. People who can play well postflop can and should be playing more hands then you are, and to assert that that this is a benefit of two tabling is silly.

As per bankroll, since most people will experience a decline in their WR the more hands they play, having a slightly bigger bankroll is neccesary. However, don't count out the fact that there are some people who play too impatiently 1 tabling, but might tighten a bit since they get more hands in as they play more tables. For these fews exceptions, their WR would not drop as they added a few tables.

In conclusion, it's safe to say that a lot of the low limit short handed games are both soft and predictable, and its fine for many people to play 4-8 tables. Once you get to 10-20, it becomes more difficult, although i still find 6 tables quite manageable. People who aren't good at multi-tabling and experience significant drop offs in their play should not do it, and you should always add one table at a time to see how comfotable you are with it.

Gabe

[SomethingClever]

Poker is all luck anyway. Doesn't matter how many tables you play.

/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is all luck anyway. Doesn't matter how many tables you play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why the game is banned in Norway. Norwegian government says no skill involved.