Quick question - Learning Rate when playing multiple tables

To start with, let me say that I am pretty bad at poker, I am in no way an expert, but I really want to learn.

Right now I am playing 0.50/1.00 6-Max and 3 or 4 tabling (depending on the site). I am beating the game for a good clip, but think that if I played better I could easily add 3 or more bb/100 hands. This is only from errors that I recognize I made before the hand is over (i.e. Raising 2 overcards on the buton against 3 other opponents on a coordinated flop, one of those plays that make your slap your head and go 'DOH!' about 1 second after you make it - Another example is calling down too much when I am almost always behind). I think that I could add even more if I really studied on here more than I do and looked for the small differences, like finding those single bet 'value bets' or learning to make good laydowns based on reads, etc. My thinking is that it is these 'value bets' and laydowns that make a winning player at 5/10+, as the win rates are lower and the players are better.

Now while I fully realize that I really need to improve before I get too much higher, but I am ready to start to play 1/2 (based on advice from this forum, I have lots of Bankroll so that is not a concern).

My question is this: How much does learning drop off when multitabling? If you could rank them interms of tables played what would the rankings be? Using 1 table as 100% learning (and assuming that each additional table decreases learning opportunities as you are not paying as much attention to each hand). For Example:

1 table - 100%
2 table - 75%
3 table - 30%
4 table - 10%

Where I am going with this is....if you are still learning to 'master' a level should you really be playing 4 tables or is that only for raking in the cash after you have mastered the level? (assuming that you can master a level - Lets say beating it for 3.5+ bb/100 at 5/10 for example)

Just something that I am thinking about, as I know that I shouldn't go to 4 tables as soon as I move up to 1/2, but don't know if I should start with 2 or 3, or 1. I will likely start with one, but if the feedback is that it really drops off at 2, then I will likely stay with 1 longer than I would normally.

Thanks for the replys

margon

[DCWGaming]

Uh...there really is no unit of measurement to show how much you've learned.. But there is no way this question can be answered in a global sense. Some people cant handle more than a couple tables, some people get bored playing less than 4. It's a question you'll have to answer for yourself.

If you think you'll learn faster playing 1 table, then that is obviously the best route for you to take. You'll need to experiment around yourself though. This really isnt an answer you can get from someone else.

[Grisgra]

I'm going to stop replying to threads like this eventually, because it probably hurts my long-term win rate . . . but in my opinion you should 2-3 table a limit, no more, and then move up as fast as reasonably possible. I think that *most* people do not learn as much when 4+ tabling, or even 3+ tabling, because they are not observing hands that they are not participating in.

Why 4+ table 1/2 when you could be 2-tabling 3/6? Why 4+ table 3/6 when you could be 2-tabling 5/10? Why 4-table 5/10 when you could be 2-tabling 10/20? And so on.

Eventually, you may reach a limit (i.e., 4+ tabling 5/10) that you aren't interested in getting better or making more money, and just want to coast on the very respectable win rate you can knock out at said limit. Not the way I think about things, but . . .

As far as learning rate goes . . . like I said, player reads become more and more important the higher you go in limits, and your ability to make those reads suffer when you play lots o' tables. At least, they suffer for 90% of players. Finally, let me note that when people post in HUSH about horrible downswings or horrible plateaus, said posters are almost always 4+ tablers. I don't think that this is a coincidence.

[helpmeout]

4 tabling 50c/$1 lol

What crap are they preaching in the micros these days.

You shouldnt even bother with 2 tables until you hit 3/6 or 5/10.

Reasons:

1. Cos you suck and dont know how to play yet
2. You should be taking in so much information
3. You should be focusing on how to play each hand properly
4. You should be learning not trying to increase your poor excuse of an earn rate

[ QUOTE ]

1. Cos you suck and dont know how to play yet
4. You should be learning not trying to increase your poor excuse of an earn rate

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why you had to be rude on this....

Margon

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Why 4+ table 1/2 when you could be 2-tabling 3/6? Why 4+ table 3/6 when you could be 2-tabling 5/10? Why 4-table 5/10 when you could be 2-tabling 10/20? And so on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe because you can win at the same hourly rate with lower bankroll requirements when you four-table 1/2 than when you two-table 2/4.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, let me note that when people post in HUSH about horrible downswings or horrible plateaus, said posters are almost always 4+ tablers. I don't think that this is a coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

___1___

[einbert]

The learning process doesn't depend so much on the number of tables you are playing as it does the ability to consciously and deeply think about every hand you are playing. That is the key and that is the only way you will ever learn anything significant in this game.

Of course, it only logically follows that most people will be able to deeply think about hands more easily if you are playing 100 hands per hour than if you are playing 200 hands per hour. But that is not the fundamental aspect of it, and if you are willing and able to think deeply and consciously about 240+ hands per hour, by all means do so. You will move up rapidly in limits and will be crushing 30/60 in no time.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
The learning process doesn't depend so much on the number of tables you are playing as it does the ability to consciously and deeply think about every hand you are playing. That is the key and that is the only way you will ever learn anything significant in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the essential point. It boggles my mind how quickly the players on party poker reach for the raise/fold/call buttons.

[helpmeout]

I'm just being honest dont take it personally.

People at lower limits are new players who should be looking to improve not increase their bankroll.

Every hand you play has something for you to think about.

How good is my hand? Should I fold here? call or raise?
What are the benefits of each?

What hands do my opponents likely have?

How are they playing?

These are the things you need to learn to become better. To become a small winner at 5/10 6max really doesnt take that much.

You just have to learn all these basics.

Once you master them all you will be playing much higher and will be able to multitable for a decent earn.

By playing too many hands you also reinforce bad habits which take a while for you to untrain.

[DCWGaming]

Think of it this way.

If you are perfecting your game at 3/6 you think they should be playing 1 table to get in as much information as possible.

But how would this player know if he's beating 3/6? Especially shorthanded. Assuming you need 50k hands for a somewhat reasonable estimate of your BB/100, it would take you 500+ hours of play before you know. And someone who is making their move up the limits for the first time will NOT know that without confirmation from PT.

So if you are playing full time, it would take you about 3 months to confirm whether or not you are beating the limit you are on. This does not mean you could move up after those 3 months. That just means you sort of know where you stand.

A part time player would probably be at the same limit for a year before he had a reasonable sample if he only 1 tabled.



This is why multitabling is a much more efficient way to deal with things. You may learn slower, but you can confirm your abilities MUCH faster and probably have alot more to show for your efforts as well.

[helpmeout]

That is rubbish.

If you know what you are doing you can see how you are beating them.

At low limits you dont need 50k hands to tell whether you are a winning player.

You only need to have a high enough bankroll for moving up you dont need 50k hands to confirm hey I'm now a 2bb/100 winner I can move up.

You move up with your 300BB or 500BB for 6max then move down if things go bad.

And what does going pro have to do with anything? he is playing 50c/$1.

If you are playing $3/$6 for a living you need a brain transplant.

Thank you for the replies so far. As an added point to DCWGaming, another aspect of moving up, beyond bankroll and skill, is confidence. I want to be sure that I am ready to move up, and this is hard to tell if you are basing it on a small sample size. Some people may be willing to move as soon as they have the roll, but with bonuses and rakeback, rolls grow FAST. I am thinking that I would want a significant sample at each level before moving up to ensure that it is a skill gain and not a variance gain that has me beating a level.

Just another thought as to why multi-tabling is a good thing.

However, I really appreciate the comments, it has given me something to think about. I think that I may not go down to one table, but 2 or 3, rather than 4 seems reasonable. I think that I have ADD and one tabling leads me to doing other things at the same time.

Again, thank you for all the responses!

Margon

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why 4+ table 1/2 when you could be 2-tabling 3/6? Why 4+ table 3/6 when you could be 2-tabling 5/10? Why 4-table 5/10 when you could be 2-tabling 10/20? And so on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe because you can win at the same hourly rate with lower bankroll requirements when you four-table 1/2 than when you two-table 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

At 1/2 you should be far more concerned about BB/100 than hourly rate. Think about moving up, not about grinding.

[arkady]

Yeah this cannot be stressed enough. Unless you are a very gifted player 4 tables will reduce your win rate. It will no matter how good u think are!

Therefore swings will be more prevalent. Grisgra's table reduction advice is helpful for those that do not want to endure and experience the emotional turmoil of 6max swings. The only downswide to all of this is that it becomes difficult to determine one's true win rate since the results converge slower. Slow and steady wins the rate, preach on Gris!!

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah this cannot be stressed enough. Unless you are a very gifted player 4 tables will reduce your win rate. It will no matter how good u think are!

Therefore swings will be more prevalent. Grisgra's table reduction advice is helpful for those that do not want to endure and experience the emotional turmoil of 6max swings. The only downswide to all of this is that it becomes difficult to determine one's true win rate since the results converge slower. Slow and steady wins the rate, preach on Gris!!

[/ QUOTE ]

And while it make take longer to determine one's true win rate, it does not take longer to determine that one is a winning player. A 2-tabling 2BB/100 player at 20k hands is going to be more confident he's a winning player (and more likely to be up overall) than a 4-tabling 1BB/100 player at 40k hands.

[DCWGaming]

Rubbish? Uh...

I'm sure YOU could tell how and why you are beating a certain limit without a good sample size. This is because you have been playing for quite some time.

What about a newer player who happens to be going through a downswing? What about a 20k hand downswing? You think this new player will be convinced that he can move up in limits if he is losing? Hell, alot of pros arent even convinced that they are winning during their massive losing streaks.

For a newer player running 1 table at a time, 10k hands would be 100 hours of play. 100 hours of losing poker isnt exactly going to encourage someone, even if they are making all of the right plays.


[ QUOTE ]
If you know what you are doing you can see how you are beating them.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like the question at hand here is players who are moving up the limits for the first time. For an experienced player such as yourself, these things would be easy to recognize. But for a new player it is very hard to get away from the results-oriented mindset. If a new player was taught by the best and is playing a perfect game, but is losing, he is not thinking that variance will eventually even things out. He is thinking "what am I doing wrong here?"


In addition...a 10k hand (100+ hour) downswing would probably be enough to make a newer player quit the game. If

I ever lose for 2 months straight... hell, I might even quit. But over 2 months i'd have 120k hands in, while a 1-table part-time player would have probably 10k.

1-tabling for learning is a good thought. But I dont think it is effective unless you multitable just as often.


*edit*
[ QUOTE ]
And what does going pro have to do with anything? he is playing 50c/$1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh...i didnt say anything about going pro. I did say "full time" which was in reference to # of hours played, not what you make your living off of. I know plenty of students who play well over that # of hours and havent "gone pro".

[arkady]

Thats a damn good point too, I was running at 1.4 for a looooooong time, like almost 100k hands. You can imagine how many 200bb downers I had and overall it was just a very frustrating and unpleasant experience.

By reducing tables one can move up in limits, actually PLAY poker using intelligence rather than robotic responses and quite possibly incease the money intake. I don't know how or where it happened, but everyone just kept adding more and more tables.

Here is the poker life cycle imo.

You go from 1 table to 2 to whatever 4,8 and then you increase the stakes, become smarter and go exactly backwards from 8,4 whatever to 2 and maybe to 1.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
You go from 1 table to 2 to whatever 4,8 and then you increase the stakes, become smarter and go exactly backwards from 8,4 whatever to 2 and maybe to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree with this, except you forgot to add:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>int SomeNumber = rndint(1,20);
for(int x=1;x&lt;SomeNumber;x++){
Run really good! Move up;
Move up, get hammered! Move back down;
}</pre><hr />

Just throw that in there right before "become smarter" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Womble]

I think it is important to learn at the lower levels. Max 2 tables unless you have to clear a bonus quickly. I agree that it is difficult to know when you are ready to move up but I think 2 things are important.

Take time over a few sessions, are any recurring situations making you question your play? When you play lots of tables, you may miss these and forget to post about them afterwards since there are so many more hands. When you become confident in your decisions most of the time you will be more confident at the new level. Make sure you look over your hands thoroughly. I play about 50-100 hand sessions and I can easily check over all of them

Make sure that you understand the increased stakes. You cant play scared at a new level and you lose alot by not going over 2-3 bets just because you dont want to lose it.

[helpmeout]

Lower limit players will not go through 20k hand downswings primarily because their equity is so much higher.

The players at 50c/$1 and up to $2/$4 are so bad that an extremely good player could theoretically win 6-7BB/100 compared to maybe 4bb/100 at higher levels.

This makes large downswings very rare, 100BB is like 200BB compared to the bigger games.

Sucky 4tablers playing low limits will experience these downswings because they have a much smaller edge. They will also overstay their time at the lower limits because of a lower equity.

It doesnt take much to move up from the low limits personally I didnt play more than 10k hands at any limit until I hit 5/10 6max. My basic study was learnt at the nano limits these days most jump straight into 50c/$1.

Did I know I was a winner? Just look at past results. If you are running at 8bb/100 at the nanos and 5bb/100 at 50c/$1 $1/$2 over 10k hands each then its highly likely you are a winning player.

If you are running at below 3bb/100 at lower limits then you cant be as sure.

If you have the books and do the study you will know that you are a winner you dont need 100k hands to tell you. Your knowledge of the game should be so much higher than those at your limit.

[DaSpade]

[ QUOTE ]

If you have the books and do the study you will know that you are a winner you dont need 100k hands to tell you. Your knowledge of the game should be so much higher than those at your limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I feel Poker is not all about reading books. You need many, many and many more hands under your belt to get the feel for the game and the limit. It depends on the person to get the confidence level for the next limit -- some require &lt;10K hands and others &gt;100K hands - I posted a 3BB/100 WR at 1/2 and moved up to 3/6 and am presently crushing that limit - well, if I don't consider the 110BB downswing I am presently at /images/graemlins/cool.gif I completely agree that one should be more knowledgable than the average player at his limit.

And I'm DRUNK.