PDA

View Full Version : multi-tabling, which is more effective?

PokerFox
09-13-2005, 06:02 PM
For instance:

4-tabling .50/1 with a bankroll of 600, or 2-tabling 1/2.

Which is generally accepted as more profitable/effective?

Assume you can regularly beat both games.

Thanks for your input,

Cheers,
fox
sy_or_bust
09-13-2005, 06:03 PM
Bankroll doesn't work that way. This belongs in micro-limit.
PokerFox
09-13-2005, 06:06 PM
if you're going to play appropriate board nazi, do some inferring to the limits that this board is about.

Which is more effective, 4-tabling 5/10 or 2-tabling 3/6.
brettbrettr
09-13-2005, 06:21 PM
Wrong forum. Try the internet one.
newhizzle
09-13-2005, 06:28 PM
.5/1 is def softer than 1/2, it also depends on how much your game suffers while multitabling, but id do 4 .5/1, actually id do 4 1/2, but between 4 .5/1 and 2 1/2, id choose 4 .5/1
09-13-2005, 06:31 PM
If anything multitabling slightly (very slightly) reduces variance. $600 is an appropriate BR for both those games.
donger
09-13-2005, 08:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If anything multitabling slightly (very slightly) reduces variance. $600 is an appropriate BR for both those games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? We all know multitabling reduces your winrate, since you can't play each table as attentively. A lower overall winrate means higher variance.
newhizzle
09-13-2005, 08:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anything multitabling slightly (very slightly) reduces variance. $600 is an appropriate BR for both those games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? We all know multitabling reduces your winrate, since you can't play each table as attentively. A lower overall winrate means higher variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah but you get more hands per hour, therfore you get to the "long-run" 4 times faster
ncboiler
09-13-2005, 09:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anything multitabling slightly (very slightly) reduces variance. $600 is an appropriate BR for both those games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? We all know multitabling reduces your winrate, since you can't play each table as attentively. A lower overall winrate means higher variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it not reduce your variance? Variance has nothing to do with your winrate. You have have a negative winrate and have a zero variance.