On playing many tables at once

[Double Down]

Hi. I first want to say thanks for all of the great info on this site. I have been a much bigger lurker than poster and have found this forum very useful.
I have played about 700 sngs at 215 (yes, I know not that many) and even though I am at a razor thin 6% ROI, the swings are just too great for my bankroll so I decided recently to try and have a go at the 55s. Things are going very well so far, but my question is for those of you who play 4, 8, or more tables at once. I usually only play 2 at a time and the few times that I've played 4 at once, I find that I end up following the action on each table siginficantly less (obviously) but it's to the point where I find myself making the autopilot plays on each table, especially when I have 3 other tables flashing.

I also find that by playing more tables, I am much less aggressive in the later rounds with pushing, which as we know is one of our biggest advantages at these sngs. I think the passiveness comes from the fact that I have not been watching the table, and don't know any of the other players tendencies, so I don't know if I may be pushing into a major loose caller who will call with ace rag, etc.

Of course, that's just one small example of where lacking information makes us make a less than perfect move. Yes, I am aware that by playing more tables our $ per tourney goes down but our hourly $ increases.

I guess my question is is the "usual correct move" method what we're supposed to do when playing so many tables? Just take a quick glance at the table, sum up the situation, and either push or fold?

I also have seen a tendency that the longer someone takes to push when on the button, it gets more callers. Playing so many tables at once, I find that I'm not getting away with as many pushes because of the few seconds lost by the time I get to the table, sum up the situation, and make the move because the players see it as hesitation and weakness.

Do those of you who play many tables also encounter these problems? If so, how do you counter? Am I doing something wrong?

[helpmeout]

Dont worry about playing too many tables, people who do that are usually weak players who are forced to play an ABC style to collect rakeback.

Most usually experience burnout after a year or so and give up.

Best thing to do is just to add tables at different times so that you arent playing too many SH at once.

Say you open 2 tables to start wait until say level 3 until you add another.

That way you dont experience the craziness of having 3-4 tables of shorthand with some being HU.

Adding extra tables is a gradual thing no need to overdo it.

[Sabrazack]

"Dont worry about playing too many tables, people who do that are usually weak players who are forced to play an ABC style to collect rakeback."

Thats kind of a direct insult to half the people who visit this forum. Not only that, i think its wrong too, i don´t see myself as a weak player. Yet i 8-table the 22$ tournaments. Yes, i play pretty much ABC poker. BUT if i wanted to i could reduce the table number to two and make alot more fancy plays depending on reads which would of course increase my ROI, but not my $/h.

[helpmeout]

If you are playing $22 SNGs as your main game you are a weak player, dont be fooling yourself.

I'm not gods gift to poker either but I know that playing 8 tables is not going to increase your earn as much as improving to play higher limits.

Your aim as a low limit player is to improve to play higher limits not to make a few extra $$ shortterm.

When you are beating the $200 games then you can worry about adding extra tables.

[EnderFFX]

"If you are playing $22 SNGs as your main game you are a weak player, dont be fooling yourself."

Ok that is a blanket statement. Those who play the $22 may just have a small bankroll, may need to take money out to pay bills and thus can never move to the next level, or just may enjoy the level of competition.

"I'm not gods gift to poker either but I know that playing 8 tables is not going to increase your earn as much as improving to play higher limits."

Ok first of all you are acting like gods gift to poker by calling people out just based on the level tournament they play, that is weak. Second learning to play multiple tables is a skill just like learning to play the upper limit tables.

"Your aim as a low limit player is to improve to play higher limits not to make a few extra $$ shortterm."

My aim as a low limit player is to make money with low variance.
Joe Bob's aim is to find an enjoyable tournament atmosphere without losing a lot of money.
Mike's aim is to regroup from a horrible run at the $50's that left him with under $1,000, so he is going to build back up slowly.

When you pay for my tournament buy-ins and let me keep the profits, then you can tell me how to play and what my aim is.

"When you are beating the $200 games then you can worry about adding extra tables."

Some of us have no desire to get that high. We know how good the players are at that level. Some of us don't like throwing $200+ for a 45 minute tournament. Some of us cash out every time we get over $2k.

[Sabrazack]

I play 8 tables as a side income while studying. I don´t have that much time to play in, so i play a limit where i know i can win. When i feel i have some spare time i play less tables to try and work on my SNG game abit more. And as for moving up in limits, i simply don´t want to. Im comfortable where i play now and can emotionally handle the swings without it affecting the rest of my life. If that makes me a weak player by your definition, then fine, i guess i am.

Oh, and sorry for the thread hijacking. About multitabling, i added one table at a time pretty much until i felt comfortable with playing that extra table. The more play experience you get at a certain level the faster you can make decisions and therefore play more tables.

[Double Down]

Thanks to everyone for the input. And by the way, regarding the debate of why people play at certain levels, let me remind you that I have been beating the 215s for awhile, but decided to drop to the 55s because I quit my job and am now doing this full time, and my bankroll can only handle the 55s for now.
My main question though is this: Is there anyone that plays 8 or more at a time and DOES NOT play ABC poker? Also, by playing so many tables, what is the expected ROI and ITM% by playing this ABC poker? Just wondering what I should be shooting for. Thanks again.

[Sabrazack]

These answers are in the FAQ i think. So im not going to guess. I play my 8 tables in sets, this means i will have more time to focus on the later stages of the game which are more important. This sometimes enables me to do read based plays, meaning not ABC poker.

I think that at the buy-ins lower than $55 you can get a 20% ROI or higher just by playing ABC poker. Then I do mean that you don't have any leaks in your ABC game, and that you play great on the bubble.
Aren't people usually saying that you shouldn't do 'fancy plays' at the lower buy-ins, simply because you can win enough by exploiting the huge mistakes the players make there?

[Mr_J]

"If you are playing $22 SNGs as your main game you are a weak player, dont be fooling yourself."

I've mostly played $22s, but that's because of bankroll. I'd consider myself a stronger player than many profitable $55ers out there.

"I know that playing 8 tables is not going to increase your earn as much as improving to play higher limits."

Well you are wrong. There are a number of people who decide to heavily multitable $22s to $55s, knowing they'll make more than just playing some $215s.

"Your aim as a low limit player is to improve to play higher limits not to make a few extra $$ shortterm. "

Who says?? My goal in sngs is to make money, not satisfy ego by playing higher stakes. I know many other people here feel the same way.

"When you are beating the $200 games then you can worry about adding extra tables."

Ok, I'll be the first one to say it- you're an idiot.

[lorinda]

Ok, I'll be the first one to say it- you're an idiot.

I beat you to this in the poooo thread /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Lori

[Mr_J]

"This sometimes enables me to do read based plays, meaning not ABC poker."

IMO abc doesn't mean you don't use/rely on reads. I think basically all party sng (ie shallow stacks) shorthanded play is abc. The difference between ABC and non ABC to me is in the early game.

Early game there are different strategies people use successfully. In the late game, everyone should be playing pretty much the same. So I think we're all abc late.

I play continuously, but I don't think my reads suffer. I also get a few more games in per hour than someone who plays in sets. It's pretty easy to get a read on someones style when it's shorthanded.

[Mr_J]

Heh you did too, good call /images/graemlins/wink.gif