Paying Attention

[Link774]

Ok, so I read Droolie's post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=3158790&Forum =f21&Words=%2BAttention&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main =3158790&Search=true&where=sub&Name=15411&daterang e=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bo dyprev=#Post3158790) about how important it was to start developing reading skills. Right now I'm playing 4 tables Party 1/2 (9max) and usually only make notes on players when they do something weird in a hand I'm involved in, because I'm usually busy with other tables. I plan to play 1/2 6max first, where reads are more important, but will auto-pilot continue to work at 2/4 full? (I know that it depends on how good your auto-pilot is, but you know what I mean.)

When you're not bonus clearing: How many tables do you play? At what limit? Is paying close attention something you always do, or just when you want to improve your game?

-Link

[lautzutao]

I'm not trying to be a d!ck, but I pay attention when I want to play good and win money. Until I'm at bicyclekick's level, I don't see what you learn from 4-tabling because you're missing so much.

I will 2 table full ring games max. I can't do anymore than that and devote full attention. And I haven't tried multitabling 6-max and don't think I will for quite some time.

[deception5]

When I move up to a new limit I 2-table it. One table if it's a significant jump or significantly different game (like when I started 6-max at a higher limit than I was used to). After enough hands, say 10k, I'll feel comfortable enough to go up to 3 or 4 tables. I don't think you can just start off autopiloting a new limit, there are often some big differences to get used to (higher aggression, fewer bad players, etc).

I definitely think it's easier to player more full ring games than 6-max games as well - I have no trouble 4-tabling full ring, but 6-max can get hectic (at least right now) and reads can really suffer.

[aargh57]

I really tried to take what he had to say in that post to heart and I found that I could read hands better than I thought. Really try to guess their hands, I think you'll surprise yourself at how well you can narrow them down. I play at 2/4 and I 2 table. I was 4 tabling but I bumped down and I think I'm really playing better. If you concentrate on the hands like droolie suggests and you try to guess the hole cards of all the hands and not just the one's you're in it will definetly help you. It is taxing though. I think doing that is as much work or more so than 4 tabling. I don't know what I'll do when I switch back to 6 max (whether I'll single table or 2) but as of right now I'm getting a lot out of that post. I do have to say that I don't look at every hand critically but I do pay attention much more than I used to. If my goal was to try to make as much money as possible I would go back to 4 tabling but I don't think that it would prepare me for 3/6 very well.

[homebrewer]

I think it is important to distinguish between playing "well enough" to win the money versus playing to learn and absorb as much information as is possible at the poker table.

Multi-tabling brings in the money because if you have an edge on 1 table you can exploit that edge by 2, 3, or by X tabling it. Most people realize that they can maximize their BB/hour rate by playing 3 or more tables. Still, they may have a better BB/100 if they 1 or 2 tabled.

Here's the rub. We're tearing up our current limit on multiple tables. All the while, we're surfing, eating, drinking, etc. (all those things Droolie mentioned). We're making money after all, right? We simply can't equate BB/hour with learning how to play poker. Sure, the two are correlated. BUT, you aren't maximizing your learning by maximizing tables.

The reality is that it is just not possible to maximize your efficiency in processing and absorbing the subtleties of each individual table if you choose to play several tables with multiple distractions.

I might get flamed for this, but we DO NOT multi-task (simultaneously do more than 1 cognitively demanding tasks at once - I'm not talking about talking and walking here). For example, try reading SSH and playing just one table. Compare doing both at the same time to doing just one of those tasks. Do you really do both tasks just as well as a single task? If you do, you are truly unusual. We do, however, task-switch (switch between multiple tasks). Task-switching is NOT optimal, and there is a price to pay. If you read SSH and play 1 table, you are not reading and playing simultaneously. Thus, when you get involved in a hand you probably cannot jump right to the exact spot where you left off in SSH when the hand is over. You've got to re-read a few lines, paragraphs, pages, etc. if you want to rejoin SSH. That's an efficiency penalty. You can make this up with static book content, but will probably find this difficult or impossible with the dynamic characteristics of a poker table.

It's a trade-off. The way players come and go on a table it is hard to argue that you should single table. Your reads simply don't always have a long-run expected payoff.

However, we've got to learn to make reads in the first place. We've got to learn to figure out who is taking shots at us, who is reading US, who to isolate, and what players we can take advantage of, and on-and-on. I don't think that multi-tabling it is the most effective way to accomplish this.

[VoraciousReader]

I generally play 1 table, sometimes 2. (Except this week I'm 3-tabling because I have so many places I want to move the bankroll before a certain date to catch all the reloads.)

3-tabling has been easier than I expected, but I don't fire up all three tables at once. I get one started,and I pay really close attention to it, try to guess what they're holding, check all the mucked hole cards, make notes, etc. In about 30 minutes, I fire up the second table. (Fortunately I've been playing at Absolute where people tend to stay put until they bust most of the time.) I watch the 2nd table and play the first more or less on auto-pilot, based on what I observed about the players.

Eventually I add a third, once I'm comfortable with both tables. The third table usually gets short-shafted in the reads department.

I've also started one-tabling Omaha 8 when I need a change. The pots get so big that the bonus still clears at a decent rate, but I get to make some reads, and experiment with a new game. My reads aren't as good, of course, because I'm still learning the game.

However, to be honest, I prefer one-tabling. Poker is such an interesting game when you're really thinking about it. I really enjoy worming myself into the mind of my opponent, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and how he/she will react to what I do. A read is so much more than "Maniac" "Rock" "Calling Station." It's so much more useful and interesting to have notes like: "Seems to only bet flop with two pair or better. Timid, but will raise river as a bluff, esp if scare card falls." or "Bets any flop if first to act." or even "WTF???? FLOPPED SET, CALLED DOWN, NEVER RAISED!!!" (Although that last usually makes it in even if I'm playing 3 tables.)

It's so trite, but poker is about the people, and most people are quirky. I just really enjoy finding their little quirks. (And then exploiting them, of course.)

For me, playing 3 tables is closer to work than recreation.
YMMV.

[ChuckyB]

I play one table at a time. I've thought about multi-tabling the .50/1.00 6-max on Party...but I went right to 1/2.

Don't get me wrong, I want to make an assload of cash. But I believe getting better, and I am a little weak on my reads, is more important.

[droolie]

I play 4 full-ring and 3 6-max at most. Sometimes I do the dreaded 2 tables of 6-max and 2 of full ring at the same time! (Very hard to do well BTW but is good for bonus clearing if you can.)

I agree that you need to be pretty darn comfortable with that stakes and games before playing more than 2 tables at a given limit. I certainly auto-pilot quite a bit at 2/4 and 3/6 full because it's actually a little easier in some ways to get reads. There are so many TAG's that you kinda know what they're doing pretty quickly and you can focus you energy on the players to you immediate right and left (the stealers and stealies). The TAG stats seem to converge pretty quickly.

I spend most of my energy focusing on the players with either pfr% over 15% or with VP$IP over 30% as their play is most likely to be unusual and fundamentally flawed and therefore will require different adjustments from the auto-pilot TAG fist fighting I've grwon accustomed to.